Talk:Million Dollar Money Drop: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by Mll1013 - "→Episode recaps: " |
|||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
:Sounds like unnecessary original research to me. Is there a precedent for this anywhere in Wikipedia? [[Special:Contributions/71.164.124.243|71.164.124.243]] ([[User talk:71.164.124.243|talk]]) 14:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC) |
:Sounds like unnecessary original research to me. Is there a precedent for this anywhere in Wikipedia? [[Special:Contributions/71.164.124.243|71.164.124.243]] ([[User talk:71.164.124.243|talk]]) 14:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
::There seems to be precedent for it. Many TV shows have episode recaps. As for game show recaps, fans of the game show [[Chopped_(TV_series)|Chopped]] airing on the [[Food Network]] provide [[List_of_Chopped_episodes|episode recaps]] shortly after the episode originally airs. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mll1013|Mll1013]] ([[User talk:Mll1013|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mll1013|contribs]]) 00:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
::There seems to be precedent for it. Many TV shows have episode recaps. As for game show recaps, fans of the game show [[Chopped_(TV_series)|Chopped]] airing on the [[Food Network]] provide [[List_of_Chopped_episodes|episode recaps]] shortly after the episode originally airs. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mll1013|Mll1013]] ([[User talk:Mll1013|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mll1013|contribs]]) 00:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:What is the point of this? It seems extremely trivial.[[User:Socby19|Socby19]] ([[User talk:Socby19|talk]]) 20:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:21, 16 February 2011
Controversies
- Should the mistake in answer be documented for this show? Gawker reported the couple lost $800,000 for answering a question correctly. Post-It Notes were sold nation-wide after Sony Walkman, however it was sold in 1977.
Post-It Notes were "launched" in four test markets in 1977. They were given away for free and not sold. Post-It Notes were not sold in stores until 1980. The question was "sold in stores first" so the contestants were wrong. Gawker, by the way, is the website that can't figure out how to keep its own users' passwords secure, so I wouldn't trust them with anything. TruthGal (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree: "3M launched the product in 1977, but its results were disappointing. A year later, 3M issued free samples to residents of Boise, Idaho, and 95 percent of the people who tried them said that they would buy the product. By 1980, the product was being sold nationwide in the US; in 1981 Post-its were launched in Canada and Europe." from http://www.facebook.com/pages/Post-it-Sticky-Note/111564302201134. This should be mentioned in the article. 173.79.72.16 (talk)
- You're proving my point. They were given away for free in four cities in 1977. Therefore, the question "Which was sold in stores first?" was accurate and the only controversy is people like you misunderstanding 3M's Post-It Note Facebook page.TruthGal (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Here's a source that says the notes weren't even given out in those four cities -- they were merely "described" to potential consumers. [1]
- Just posted another source in the article - sorry, but I still think you're wrong. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f08e8a9a-fcd7-11df-ae2d-00144feab49a.html#axzz18rnE9jRr seems to indicate the product was, in fact, rolled out early: "In 1977, we launched Post-it Notes in four cities. The results were disappointing and we realised we needed samples. People had to see how useful they were. Our first samples were given out in Boise, Idaho and feedback was 95 per cent intent to re-purchase. The Post-it Note was born."173.79.72.16 (talk)
- Btw, Gawker updated their story, which now says FOX responded to the allegations, and that 3M told them they were sold nationally in 1980. However, the question was not framed properly and still deserves to be addressed.173.79.72.16 (talk)
- Statement from the EP of the show says they spoke with 3M who confirmed Post-It Notes were not sold in stores prior to 1980. Makes the question on the show unambiguous.[2]TruthGal (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Still contradicts statement by inventor; still remains a controversy and should be left for the reader to decide. Obviously, the producer of the show wants to keep this under wraps; it wouldn't be prudent to accept anything said "unambiguous".173.79.72.16 (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "contradict." The inventor does not say that Post-It Notes were sold in the article you are referencing. It says the product was "launched." That does not contradict what 3M told the researchers of the television show -- that the product was launched in 1977 with free product being given out in four cities.TruthGal (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- What else would "launching" mean? How else would they determine what the results were without first selling the product? Fry specifically said that it was first launched in 1977 with "disappointing" results. A year later, they started giving out samples to advertise - Fry even states that the first samples indicated "feedback was 95 per cent intent to re-purchase" meaning people would buy it AGAIN. Finally, in 1980 we can all agree the product was sold nationally. However, it seems like it was still first sold in 1977. I rest my case.173.79.72.16 (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is not up to you or me to determine what "launching" means. It could mean doing focus groups, it could mean giving away product on the street, it could mean doing in-office or in-home tests. The point is that the inventor is not saying the product was sold in the article you cite. It's obvious Fry misspeaks in the second part of the same article because he explicitly says samples were given out and then uses the word "re-purchase" in reference to the feedback of the product. Obviously you can't re-purchase something that was given to you for free, but since he clearly indicates that people were given the product for free, the error was in using the prefix "re." Maybe in