Some thoughts on new changes from M.D.

[LastMinuteRequest]

I spoke with Michael Davies at some length this morning about the new changes to the show, and he told me that I could share some of his thoughts (as long as they weren't reported too publicly, like to a newspaper or major game show website or blog). [So please don't link to this or repost it somewhere else! Thx!]

The changes, which have been previously reported or rumored here on the Bored, include:
- The new "Menu" (the question categories)
- The new Timer (the time limit on each question)
- The new lifelines (the current 4: AskExpert, PAF, ATA, Double Dip)
- New graphics and music

The main point Davies tried to communicate to me was the need to "modernize" the show. The show has not changed significantly since its first season, almost a decade ago. The audience for Millionaire has been dropping. The audience for all daytime TV has been dropping, but evidently Millionaire's share has been dropping faster than Jeopardy and Wheel (which have made substantial changes over the years). There has been substantial pressure to change things up to bolster the sagging ratings.

Also, there has been a feeling that Millionaire has gotten tired, perhaps even routine. There's been a drop of energy in the control room, in the contestants, in the audience, and also in Meredith.

Davies said that one of the biggest reason for the dip in energy is the fact that so many contestants in the chair take a long time to answer questions, but they aren't using strategy or technique -- they're just nervous, or unwilling to move on, or just plain slow (again, without trying to work it out). This is dull for the producers, this is dull for Meredith, and ultimately, dull for the audience.

I pointed out my fear that by adding the timer, it would make it harder for contestants to get to the big money -- it would make it harder on "figure it out" questions, which take time to work through the answers.

He responded by agreeing that yes, for a hardcore contestant -- someone playing with strategy, someone playing for the big money -- that the timer might impose a greater challenge to overcome. But he said the truth is, there's few contestants like that. The majority of contestants aren't playing that way. The timer, therefore, would help out with the vast majority of contestants.

As soon as he put it that way, I saw what he was going for, and now it does seem to be a wise idea. The timer has added a lot of energy, and also given Meredith more energy (since she can talk about the time running out). The truth is -- as we know -- most contestants are less than impressive, and the timer will make things more interesting for these contestants.

And as Davies pointed out, if you're a good contestant, you can make intelligent use of your lifelines to stop the clock on questions you need more time on. Plus, the lifelines make it a little easier to get correct answers (the Switch the Question has become Ask the Expert, which is close to a free answer if you've got a good expert; the Double Dip is better than 50/50). Davies pointed out that if a contestant was able to get through $25,000 with all their lifelines, then they'd have a great shot at winning big money; perhaps all the money. That seems true to me.

So far, people have won more money than last season (a source of some concern, evidently), but played fewer questions.

Ultimately, I guess we'll all have to watch the show and see how it plays out. But the bottom line, Davies was striving to make the game livelier and more engaging across all contestants -- even at a possible risk of slightly handicapping the "hardcore" contestants -- and it strikes me that the changes are a good plan.

Also, the new lifelines seem like they'll be more fun to watch. The "Switch the Question" is pretty boring as a lifeline, especially compared to watching an expert on a video feed. The double-dip is more exciting than the 50/50.

Finally, Davies said that he's instructed the writers to devise briefer, more compelling questions.

Anyway, the always-ebullient Davies is chomping at the bit to explain the thinking behind the changes, and didn't mind if I passed his thoughts on to other serious Millionaire fans. I sure hope that the game show genius' renovation of Millionaire pays off with a bigger audience. Because it sounds like the pressure is on!

[Here's Fanny!]

He responded by agreeing that yes, for a hardcore contestant -- someone playing with strategy, someone playing for the big money -- that the timer might impose a greater challenge to overcome. But he said the truth is, there's few contestants like that. The majority of contestants aren't playing that way. The timer, therefore, would help out with the vast majority of contestants.

Since it doesn't appear that 'hardcore contestant' is exactly what they're looking for the interviews, then it's an overall asset to them. All they have to do is go out of their way NOT to select someone who might appear to be an HC (some might say they do that anyway).

