Would this be Illegal? [Game show fraud]

[iamthewalrus_3]

@dolphinboy

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.

Game shows aren’t shown live. If they need to balance the winners and losers, they can air the shows out of order to make whatever balance they want.

ETA: Plus, I don’t think balancing winners and losers actually helps. People like streaks. Look at how much more popular Ken Jennings made Jeopardy when he was streaking. And if you make the jackpot grow with each loser, the tension and excitement of a losing streak is also more interesting than a smooth blend of winners and losers.

[Irishman]

@dolphinboy

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.

First, this makes no sense. If they are concerned about the balance of winners and losers, then Wayne can craft the offers differently, or they can load all zonks from the get go.

Second, what is the likelihood there will be a huge imbalance? Given that there may be 3 contestants start a round competing for the same prize set? Given that Wayne can give them one of 3 or 4 different ways to “make a deal”? It just seems unlikely there wouldn’t be several natural losses in that set to balance the wins, or vice versa.

Plus, I’ve seen Wayne award more prize money to contestants after they lose. Just give it away as “thanks for playing”.

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?

There are laws in place, and it would be illegal. It would be fraud.

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.

You can stipulate that if you like, but it isn’t accurate. The host knows what the prizes are. He’s not surprised by the outcomes. But even if he didn’t know, it wouldn’t change the answer - it is still fraud on the part of the show. They are manipulating the results beyond the rules of the game.

@RedSwinglineOne

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.

Au contraire, the cash seems very real. It looks like cash to me.

It’s clearly stated “this is what you’ve won so far” and “this is what you would be giving up to get that”. That constitutes promise of payment and effective ownership. Whereas on, say, Wheel of Fortune, when the contestants are spinning the wheel and it lands on a prize package, they put that in their stack, but it’s conditional upon them winning that round. If they bankrupt or someone else wins the round, they don’t get that prize. After they’ve won that round, though, that prize is theirs, even if someone else wins the overall game. That’s the rules.

[bmasters1]

@Irishman

First, this makes no sense. If they are concerned about the balance of winners and losers, then Wayne can craft the offers differently, or they can load all zonks from the get go.

Second, what is the likelihood there will be a huge imbalance? Given that there may be 3 contestants start a round competing for the same prize set? Given that Wayne can give them one of 3 or 4 different ways to “make a deal”? It just seems unlikely there wouldn’t be several natural losses in that set to balance the wins, or vice versa.

Plus, I’ve seen Wayne award more prize money to contestants after they lose. Just give it away as “thanks for playing”.

There are laws in place, and it would be illegal. It would be fraud.

You can stipulate that if you like, but it isn’t accurate. The host knows what the prizes are. He’s not surprised by the outcomes. But even if he didn’t know, it wouldn’t change the answer - it is still fraud on the part of the show. They are manipulating the results beyond the rules of the game.

Au contraire, the cash seems very real. It looks like cash to me.

It’s clearly stated “this is what you’ve won so far” and “this is what you would be giving up to get that”. That constitutes promise of payment and effective ownership. Whereas on, say, Wheel of Fortune, when the contestants are spinning the wheel and it lands on a prize package, they put that in their stack, but it’s conditional upon them winning that round. If they bankrupt or someone else wins the round, they don’t get that prize. After they’ve won that round, though, that prize is theirs, even if someone else wins the overall game. That’s the rules.

That, I think, is one of the fairest codes of rules I’ve ever seen on a game show. Don’t know why I think so, but I do.

[smaje1]

I’ve appeared as a contestant on several games shows (within the past 10 years) and ALL of them had legal-type advisors and contestant advocates on the set to make sure this kind of fraud didn’t occur.