Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? launched in 1998, £1million was the equivalent of £3.25million today. It was crazy money, now £1million doesn’t buy you a decent house in good chunks of London.
This is a really interesting way of framing it.
Mind you, I did always feel the Weakest Link was a lot of work for not very much reward.
TV companies just pay the minimum prize that attracts the right number/calibre of people
The primary topic of this article is how prize money isn’t as valuable as it once was, but I’ve also noticed that a lot of game shows these days seem to be set up to discourage viewers from winning as much.
The Chase’s American version gives out a lot fewer prizes than it did during season 1. Family Feud has not increased the prize amounts for the longest period of time in its history. Compared to previous seasons, Beat Shazam offers less money per round, and runners-up receive significantly less money. etc.
The point isn’t the prize money though
Nobody is going on these shows as a form of income.
> Hutton believes that prize-winnings should increase in line with inflation – not simply because of the cost of living, but also because “you would get better TV”. Hutton theorises that a £250,000 prize pot on Love Island would inspire “really conniving gameplay – you’re going to potentially get people that will compromise their character to get that money.”
Maybe it’s not all for the worst, then. I remember when TV game-show prizes were things like washing machines or, if you did very well, a very mediocre car.
I agree with every word of this. Prize money on TV shows has not only gotten worse, but hasn’t kept up with inflation. Not only that, but half the shows that would usually be competitions between regular people are now replaced with ‘celebrity’ versions.
All i’m getting from the article is “Majority of gameshow winners have always spent a large percentage of their winnings on paying off debts or affording previously attainable goals.”
The desperate and downtrodden performing for the satisfaction of the insatiable, rewarded with a slightly easier existence. Woe.
I was thinking about this reading about The Apprentice — as if the prize pot is still £250,000‽
That’s £423,000 in today’s money, when the show first aired in 2005.
Hell, I remember they days where you won a toaster or microwave.
Why are some people obsessed with trying to win money rather than earning it?
Daft thing to worry about. If the BBC kept giving away a million quid itd have an impact on the licence fee, it’s bad enough individuals getting paid a million quid.
11 comments
Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? launched in 1998, £1million was the equivalent of £3.25million today. It was crazy money, now £1million doesn’t buy you a decent house in good chunks of London.
This is a really interesting way of framing it.
Mind you, I did always feel the Weakest Link was a lot of work for not very much reward.
TV companies just pay the minimum prize that attracts the right number/calibre of people
The primary topic of this article is how prize money isn’t as valuable as it once was, but I’ve also noticed that a lot of game shows these days seem to be set up to discourage viewers from winning as much.
The Chase’s American version gives out a lot fewer prizes than it did during season 1. Family Feud has not increased the prize amounts for the longest period of time in its history. Compared to previous seasons, Beat Shazam offers less money per round, and runners-up receive significantly less money. etc.
The point isn’t the prize money though
Nobody is going on these shows as a form of income.
> Hutton believes that prize-winnings should increase in line with inflation – not simply because of the cost of living, but also because “you would get better TV”. Hutton theorises that a £250,000 prize pot on Love Island would inspire “really conniving gameplay – you’re going to potentially get people that will compromise their character to get that money.”
Maybe it’s not all for the worst, then. I remember when TV game-show prizes were things like washing machines or, if you did very well, a very mediocre car.
I agree with every word of this. Prize money on TV shows has not only gotten worse, but hasn’t kept up with inflation. Not only that, but half the shows that would usually be competitions between regular people are now replaced with ‘celebrity’ versions.
All i’m getting from the article is “Majority of gameshow winners have always spent a large percentage of their winnings on paying off debts or affording previously attainable goals.”
The desperate and downtrodden performing for the satisfaction of the insatiable, rewarded with a slightly easier existence. Woe.
I was thinking about this reading about The Apprentice — as if the prize pot is still £250,000‽
That’s £423,000 in today’s money, when the show first aired in 2005.
Hell, I remember they days where you won a toaster or microwave.
Why are some people obsessed with trying to win money rather than earning it?
Daft thing to worry about. If the BBC kept giving away a million quid itd have an impact on the licence fee, it’s bad enough individuals getting paid a million quid.