I don't watch the show and, to be honest, the few shows I have seen are, for the most part, boring. I think the main reason being is that it's only two people with not much outside stimuli besides the fleeting ATA and PAF, neither of which are really 'there' (perhaps the reason for the pictures and webcams, to get a connection to them). It's like how a late night show like Tom Snyder or Bob Costas with nothing but the host and a guest isn't generally as fun as a host a bandleader/cohort and a couple people on the couch.

Or BAM v. Jeopardy.

[christie1111]

Thank you very much for this post.

It helps to understand where the changes are coming from. Whether it bodes well for the players who are using strategy to help them play the game will be found out over time.

I, for one, would not like the clock aspect.

I also wonder what the 'ask the expert' situation would be for someone who has met (especially in person) any of the experts. For example, would Frogman have been allowed to us The Confessor or Hermillion if he had played trivia with them a few days earlier? Assuming they were two of the potential experts for purposes of my example.

But very interesting insight. Thanks!

[gsn309]

Wow!
I have to say, Ogi, thanks for that report and analysis. You stepped up big-time for the bored, in the end. If we still had a REC function, this post would rack up gobs of them

I just want to add a few thoughts, in regards to the contestants:

If you look at the statistics from 15QuestionsAway's web site, there is a remarkable consistency to the money won and the levels attained over the past 3 seasons. I mean, remarkable. The per contestant average (around $20,000) is within a few hundred dollars, and the number of people who make it to 25k level (about 1 in 3) is almost identical.

So the fact that he (Davies) is somewhat grousing over the contestants (and especially their strategy) is suprising! The game HAS to be cast that way ---- i.e. -- non-trivia, non-lifeline savvy people... otherwise they would go WAY over prize budget. It seems like somewhat of a mixed message from him. Do they still want to cast the same type of contestant (that the bored calls, generically -- What Else?/Where Else?), and expect the rules will at least make it seem more exciting? I think if that's the case, the changes ultimately won't make that much of a difference to the tenor of the show.

Or, are they casting more-trivia savvy people (and --- to any doubters --- they know them when they seem them), who are able to take advantage of the lifeline changes and are better equipped to deal with the timer? It certainly didn't seem that way, based on our own bored's results.

I'd be interested to hear more later on. The ratings and budget are obviously concerns the prime time show (in its heyday, at least) never had to deal with --- but they are facts of life.


Oh, and I am near certain your post will elicit at least a few "grumbles" from a certain someone.

[starfish1113]

The changes, which have been previously reported or rumored here on the Bored, include:
- The new "Menu" (the question categories)

I must have missed any mention of this. What does it mean?

[LastMinuteRequest]

So the fact that he (Davies) is somewhat grousing over the contestants (and especially their strategy) is suprising! The game HAS to be cast that way ---- i.e. -- non-trivia, non-lifeline savvy people... otherwise they would go WAY over prize budget. It seems like somewhat of a mixed message from him.

You're probably right, that if they "upped the standards" for contestants (that is, tried to get more Jeopardy-level smarties), they'd likely have to pay out more than they had available. And I think probably Davies also wants more "normal" contestants than "egghead" contestants, though I confess this was a topic he didn't directly address with me.

But though I can see why his attitude could be perceived to contain an element of grousing over the contestants, I think it's more likely he felt that they had the right contestant mix, they just needed to change the game around the contestants. That is, he seemed to think that it was more exciting watching the same contestants as before, but with a timer.

But Davies definitely seemed to be genuinely enthusiastic about the possibility of having more big money winners. He doesn't seem worried about having multiple millionaires, for example. In fact, he kind of seems to hope for that. When he talked to me, he seemed to wish for more very big money winners, without a concomitant major increase in $50,000-$250,000 winners. But that's my interpretation; he didn't spell this out.

Incidentally, Davies cited one offhanded statistic I thought was interesting -- he said that they usually had one "hardcore" contestant (my term; he described them something like "strategizing, smart, playing the game intelligently to try to win big money") about every 4 weeks. When he said this, he seemed to be pining for more contestants like this, rather than suggesting that this was a goal or an acceptable level.

