I think there is a factual answer to this question. Mods feel free to move this if it falls into IMHO territory.
I’m watching “Let’s Make a Deal” and one of the contestants had managed to accumulate $1,800 in cash by sheer luck. It’s now time for the big decision. Does he keep the money or trade for what’s behind door #3? We see door #3, but of course the curtains are drawn so we and the contestant have no idea what is behind it. It could be a car, or it could be a zonk. The contestant thinks about it for a few seconds and then decides to take what’s behind the door. At that point the host, Wayne Brady, recaps what is at stake and gives the contestant a chance to change his mind. There is some friendly chit chat back and forth. This goes on for about 20 seconds or so.
Finally Wayne says to open the curtain and it’s a prize worth $4,000 so everyone is happy. But during the time when Wayne is talking, or stalling, the prize behind the curtain could easily be switched to a zonk. Let’s say they decide that instead of giving the contestant a good prize they give him two goats and some goat chow. Is that legal? Could a TV game show change prizes in order to balance how much prize money they give out on any particular day? If this practice was exposed would it rise to the level of fraud?
Remember that the contestant is give multiple opportunities to keep the money but instead chooses what’s behind the curtain. There is no effort to sway his decision one way or the other. Let’s also stipulate that the host has no idea whether the prize behind the curtain is good or bad, so they can’t telegraph to the contestant what is going to happen.
I realize that it would be immoral to switch a prize on someone, but that doesn’t mean it’s illegal.
I also realize that prizes don’t really cost the show that much so I’m not suggesting they would do it to save money, only to balance out the show with winners and losers.
I also realize that someone who works on the show would blow the whistle and that would likely lead to a scandal, but let’s say only a few production people are aware of the switch and they have signed a contract not to talk about how the show works.
I also realize there are TV standards and practices that might prevent this from ever happening, but stranger things have happened before.
If the answer depends on what state this happens in, let’s assume California law prevails since that’s where the show is taped.
So is switching prizes on a contestant illegal, or just immoral and unfair?
Since contestants don’t pay to be on the show and can’t lose there own money, it wouldn’t seem to fall under any rules relating to gambling, so its hard to see how it might me illegal. I think the main points are those you already know.
The cost of the prizes are minimal.
It actually benifits the show to have winners.
If news got out that the show was rigged, it would be bad for ratings.
Nope, in fact, this is pretty much a textbook case of fraud. Think of it this way.
The producers of the show have told the contestant (through Wayne, their employee) there’s a chance he can win $4,000 if he guesses correctly. By switching prizes, there is no way the contestant can win, correct guess or not.
In fact, the producers have made it worse by leaving him the option to keep what he’s already won, since they’re now inducing him to give up $1,800 of his money for something that doesn’t exist.
This is probably closest. Unless, of course they switch prizes regularly and sometimes they make the sympathetic ratings-friendly contestant win no matter which door.
The other illegality would be the fraud in saying “what is behind the door” when they then proceed to change the prize - ***after ***you have chosen. If I offer you box A and then switch it for box B after the deal is made, that’s fraud. Of course, if there never was anything behind the door (why load it up with a prize nobody ever sees?) I’m not sure how loading an empty stage with a bogus prize would be illegal, except for the failure to be honest as constituting fraud, if there is no possible option to win win the prize through pure chance.
Except I think they could argue that until the show ends, the contestant has not officially won yet. The cash he is holding is likely not real. At that point, the cash is merely a game piece and as long as the show is on, the game is ongoing. Its like a token that can be redeemed for cash or a check once all the necessary paperwork is handled after the show.
That’s not how this works. This isn’t 3 card monte on the street. This is a real game, with real rules written down and agreed upon. The OP is suggesting that the hosts cheat the contestants, and that is simply illegal.
Besides, they have a budget for winners, and they want to spend that. Winners are why people watch the show, and advertisers (who are contributing towards the prize pool) want those eyes.
It’s in everybody’s best interest that there be winners.
No, it’s not like the contestant has to complete steps A-Z, and if they don’t complete them all, they lose everything. Wayne makes it clear “you can stop here” or they can risk it all. The game ends when either the contestant or the producer says they won’t play anymore.
the other point - why bother? It’s so easy to get caught. When someone says “American Idol” or the Oscars the show of the moment is fixed, why would they? Considering what is at stake, a career, prestige, etc. the cost of cheating could turn out to be enormous and financially lethal. Plus, you can’t fake that. There’s enough people involved, that to convince everyone to stay quiet while you cook the books is impossible. The next producer or accountant, or script writer who doesn’t get a raise, or gets fired for drinking on the job, will spill the beans.
(This is the flaw in almost any conspiracy theory…)
It may also be a fraud against the advertisers because they provide all the money for the prizes.
The only reason cash game shows exist is because the TV company makes more money in advertising than they pay out in prizes hence a profit. The advertisers are investing money in a particular concept - if they don’t use that concept for the game then the TV company would be misleading them about what they are investing money in so that would be fraud.
Even if there wasn’t a specific federal law about game shows, I think this would be pretty clearly criminal fraud. However, as others have said, why bother? $4,000 is not very much in the budget of a TV show, and having winners is a big part of the reason why people watch.
True, but clearly the shows producers are allowed to decide when the game is over. You can’t, for example, quit before final jeapardy and take your money home.
It sure “feels” like fraud to me, and I don’t see how they could keep it a secret for very long, but I didn’t say they ALWAYS zonked contestants, only that they did it when they needed to balance the number of winners and losers on any given day.
If by chance everyone wins then perhaps the show might lose money, but as has been said by others the cost of prizes is only a fraction of the production, talent and distribution costs so it doesn’t matter how many contestants win, or how many lose on any given day.
Any perceived benefit just wouldn’t be worth the risk of getting caught…
Note that the Federal law is not about deceiving the contestants (or the advertisers), it’s about deceiving the viewing public. In the original “21” scandal, the contestants knew exactly what was going on – they were coached on what to say to win or lose, and were not themselves fooled. It doesn’t matter what the contestants’ expectations are. What matters is what the viewing public are lead to believe. In the OP’s case, the viewing public are lead to believe that the prize behind the curtain is already in place when the contestant makes his choice. Therefore switching the prize would be illegal under the statute, because the viewing public would be deceived.
But why would they need to switch the prize? There’s no point in loading a good prize, then switching. They want a loser, they load a goat before a choice is even offered. That may (or may not) be illegal, too, but it’s a lot easier than switching.
The prizes are supplied by the manufacturer for promotional consideration, so their would be no cost benefit to the show to switch out goats for a living room set.
There are federal laws against rigging game shows.
I don’t know if they still do this, but when I worked for The Dating Game and The Newlywed Game in the late 60s there was always an FCC guy in the studio during taping. He was snooping all over the place and watching for any kind of signals from audience members to the contestants.
It’s a long time ago and my memory is kind of vague but I also seem to recall that the winnings contestants had to sign some sort of statement for the FCC that nobody on the production staff had influenced / promised / cheated , etc.