Talk:Million Dollar Money Drop
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Controversies
[edit]- 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]
Other contestants
[edit]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
[edit]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)
- Agree, seems more trivial then factual. I don't see every answer in Jepodry on the WP page, this could just be overwelming task, and really cost WP more $$$ for more bandwith which may cause ads. I guess I'm arguing the slippry slope argument here.PeaceKeeper1234 20:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 (talk • contribs)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Million Dollar Money Drop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101225095632/http://makeamerica.com:80/million-dollar-money-drop-game-show-to-premiere-tonight-on-fox.html to http://makeamerica.com/million-dollar-money-drop-game-show-to-premiere-tonight-on-fox.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Million Dollar Money Drop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224164310/http://gawker.com/5715821/couple-on-game-show-loses-800000-for-answering-question-correctly to http://gawker.com/5715821/couple-on-game-show-loses-800000-for-answering-question-correctly
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)