[MarleysGh0st]

Oh, and I am near certain your post will elicit at least a few "grumbles" from a certain someone.

Whatever gives you that idea?

[slam]

So the fact that he (Davies) is somewhat grousing over the contestants (and especially their strategy) is suprising! The game HAS to be cast that way ---- i.e. -- non-trivia, non-lifeline savvy people... otherwise they would go WAY over prize budget. It seems like somewhat of a mixed message from him.

You're probably right, that if they "upped the standards" for contestants (that is, tried to get more Jeopardy-level smarties), they'd likely have to pay out more than they had available. And I think probably Davies also wants more "normal" contestants than "egghead" contestants, though I confess this was a topic he didn't directly address with me.

But though I can see why his attitude could be perceived to contain an element of grousing over the contestants, I think it's more likely he felt that they had the right contestant mix, they just needed to change the game around the contestants. That is, he seemed to think that it was more exciting watching the same contestants as before, but with a timer.

But Davies definitely seemed to be genuinely enthusiastic about the possibility of having more big money winners. He doesn't seem worried about having multiple millionaires, for example. In fact, he kind of seems to hope for that. When he talked to me, he seemed to wish for more very big money winners, without a concomitant major increase in $50,000-$250,000 winners. But that's my interpretation; he didn't spell this out.

Thanks for all of this. It's fascinating reading.

If Davies wants more big money winners, he has to change his contestant selection procedures. More Ogi Ogas's need to slip through the process. Unfortunately, even if that's to be believed, budgetary concerns probably keep him from implementing that. In terms of viewability, there's probably a range of optimal winners that will keep the viewers coming back. There's been a lot of effort devoted to studying how to optimally design slot machines to keep the people coming back while optimizing profits. I'd think that the same sort of logic applies here. Unfortunately for the show, I think they are well below the number of big winners to achieve that effect. No millionaire winners in the past 5 seasons is my primary evidence. Imho, Davies needs to spend maybe $2 to $3 million dollars a year to get there (remember that a $1,000,000 winner costs him something like $700,000 and $500,000 costs him something like $450,000).

Davies may feel he has the right contestant mix in terms of how they present themselves on screen, but I don't think he can reasonably believe he has the right mix in terms of having some exciting big winners.

Of coures the most important change he could make is one that lets me on as a contestant, new rules or old.

I do agree (though I reserve my final answer until I actually see a few shows) that these changes could make the game a bit more exciting.

[slam]

LastMinuteRequest - I just saw your last comment (added after my above post, I think) about 1 "hardcore" contestant every 4 weeks. Tying into my post above, I think that's too low if he wants to have a better ratings-producing number of big winners. That works out to be about 9 such contestants per season (175 shows divided by 1 contestant every 20 shows). With the current nature of the questions, 9 contestants is far too few to produce a single millionaire every season. My feeling is 1 or 2 millionaires a season 3 to 5 half-millionaires is about the amount. Even a top-notch trivia person has only a small chance of winning the million. Look at Bob Juch, for example.

[ulysses5019]

The audience for Millionaire has been dropping. The audience for all daytime TV has been dropping, but evidently Millionaire's share has been dropping faster than Jeopardy and Wheel (which have made substantial changes over the years). There has been substantial pressure to change things up to bolster the sagging ratings.

This seems to be the most relevant paragraph. Davies feels that if the show continues as is there is a chance it could be cancelled. Fewer viewers=less ad revenue. Hence the attempt at "modernization".

[silverscreenselect]

The main point Davies tried to communicate to me was the need to "modernize" the show. The show has not changed significantly since its first season, almost a decade ago. The audience for Millionaire has been dropping. The audience for all daytime TV has been dropping, but evidently Millionaire's share has been dropping faster than Jeopardy and Wheel (which have made substantial changes over the years).

I don't watch Wheel enough to speculate, but Jeopardy seems to me to be virtually the same show as it was when it appeared on Syndie 20+ years ago. The only changes are the increases in money awarded (natural considering inflation) and abolishing the five-day rule, which led to Ken Jennings. The game itself is played exactly the same as it was when it premiered. In fact, the only real change in Jeopardy since it premiered on network TV in the 60's was not allowing runners up to keep their money and Syndie Jeopardy has had that rule from the start.

