Pay the Rent on hiatus

[Thatgameshowguy]

I'd like to see a source on that because any affiliate that would give up a cash cow of a show for prime access like Wheel because it "looked dated" would be making a foolhardy programming decision based on it ratings (but I'm not doubting it probably was a real complaint).

I can't find an exact source on this at this exact moment, but I believe it was brought up in Al Miller's book, The Gun Behind The Camera. I know that's not something I just made up, however.

It really is sad to see the lack of support for Roger around this board nowadays, considering all he ever did for the membership here. Regardless, I don't think the death of the show would have been imminent.  What it takes to last in network daytime television now isn't much, and I believe Price would have continued to achieve that with the status quo.

Personally, Roger's never done anything for me except be crabby on Facebook. I'll admit that it's sometimes nice to hear the information from him about how the show was run in the 70s, the complaints he makes about the current show far outweigh the positives.

The current showrunners on the other hand have given me a backstage tour at Television City, cut me a check for $50,000, and let me be the first person in their brand new studio at Haven. If anything, they've done far more for me than Roger ever has.

[imhomerjay]

Towards the end this resilience became against any change, regardless of it was necessary or not. The show was dated as all hell and needed to be updated. Why did Wheel go to an electronic puzzleboard in 1997? Because it was needed. Affiliates were complaining that the trilon board looked old and threatened to drop the show if something didn't change. Price in 2002 looked nearly identical to Price in 1992 which looked nearly identical to Price in 1982. Outside of a few minor color changes and perhaps Barker himself, what did the show change? Nothing. And it shows.

There's a difference between a resilience against change for the sake of change and a refusal to change anything ever. One of them is good and keeps the comfort food feeling alive. The other can kill a show. In the year of Deal or No Deal, Set For Life, 1 vs 100, and all the other shiny black floor game shows, Price was looking just as it did in the 80s. Had Roger been left in charge and continued to refuse to change anything at all for any reason, as he did towards the end, it would've been the death of the show. Plain and simple.

Indeed.

Ask Guiding Light and As the Workd Turns how comfort food worked out for them. The problem with comfort food enters when you’re not replacing the older audience. You need the viewers advertisers will actually pay good money to reach. Price was fortunate to be the less costly of CBS’s problem spots compared to the ancient soaps. The end of Bob’s run was clearly sooner rather than later. It needed to change, significantly, when the time came and it did. And it demonstrably worked. The demographics improved. The ad mix has improved.

Life moves forward. Refusing to move forward with it is a recipe for failure.

[GameShowFan1987]

It seems pretty evident that at least one reason Roger was let go from the show was because of his refusal to accept or make changes to keep the show with the times. Not to discredit the man mind you. He ran the final leg of the Bob years quite well and it worked... for Bob. Bob was the executive producer and pretty much whatever he said went and it just so happened that he and Roger saw eye to eye. All of a sudden Bob retires which leaves Roger pretty much out at sea on his own. Now you have a new host and a new executive producer who don't see eye to eye with Roger and look what happens. I can understand his distaste with pretty much everything that's happened since 2008. He was fired from what was essentially his livelihood. This is why I pay none of his criticisms of the show any mind whatsoever. He's going to have a negative opinion no matter what because that's just how it is. On the plus side, I love when gives us behind the scenes information from his tenure.  There was a time after his dismissal that the show's staff seemed to not very much care for the diehard fan community because I don't think they understood it. This seems to have completely done a 180 in recent years because it seems they finally get it. It doesn't take much to see that the show can, in fact, change with the times and still be good. Sure there were some rough patches during the early Drew seasons, but we got there.

Getting back on the subject of Pay the Rent, while it's not a game that I particularly care for, I do find it unfortunate that they're unable to play it due to the space restrictions in the studio. It seems the new studio is less than an ideal space for the show. I've noticed some things have been slightly off like camera angles, lighting, use of set pieces, etc compared to when they were still in 33. I can't help but wonder if the show will eventually move back to Television City or if they may make changes at Haven to increase space. I suppose time will tell.

[Nick]

I can't find an exact source on this at this exact moment, but I believe it was brought up in Al Miller's book, The Gun Behind The Camera. I know that's not something I just made up, however.

I was not suggesting you did.  Again, I can see that complaint, but if any affiliate ever did give up Wheel in 1997, I expect a competitor would have snapped it up right away; and changing one set piece that drastically reduces your production time versus changing many pieces that does nothing for how much time and money you spend on taping are not very comparable points.

Personally, Roger's never done anything for me except be crabby on Facebook.... The current showrunners on the other hand have given me a backstage tour at Television City, cut me a check for $50,000, and let me be the first person in their brand new studio at Haven. If anything, they've done far more for me than Roger ever has.

Fine, though you've gotten a fair deal more than most could claim they have in any case.

Ask Guiding Light and As the Workd Turns how comfort food worked out for them. The problem with comfort food enters when you’re not replacing the older audience. You need the viewers advertisers will actually pay good money to reach. Price was fortunate to be the less costly of CBS’s problem spots compared to the ancient soaps. The end of Bob’s run was clearly sooner rather than later. It needed to change, significantly, when the time came and it did. And it demonstrably worked. The demographics improved. The ad mix has improved.

I have long wondered how soaps ever got new viewers.  How are you supposed to get into a story when you're not privy to everything that's come before the point you joined?