fact the product was sold in the markets where it was "launched", but there's still nothing stating that explicitly and nothing that contradicts the statement by the show. The show is saying that its research department spoke to 3M about this before the show aired and this was confirmed.TruthGal (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Here's another source - it doesn't explicitly say that it was sold but it implies it. In People magazine (http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20089361,00.html), it says "Convinced of the paper's worth, Fry gave free samples to fellow employees and soon attracted the attention of a 3M executive who endorsed it. When the repurchase rate in Boise, Idaho in 1978 achieved a phenomenal 90 percent—50 percent is considered excellent—3M knew it had a hit." - the word "repurchasing" was not misspoken by Fry, it was written in People and the way it was written suggests that it is common to have a "repurchasing rate", implying people first had to purchase the product, implying the product was first sold. (sorry for not signing, sinebot) 173.79.72.16 (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- That is an obvious mischaracterization of the Fry statement. Post-It Notes were not sold in Boise; they were given away for free. That fact is not in dispute.TruthGal (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree with you after looking at it a bit more closely. I still find the term "launched" - while not necessarily synonymous with "sold" - still indicative that it was indeed sold, based on context. Perhaps the article could be written in a manner a bit more indicative of said ongoing controversy, but otherwise I actually like the shape its taken. Thanks for your help, TruthGal. 173.79.72.16 (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. Just trying to err on the side of caution rather than inference. The controversy isn't really ongoing though. Either what the show's executive producer said is true (their research dept spoke to 3M and verified the answer), and thus there's no controversy at all (other than people/media understandably misinterpreting what "launched" meant) or he's lying -- which seems unlikely because I imagine 3M would issue an immediate press release saying they never spoke to anyone at Million Dollar Money Drop. Actually, I would think that 3M would say something about it either way, but maybe they're all on Christmas vacation. They're getting far more publicity for this than the campaign they ran this year celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Post-It Note. [3] TruthGal (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it's finally over -- the show released a statement today indicating that 3M gave them bad info. I've updated the Controversy section. TruthGal (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Problem is though, that they tried to slide it all under the carpet as "a non-story" but feeling devastated from a decision creates a different dynamic than confidence. If they were confident they might have gotten the last question right instead of being exhausted from doubts. TaoPhoenix (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- However it is a non issue, simply because there is no time limit on the last question. They could of sat and waited 4 days for all FOX cares until they relax and then answered the final question. Which is why there is no time limit on the final question. Plus most question you either know the answer or you don't, and in there question they didn't. Also even if they did keep the 800k on the following question they put 20k on the right answer and 60k on the wrong, therefor on question 6 (again a question they didn't fully know the right answer on) they would of put 200k on the right answer and 600K on the wrong, again watching a HUGE amount of money drop... so I feel it's safe to say they would still be "feeling devastated from a decision"Peacekeeper 1234 (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Problem is though, that they tried to slide it all under the carpet as "a non-story" but feeling devastated from a decision creates a different dynamic than confidence. If they were confident they might have gotten the last question right instead of being exhausted from doubts. TaoPhoenix (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it's finally over -- the show released a statement today indicating that 3M gave them bad info. I've updated the Controversy section. TruthGal (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. Just trying to err on the side of caution rather than inference. The controversy isn't really ongoing though. Either what the show's executive producer said is true (their research dept spoke to 3M and verified the answer), and thus there's no controversy at all (other than people/media understandably misinterpreting what "launched" meant) or he's lying -- which seems unlikely because I imagine 3M would issue an immediate press release saying they never spoke to anyone at Million Dollar Money Drop. Actually, I would think that 3M would say something about it either way, but maybe they're all on Christmas vacation. They're getting far more publicity for this than the campaign they ran this year celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Post-It Note. [3] TruthGal (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree with you after looking at it a bit more closely. I still find the term "launched" - while not necessarily synonymous with "sold" - still indicative that it was indeed sold, based on context. Perhaps the article could be written in a manner a bit more indicative of said ongoing controversy, but otherwise I actually like the shape its taken. Thanks for your help, TruthGal. 