In my view, watching more people fumble and bumble their way around at low levels on Millionaire is not productive. Instituting all these changes at once smacks of desperation on Davies part and I fear this season will be the finale for Syndie.

[SportsFan68]

The audience for Millionaire has been dropping. The audience for all daytime TV has been dropping, but evidently Millionaire's share has been dropping faster than Jeopardy and Wheel (which have made substantial changes over the years). There has been substantial pressure to change things up to bolster the sagging ratings.

This seems to be the most relevant paragraph. Davies feels that if the show continues as is there is a chance it could be cancelled. Fewer viewers=less ad revenue. Hence the attempt at "modernization".

I agree that this is the most telling of all -- thanks, LMR!

My question is, what will they replace it with? Home Improvement re-runs are on three times a day where I live. I'm sure a fourth wouldn't generate higher ratings than Millionaire.

Oh, heck, what do I know? Maybe it would. I still love the show but recognize that for most of my friends, their attitude is, "Is that still on? I thought it died five years ago." It's take it or leave it for them.

[slam]

The main point Davies tried to communicate to me was the need to "modernize" the show. The show has not changed significantly since its first season, almost a decade ago. The audience for Millionaire has been dropping. The audience for all daytime TV has been dropping, but evidently Millionaire's share has been dropping faster than Jeopardy and Wheel (which have made substantial changes over the years).

I don't watch Wheel enough to speculate, but Jeopardy seems to me to be virtually the same show as it was when it appeared on Syndie 20+ years ago. The only changes are the increases in money awarded (natural considering inflation) and abolishing the five-day rule, which led to Ken Jennings. The game itself is played exactly the same as it was when it premiered. In fact, the only real change in Jeopardy since it premiered on network TV in the 60's was not allowing runners up to keep their money and Syndie Jeopardy has had that rule from the start.

In my view, watching more people fumble and bumble their way around at low levels on Millionaire is not productive. Instituting all these changes at once smacks of desperation on Davies part and I fear this season will be the finale for Syndie.

You're forgetting the addition of the Clue Crew.

[goongas]

I agree with the posts above. I do think the show needed some freshening up. The main problem is the caliber of contestant they choose. I fear the contestants who may have answered a question without a lifeline in the past may burn them now because of the clock. If you are not good answering trivia questions, it does not matter if they stick a clock in front of you, it is not compelling television. A question I have relates to whether the clock is shown on screen? If it is, then they really can't edit too much down, although they would not need to edit much anymore, I suppose.

Jeopardy! modernized their contestant selection by allowing an online test. (That is the example some of us here feel Davies should adopt ). At the very least, Millionaire should have a better Web site that allows more interactivity, like Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune's Web sites do, so viewers feel like they are a part of the show. I thought the AIM concept was fantastic in keeping viewers engaged in the show while it was not on during the fall months (ignoring the AIM contest). But AIM didn't want to sponsor it, and it probably slowed down production so much when it was broken that it wasn't worth the trouble...

[ghostjmf]

LasMinuteRequest says:

Incidentally, Davies cited one offhanded statistic I thought was interesting -- he said that they usually had one "hardcore" contestant (my term; he described them something like "strategizing, smart, playing the game intelligently to try to win big money") about every 4 weeks. When he said this, he seemed to be pining for more contestants like this, rather than suggesting that this was a goal or an acceptable level.

Pining? He's the boss. They'll cast whomever he wants. He need only command. He needn't "pine".



Before I read any more, I have to chime in & say this is making me even less likely to audition again. The "take your time" was the most inviting aspect of the show. That, & the money, of course. I've tried out for J!, but mostly as a goof; if I ever got on, I'd be the person whose buzzer looked like it didn't work. On the PTBAM I played on, I had a button which actually *didn't* work very well (their advice, after a brief test, was "it works when we wait a few seconds between presses"; uh huh), but ultimately it didn't matter; on the 2nd FF round, I came in 3rd against someone I could never have beaten even had our buttons been calibrated (as they ought to have been). You haven't mentioned yet what the time limit is, or if you did, I missed it. Minutes per Q? Total minutes? What?

