Give or Keep speculations

[tpirfansince1972]

I remember hearing and reading that the pricing game Give or Keep was retired because the staff didn't like it.

I'd like to know what specifically they did not like about the game.  I'm imagining perhaps it was due to...

1.  The player was not able to win all six small prizes in the game, only three of them.

2.  The game took too long to play.

3.  The set up of the small prizes on the turntable got to be too much of a pain to do.

4.  The gameboard was clearly visible behind Bob during the one bid round, thus eliminating any element of surprise as to what game was next.

5.  The game did not involve direct pricing of an item, rather a "blind draw" of two items.  Games like Pathfinder and Secret X you had to identify the price of a small prize given 2 choices, other games used a false price and the higher or lower element, or in Five Price Tags a true or false element regarding a shown price.  With Give or Keep no prices were shown right away and the player simply had to try to figure out which one was higher in price.

Also I am wondering that the staff "did not like" this game, yet it lasted from the early 1970s (Dec 1972) into the early 1990s (1990 to be specific).

Did the staff ALWAYS not like this game, or did the original staff like it and when changes were made to the staff the more current staffers at the time did not like the game.

I'm wondering if anybody on these boards has any inside information regarding all of these questions.  I'm curious to read the replies offered.

[PriceFan07]

I can't imagine it would be because the contestant couldn't win all the small prizes. You can't win every prize in Any Number. It's also possible to win the car without winning a single small prize in Pathfinder. It's even possible to win more in Money Game with a non-perfect playing than getting the car with just 2 picks (same idea as Pathfinder for a perfect vs non-perfect playing). I'm sure there are other games like this (not sure how Trader Bob awarded the small prizes), but those are a couple that stick out in my mind.

I think there are game's with many more setup complications than loading up a few pairs of small prizes on the turntable.

The gameboard being visible was likely a very minor issue that could have easily been fixed by bringing out the small prizes on wheeled pedestals on the stage floor.

While it may seem like blind guessing to you, there's still the element of pricing as the contestant needed to have an idea of the cost of reach item to know which ones to give and which ones to keep.

Timing is the most likely reason as back then most, if not all, small prizes were still described in more detail. Game explanation/intro, main prize description, 6 small prize descriptions with decisions/banter in between could use up a lot of time. The game wasn't all that exciting to warrant so much time used to play it. It couldn't have been hated that much if they kept it for 18yrs, although I'm sure if you asked people between 1972 and 1990 when the game pool was much smaller what their favorite Pricing Game was, very few people likely said Give or Keep.

[TPIRighteous]

Timing is the most likely reason as back then most, if not all, small prizes were still described in more detail. Game explanation/intro, main prize description, 6 small prize descriptions with decisions/banter in between could use up a lot of time. The game wasn't all that exciting to warrant so much time used to play it. It couldn't have been hated that much if they kept it for 18yrs, although I'm sure if you asked people between 1972 and 1990 when the game pool was much smaller what their favorite Pricing Game was, very few people likely said Give or Keep.

I always figured this was it. It was a long game without much interesting going for it. That's probably why they spun basically the exact same concept into two other games, Finish Line and Trader Bob. I'm sure if either of those games hadn't been a disaster, Give or Keep wouldn't have lasted nearly as long.

[Nick]

With no disrespect to Roger, while he is the source for many "official" things we've learned over the years, there are some things he's said that, while they have been deemed the official reasons, don't necessarily make sense.

Give or Keep's retirement being because "most of the show’s staffers didn’t like it very much" doesn't compute with a game that lasted nearly eighteen years.  If it was so loathed, why did it last for so long?  They had plenty of other SP games to play in place.  It also doesn't align with Roger's intended plans to unretire the game in Season 38.

I'm more inclined to believe that some of the show's staffers didn't like it very much and at least one (perhaps more) who was influential enough had it killed (No, I have no ideas as to who that could be).

[PimpinJC]

Timing certainly doesn’t seem to be the reason.  Games like $uper $aver, Now or Then, and Hole in One have 6 items to describe to play the game, and those games certainly lasted longer than Give or Keep.