173.79.72.16 (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- That is an obvious mischaracterization of the Fry statement. Post-It Notes were not sold in Boise; they were given away for free. That fact is not in dispute.TruthGal (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Here's another source - it doesn't explicitly say that it was sold but it implies it. In People magazine (http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20089361,00.html), it says "Convinced of the paper's worth, Fry gave free samples to fellow employees and soon attracted the attention of a 3M executive who endorsed it. When the repurchase rate in Boise, Idaho in 1978 achieved a phenomenal 90 percent—50 percent is considered excellent—3M knew it had a hit." - the word "repurchasing" was not misspoken by Fry, it was written in People and the way it was written suggests that it is common to have a "repurchasing rate", implying people first had to purchase the product, implying the product was first sold. (sorry for not signing, sinebot) 173.79.72.16 (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is not up to you or me to determine what "launching" means. It could mean doing focus groups, it could mean giving away product on the street, it could mean doing in-office or in-home tests. The point is that the inventor is not saying the product was sold in the article you cite. It's obvious Fry misspeaks in the second part of the same article because he explicitly says samples were given out and then uses the word "re-purchase" in reference to the feedback of the product. Obviously you can't re-purchase something that was given to you for free, but since he clearly indicates that people were given the product for free, the error was in using the prefix "re." Maybe in fact the product was sold in the markets where it was "launched", but there's still nothing stating that explicitly and nothing that contradicts the statement by the show. The show is saying that its research department spoke to 3M about this before the show aired and this was confirmed.TruthGal (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- What else would "launching" mean? How else would they determine what the results were without first selling the product? Fry specifically said that it was first launched in 1977 with "disappointing" results. A year later, they started giving out samples to advertise - Fry even states that the first samples indicated "feedback was 95 per cent intent to re-purchase" meaning people would buy it AGAIN. Finally, in 1980 we can all agree the product was sold nationally. However, it seems like it was still first sold in 1977. I rest my case.173.79.72.16 (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "contradict." The inventor does not say that Post-It Notes were sold in the article you are referencing. It says the product was "launched." That does not contradict what 3M told the researchers of the television show -- that the product was launched in 1977 with free product being given out in four cities.TruthGal (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Still contradicts statement by inventor; still remains a controversy and should be left for the reader to decide. Obviously, the producer of the show wants to keep this under wraps; it wouldn't be prudent to accept anything said "unambiguous".173.79.72.16 (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Statement from the EP of the show says they spoke with 3M who confirmed Post-It Notes were not sold in stores prior to 1980. Makes the question on the show unambiguous.[2]TruthGal (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- You're proving my point. They were given away for free in four cities in 1977. Therefore, the question "Which was sold in stores first?" was accurate and the only controversy is people like you misunderstanding 3M's Post-It Note Facebook page.TruthGal (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Here's a source that says the notes weren't even given out in those four cities -- they were merely "described" to potential consumers. [1]
Good news
Today I found out that a couple on the latest episode (namely, the fourth episode) won $80,000. That's the first time this happened in the history of this game show. Sjkop123 (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Probably because it was the second episode? Gary King (talk · scripts) 06:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- No. There are two episodes aired per day. Sjkop123 (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oops, it was actually the third episode. I guess the first two episodes were "pilots". Sjkop123 (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't keep up with the show. And either way, it isn't very notable that someone won $80,000 on it. Perhaps a million dollars will be, though. Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Inaccurate Facts
There seem to be a lot of these on the show. On the December 23rd, 2010 episode Kevin Pollak Incorrectly stated that the Statue of Liberty held a Book in the other hand. It is not a book, but in fact a tablet, inscribed with the Date of American Independence. July IV MDCCLXXIV.--Subman758 (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- True dat, but it's MDCCLXXVI right :)75.138.56.88 (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- There seem to be a lot of inaccurate facts on Wikipedia... TruthGal (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I really love the show and hope it comes back soon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.13.162.56 (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Other contestants
The Jan. 11 episode had 2 set of contestants, one having lost all their money on the first question. Shouldn't they be added to the chart? -R. fiend (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like somebody took care of this request.
Episode recaps
It would be nice if each episode had its own page with a recap of the questions, choices, correct answer, and money bet on each option. Unfortunately, Fox pulled the plug on the first episodes after I came up with this idea, and with a moderate amount of searching online, I failed to produce a full set of episode recaps. Looks like my idea will require enough who still have episodes DVR'ed to pull this idea together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mll1013 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like unnecessary original research to me. Is there a precedent for this anywhere in Wikipedia? 71.164.124.243 (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- There seems to be precedent for it. Many TV shows have episode recaps. As for game show recaps, fans of the game show Chopped airing on the Food Network provide episode recaps shortly after the episode originally airs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mll1013 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- What is the point of this? It seems extremely trivial.Socby19 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)