How Would I Change: "How Much is Enough?"

Hello, folks...and welcome to the first of what will be one of my regular features on this blog of mine: "How Would I Change"; in which I examine a game show, past or present, that I believe could use some changes. As an aspiring game show producer, I'm more than willing to put my brain to the hypothetical task of reviving a failed game show, or fixing it so that it doesn't fail...but it's doubtful I will get the chance. It's still fun to dream, I suppose....

My first target for this feature: "How Much is Enough?" This is GSN's latest game show project in which four players go through five rounds trying to decide when to stop a rapidly increasing or decreasing "Money Clock" in order to add that amount to their respective banks. The person who hits their signaling button with the highest amount of money, the "greediest" player of the group, gets nothing in the first four rounds. However, in the round where the Money Clock goes from $0 to $5,000, the player who locks in with the lowest amount of money (or the most "cautious" player), also gets nothing. The players each have their signaling devices behind their backs, so none of them can see who locks in or when. A player could try reading the faces of his/her opponents to guess when they've hit their respective buttons...but they could just as easily be trying to fake the other players out, so there's no reliable to way to know when a player has hit his/her button. Only the top two players can advance to the final face-off. Thus, players basically have to pick a number that they think will be, ideally, the second highest amount of the group...and hope that they're right, or at least that they're close enough to take at least second place after the regular game is over. The only thing everyone knows for sure is that none of the Money Clocks will ever be allowed to reach the maximum. This makes "How Much is Enough" not much more than a glorified guessing game.

However, this really doesn't have much to do with what I believe to be this game show's "fatal flaw"...something in the game that, if left unchecked, will eventually "kill" that game. While I don't like the fact that 3 out of every 4 players in this game get nothing, this doesn't automatically make it a bad game. The fatal flaw in "How Much is Enough?" can be found in the "final face-off." You see, the winner is basically the person who stops the "Ultimate Money Clock" (the sum total of the top two players' respective banks) first. That's all there is to it. What's wrong with that? Well, while I imagine the GSN producers figured that the two contestants, who were both strategic enough and lucky enough to make it to the final face-off, would let the Ultimate Money Clock reach several thousand dollars before either of them considered hitting their respective buzzers. However, there's nothing in the rules that says either of them have to. In fact, there's no minimum at all. This means that a player could, either due to fear or the reasoning that his/her opponent is unlikely to expect it, stop the clock very early...maybe even as soon as it starts, if he/she wanted to. This game's flaw was actually exposed quite early...during the second week of episodes. After the Money Clock had started, I turned away to get a bowl of cereal...not expecting either of the players to "stop" before the clock had even reached $2,000. Surely enough, however...while my back was turned...I heard one of the two players shout "STOP!" Caught off guard, I quickly turned around to discover that this player, Terri, had stopped the money clock at $1,475. The audience booed. Terri's opponent had a look on her face that clearly said: "What the f---?" Corbin Bernsen had an understandably confused look on his face. But Terri? She was "hootin' and hollerin'", and very excited.

Why was Terri so excited? My guess is that she'd planned from the beginning to stop the Money Clock as soon as she did...knowing that it was unlikely that her opponent would expect her to stop so soon, and it worked. She played "cheap", and she was rewarded for it...even though I imagine it won't take long for Terri to spend that $1,475, if she hasn't already. Here's the problem: prospective contestants who see this show will look at situations like this (and there will be more), and will have it in their mind that they may be paired with a "cheap" player if he/she makes it to the final face-off. Thus, prospective contestants may feel it's not worth coming onto the show. Or...if they do decide to come to the show anyway, they may plan to go even lower than $1,475 in the final face-off...maybe stopping with only a few hundred dollars. Hey...the question is "How Much is Enough?", and a few hundred dollars may actually be enough for some people. The problem, however, is the audience (both in the studio and at home) may be in for regular instances of watching thousands of dollars change hands among the contestants...only to see the winning contestant walk away with several hundred dollars. That's about as anticlimactic as you can get...and if the studio audience was inclined to boo at $1,475, I can only imagine what the reaction will be if someone goes lower. I don't know how often this will actually happen...but it might be more than enough to lose the interest of the viewing audience.

So just how could I "fix" the game "How Much Is Enough?" Well, there are some things that just can't be fixed. You could put some sort of minimum on the Ultimate Money Clock, such as $1,000 or $2,000...but that could very well be enough for some players (like Terri), and they could simply hit the button as soon as the clock reaches said minimum. You could make the minimum a secret...then if one of the two players hits his/her button and that minimum is revealed to be higher than where the first player stopped, his/her opponent gets the secret minimum, and the player who locked in gets nothing. But if you do that, that defeats the whole concept of the game. For example, the secret minimum might be $3,000...and the first player who hits his/her button stops at $2,800. $2,800 was enough for that contestant, but since it was lower than the secret minimum...he/she should get nothing? That doesn't seem fair, does it? And, of course, if you leave the Ultimate Money Clock system the way it is...you leave the door open to the "undercutting" I described in the previous paragraph. So, even if given the opportunity, there's not much I could do for "How Much is Enough?" but watch it die its slow, torturous, impending death....

Until next time, folks....