I could see the game being increasingly difficult from an SP standpoint on being able to find prizes that are close enough in price to one another and still give the contestant an opportunity to win if they miss picking the most expensive from a pair.  (This is also still in the era where most prizes were being sponsored.). The game seems infinitely more difficult in prep work vs play time.  Add the fact that it’s not played for big prize, like a car or cash, probably made the staff go “eh, we have better games to invest our time into vs this.”

[CaptainPrice]

The whole thing has me confused. If it was unpopular with the staff, how'd it last nearly 18 years? I'm honestly thinking there may have been another reason for its retirement: inflation might have made it harder to find six appropriate small prizes. It may have also run its course.

[pannoni1]

Vend-O-Price is probably the closest thing to Give Or Keep today regarding the concept of a blind draw with fee items. It moves along quicker though and the differing items on each shelf makes it a more interesting pricing challenge than the one dimensionality of Give Or Keep's. That said, if they create a new car/cash with SP games, I wouldn't mind the similar pricing concept with two SPs and no price given, for example having free digits or extra chances awarded for each correct answer. That way, you can use the longer time to play for something  much more exciting.

[jhc2010]

The worst part of this game is that the game board was visible during the One Bid in the background behind Bob. If a contestant was looking to play a game for a car, it was probably right to throw the One Bid.

[Nick]

The worst part of this game is that the game board was visible during the One Bid in the background behind Bob.

I liked the distinct staging, though I wonder why no Home Base remodel over the years ever included converting the centre wall to be rotatable.

If a contestant was looking to play a game for a car, it was probably right to throw the One Bid.

And why would anyone ever do that?  You can never guarantee your way up on stage.  You have to go for every opportunity and take the One Bid win you can score.

[TPIRZippy]

The worst part of this game is that the game board was visible during the One Bid in the background behind Bob. If a contestant was looking to play a game for a car, it was probably right to throw the One Bid.

Give Or Keep was one of the first non-car games to be sometimes played for a car; it would be a hoot if someone threw the one-bid to avoid getting onstage because they saw Give Or Keep, only for it to be a car playing.   

[Axl]

The worst part of this game is that the game board was visible during the One Bid in the background behind Bob.

Another staging flaw: three pairs of SPs on the turntable, forcing them to switch out the staging behind the wall while the prizes were being shown at the front. The turntable was very shaky when people were walking on it, and every prize spiel looked like it was taking place in an earthquake.

[DYC]

Another staging flaw: three pairs of SPs on the turntable, forcing them to switch out the staging behind the wall while the prizes were being shown at the front. The turntable was very shaky when people were walking on it, and every prize spiel looked like it was taking place in an earthquake.

Hilarious to me, now that we have higher resolution of those episodes, how noticeable the turntable rocks and rolls while the stagehands are frantically switching out SP’sbehind the wall between the sets of product descriptions. I guess it wasn’t very noticeable in ye olde standard definition, but it really *stands out* now in clearer pixelation.

The worst part of this game is that the game board was visible during the One Bid in the background behind Bob.

Agreed.

[actual_retail_tice]

Playing conspiracy theorist here, but do you think "the staff didn't like it" is code for "Barker didn't like it"? Roger made plans to bring Give or Keep back after Bob retired; funny that dislike from the staff was suddenly no longer a problem.

[gamesurf]

Bob was supposedly the reason Gallery Game died a swift death around the same time, so that would check out.

[TPIRighteous]

Timing certainly doesn’t seem to be the reason.  Games like $uper $aver, Now or Then, and Hole in One have 6 items to describe to play the game, and those games certainly lasted longer than Give or Keep.

The difference is that in all of those games the announcer describes six products at once; in Give or Keep they're described in pairs, which means the host has to set up and throw to the announcer three times.

The only comparable I can think of is ½ Off, which doesn't involve continually spinning the turntable around and has mostly operated in the era of unsponsored prizes.