I agree there should be a "5 minute" limit per Q, but I bet this is not what they're going for.

I also liked STQ. If you really had no clue, & had no other lifelines left, it was often a gift. I will have to review how "double dip" worked; it involved 50/50 use twice, I believe. If used on one question it also is a gift, but contestants are tempted to save it for that; I wouldn't be so tempted if I had a Q down to 2 candidates.

They don't really want more hard-core contestants. If they did, they'd let more of us who they know to be hard-core test-passers on.

[LastMinuteRequest]

As I mentioned, Davies didn't directly address the question of selecting contestants. It seems like many of the ideas and reactions people are having are related to the nature and quality of contestants selected to be on the show. If I talk to him again, I'll try to broach this subject.

My impression -- and again, this is very tangential -- was that it's not that he wants "dumb" contestants, but rather, the emphasis is more on selecting energetic contestants who are fun to watch in the chair. Actually, he did say his most preferred contestant was someone who was both smart AND energetic.

I know on a recent taping, the contestant was considered by TPTB to not be "energetic" enough (I myself would have described the contestant as grumpy and constipated), and this contestant was the first of the show, so after this contestant finished and got out of the chair they started the show over again with the next contestant. So I think priority is still placed upon finding contestants who are fun to watch.

The timer is part of the new graphics. I'm actually not sure of the time limits, but it's on the order of 30 seconds to 60 seconds. It goes up with the stack. Previously, there was a soft 5 minute limit per question.

My impression is that the changes are pretty good, though the proof of the pudding will be in the taste, when we all watch the new episodes. Certainly, in my view, the changes make sense at least.

Though the question of the contestants themselves still looms large. I will be curious to see what Davies says -- I hope he'd be willing to talk about that, though of course there's a chance that he might consider that subject off-limits. If I do ask him about it, I'll also ask him his thoughts on the original Regis-era system, which had no auditions, and did tend to put smarties (often non-energetic) in the Hot Seat.

[15QuestionsAway]

...I will have to review how "double dip" worked...

On Super Millionaire, the Double Dip gave the player two guesses at the question. The caveat is when Double Dip is used, the player has to answer the question. The player can't walk away from the question after using Double Dip.

Assuming it works the same way, it should provide an interesting dynamic to the show. A player will have to decide whether they really can narrow down the answers to two before playing the question.

[LastMinuteRequest]

...I will have to review how "double dip" worked...

On Super Millionaire, the Double Dip gave the player two guesses at the question. The caveat is when Double Dip is used, the player has to answer the question. The player can't walk away from the question after using Double Dip.

Assuming it works the same way, it should provide an interesting dynamic to the show. A player will have to decide whether they really can narrow down the answers to two before playing the question.

Jeff's right; that's how the Double Dip is being used once again.

[MarleysGh0st]

Though the question of the contestants themselves still looms large. I will be curious to see what Davies says -- I hope he'd be willing to talk about that, though of course there's a chance that he might consider that subject off-limits. If I do ask him about it, I'll also ask him his thoughts on the original Regis-era system, which had no auditions, and did tend to put smarties (often non-energetic) in the Hot Seat.

Thanks for having these conversations and passing on the info, Ogi, and thanks in particular for offering to have this conversation. What made Millionaire different from all other game shows for me was that I could compete to get on it--compete by playing the game, itself, and not on a talent show looking for "energy" and story-telling.

They've borrowed the time limits from WWTBAM Play it! How about a special week of shows where the audience really could play it to get into the Hot Seat, as they did at the Disney parks? And not just a fraudulent Walk In And Win that still had the producers casting personalities while giving the false impression that their numbers had been drawn at random. The energy from that would come from the competition and the immediacy of topping the leader board and taking the Hot Seat.

[Thousandaire]

The one thing they can do to improve this show is force people to stay until they get to $25,000. I hate it when people walk at 8 or 16,000.