That aside, was CBS looking at Price as a "problem spot"?  When you're already number one, as Price was for decades, and continue to remain number one as everybody's audiences fragment with an ever-increasing number of alternatives to network television, are you really in a bad place?

Because I think the "dated" argument doesn't really resonate anymore now that there exists a streaming channel (and streaming is thriving versus broadcast television, which is dying) that runs Price episodes 30+ years old round the clock.  There's an audience watching, because they wouldn't be doing this (and making money in process) if there weren't.  People don't seem to be turned off by the idea of "reruns of old game shows" when they're becoming increasingly more of a thing.

[BillyGr]

I have long wondered how soaps ever got new viewers.  How are you supposed to get into a story when you're not privy to everything that's come before the point you joined?

Good question, though of course if more of them were still around now (or in the last decade or so), it would be far easier to start watching, as it would only require reading a bit online to get "up to speed" on what had happened in prior years.

Obviously, that wasn't so easy to do when they were more popular, though.  Maybe more that people talked to others in the family (or friends) that had watched them, particularly say a younger person speaking to a parent, much like learning your own real family history?

[shell_game]

Personally, Roger's never done anything for me except be crabby on Facebook. I'll admit that it's sometimes nice to hear the information from him about how the show was run in the 70s, the complaints he makes about the current show far outweigh the positives.

The current showrunners on the other hand have given me a backstage tour at Television City, cut me a check for $50,000, and let me be the first person in their brand new studio at Haven. If anything, they've done far more for me than Roger ever has.

I agree, but you inadvertently point out something. Roger had personal beef with the showrunners that came immediately after him. He hasn't engaged with this new group that has been so hospitable to you (save Drew, but Drew wasn't really running things when Roger left and I'm not sure how much he is now). Roger might feel a bit different if he realized that these folks actually seem to appreciate the fanbase and actually seem to nod toward and respect the history of the show. But I think a lot of his critique also comes from lamentation that the way Hollywood and the world works today doesn't allow for how he feels things like TPIR worked best.

[imhomerjay]

I have long wondered how soaps ever got new viewers.  How are you supposed to get into a story when you're not privy to everything that's come before the point you joined?

That aside, was CBS looking at Price as a "problem spot"?  When you're already number one, as Price was for decades, and continue to remain number one as everybody's audiences fragment with an ever-increasing number of alternatives to network television, are you really in a bad place?

Because I think the "dated" argument doesn't really resonate anymore now that there exists a streaming channel (and streaming is thriving versus broadcast television, which is dying) that runs Price episodes 30+ years old round the clock.  There's an audience watching, because they wouldn't be doing this (and making money in process) if there weren't.  People don't seem to be turned off by the idea of "reruns of old game shows" when they're becoming increasingly more of a thing.

Streaming reruns is an easy way to monetize library assets. Pennies from the advertisers they get are great. Minimal investment, a bit of a payoff. Thriving, however, is a stretch.

To be number one in total viewers is a lovely PR piece. It’s utterly worthless for making revenue. Advertisers who spend meaningfully buy specific demographics. When you have tons of viewers who are not advertisers’ coveted groups aren’t worth much, and you’re end up with Wilfred Brimley ads.

[tpirfansince1972]

While Pay the Rent is far from my favorite game, at least most who had a chance to play it still won $10,000 playing it.

That said, it seemed like a "lay up" many times for players to reach that plateau and to bail out, rather than go for the $100,000.

Pay the Rent could be retooled perhaps.  I like the idea of renaming it Over/Under. 

Still utilize the six grocery items.  Have one level set at a target price, for example $3.50.

There could be one or more items lower than $3.50.  The player could use any one they wished.  Doing so would win $1,000.

Then have level two set at a higher amount, $8.00 for example.  These target amounts could of course be changed just as Grand Game does.

The player would select two of the remaining grocery items and that total would have to be under $8.00, and doing so successfully would win $5,000.

Then for the next level have another target and two more items placed.  If that total is under, they win $10,000 and so on.

If a player stays under, they continue playing if they so choose.  If a player goes over, then the game is also over, hence the title of the game.

If they elect not to retool or revive the game though, I'd be okay with it.  I know Roger detested this game.  I feel similarly about another grocery item/cash game which I am going to write about in a moment on another thread.

[b_masters8]

While Pay the Rent is far from my favorite game, at least most who had a chance to play it still won $10,000 playing it.

That said, it seemed like a "lay up" many times for players to reach that plateau and to bail out, rather than go for the $100,000.

Pay the Rent could be retooled perhaps.  I like the idea of renaming it Over/Under. 

Still utilize the six grocery items.  Have one level set at a target price, for example $3.50.

There could be one or more items lower than $3.50.  The player could use any one they wished.  Doing so would win $1,000.

Then have level two set at a higher amount, $8.00 for example.  These target amounts could of course be changed just as Grand Game does.

The player would select two of the remaining grocery items and that total would have to be under $8.00, and doing so successfully would win $5,000.

Then for the next level have another target and two more items placed.  If that total is under, they win $10,000 and so on.

If a player stays under, they continue playing if they so choose.  If a player goes over, then the game is also over, hence the title of the game.

If they elect not to retool or revive the game though, I'd be okay with it.  I know Roger detested this game.  I feel similarly about another grocery item/cash game which I am going to write about in a moment on another thread.

And for each level on that, they need another window below the target window; when the prices of the items are revealed, if the total is under the target, the window will stay green and flash, but if the total exceeds the target, the window will turn red, the MRRRP! buzzer should play, and the game is over.