[LastMinuteRequest]

The "Menu" is the following: as soon as a contestant gets in the hot seat, they see the category for every question in their stack. Personally, I think this is a very smart enhancement, one that really builds on the fundamental strengths of the Millionaire format.

For example, you can immediate see that the $25,000 question is "Civil War History" and the million dollar question is "Nuclear Physics". This is cool because it allows for greater strategizing with your lifelines (e.g., if a math question is coming up, you don't know math, your PAF is a math geek). It also gives the audience a "peek" at the million dollar question each time.

(Though Davies did worry that future contestants might be able to start figuring out patterns of questions!!)

This is definitely my favorite change.

(...well, except for the Experts )

[Kazoo65]

I've been reading about all these new changes they're making to BAM. I have some thoughts.

1. As we know, the ratings have slipped over the years, and there hasn't been a $1M winner since hermillion did it back in 2003. Making some big changes could potentially produce some big winners-if the contestants play the game right and use their lifelines to their advantage.

2. the "menu"-if this is what I think it is, the contestant would probably pick categories they feel more comfortable with (for me it would be U.S. history/geography-NO sports or math!)

3. a change I'd like to see is an ONLINE TEST. Since J! started doing it, they've had more people walk away with six-figure totals. Good for the show, because it attracts more people to it-good for the winners' bank accounts, too!

4. I'm "on the fence" about auditioning in 2 weeks. The show airs at 12:30 in the afternoon around here, when most of the people who would be watching me on it are at work. Not a particularly good time for a viewing party-although if lunch was served along with the TV show, that might work. I've had people ask me "is that show still on?" more than once. I'm definitely a "hard core" fan of the show-I've watched since day 1. I'm also a trivia geek, having tried to get on J! five times.

5. I hope the new changes work. I'll be watching in September to see if I like them-at least we'll all have something to talk about!

[ghostjmf]

I don't like the menu aspect. I like the surprise of the categories on the current format. Oh well. I am not their demographic. I really think a menu could just serve to scare people in advance.

I also hope they don't J! the menu categories; i.e., say "nuclear physics" & then have the question be "who was the nucleus of Olivia Newton John's 'Physical' video?". (If she had one other than herself; its just a [suitably dated, for me] example that comes to mind.)

[christie1111]

The "Menu" is the following: as soon as a contestant gets in the hot seat, they see the category for every question in their stack. Personally, I think this is a very smart enhancement, one that really builds on the fundamental strengths of the Millionaire format.

For example, you can immediate see that the $25,000 question is "Civil War History" and the million dollar question is "Nuclear Physics". This is cool because it allows for greater strategizing with your lifelines (e.g., if a math question is coming up, you don't know math, your PAF is a math geek). It also gives the audience a "peek" at the million dollar question each time.

(Though Davies did worry that future contestants might be able to start figuring out patterns of questions!!)

This is definitely my favorite change.

(...well, except for the Experts )

Agreed that the experts are especially fun for this Bored. We love to see the people we love have more time to show how smart and clever they are. We know it, everyone else should.

But the menu part sounds like a terrific addition! The strategizers have a better chance with that added to the scenario. Maybe hthat helps me overcome the clock thing.

Thanks again Ogi.

[Here's Fanny!]

4. I'm "on the fence" about auditioning in 2 weeks. The show airs at 12:30 in the afternoon around here, when most of the people who would be watching me on it are at work. Not a particularly good time for a viewing party-although if lunch was served along with the TV show, that might work. I've had people ask me "is that show still on?" more than once. I'm definitely a "hard core" fan of the show-I've watched since day 1. I'm also a trivia geek, having tried to get on J! five times.

You really wouldn't try out for the show just because you wouldn't have an 'real time' viewing party? If nobody's home to watch it anyway, what difference does it make if it's showing on the tv or the vcr? With prime time, I could see how it would be a drag to have to wait until after the showing but, with syndication, I don't really count it as "the" showing.

I've already said that I don't watch the show (I'm not even really sure what time it's on) but if you were on it, I'd watch!

I'm not ragging on you either, I really am interested in your answer or way of thinking on this.

(No, I don't expect a response. But wouldn't it be fun if I got one?)