With so much being written constantly about the many changes buffeting and altering so-called “legacy” media these days -- from television to print publishing -- it’s worth
mentioning now and again that there are exceptions.
One of them is “Wheel of Fortune,” which at first glance might seem like a relic from some bygone era -- the 1980s and
’90s, say -- but is in fact more dynamo than dinosaur.
Now in its 32nd year in national syndication, “Wheel” was the second-highest-rated syndicated show in U.S.
television in the most recent ratings report. If you’re keeping score, the show had a 6.6 household rating in the week ending Oct. 25. That was second only to “Judge Judy,”
syndication’s highest-rated show, which had a 6.9 that week.
advertisement
advertisement
Sure, it’s worth pointing out that “Wheel’s” 6.6 (and for that matter “Judge
Judy’s” 6.9) is a far cry from the household rating that top-rated syndicated shows once scored back in the dark ages of the late twentieth century. But it’s also true that
“Wheel” must be doing something right for it to remain pretty much where it has been for so many years -- scoring some of the highest ratings in syndicated TV and holding on to
syndication’s most coveted time slot virtually everywhere, the half-hour preceding prime time (7:30-8 p.m. Eastern).
And the show accomplishes this with a format and look that seems to
the untrained eye to be unchanged, for the most part, since the Year One. In its design, “Wheel of Fortune” is like the TV equivalent of the Las Vegas strip. It dazzles you with colors and
lights and in this superficial way it makes you happy.
One key to the show’s success is probably its consistency and the simplicity, generally speaking, of its game. On “Wheel of
Fortune,” three contestants spin a big wheel in the hope of accumulating a pile of money and prizes such as cars and vacations. To win the prizes, they compete to solve a big puzzle by building
the solution one letter at a time. It doesn’t hurt that the “stars” of the show -- Pat Sajak and Vanna White -- have been there since the Year One too, or so it seems.
That’s basically the format, but I will admit something here that I hope doesn’t peg me as an idiot: I don’t always completely understand this show or its game. For example,
after a winner is declared, this winner then moves to the front of the stage to try and win even more money and prizes. When the show is over, I rarely have a clue how much this person has won, or
which prizes, or how he or she won them in the first place.
What I do know is this: The puzzles are not exactly taxing to solve, and the show gives you so much to look at that somehow it
blazes a trail right down the middle of the road where, at least in theory, the largest amount of eligible or likely viewers can be found.
The show's creator, Merv Griffin, was very candid
about his approach to this show. Many years ago, I was fascinated to hear Griffin explain, in an interview with Larry King on “Larry King Live” on CNN, that his philosophy with
“Wheel of Fortune” was to make a show that was as “bland” as possible under the theory that the blander a show is, the more people would watch it. I’m paraphrasing here,
but “bland” was the word Merv used more than once.
And he wasn’t insulting the audience either by describing them as bland or implying that they were boring or
uneducated or otherwise lacked intelligence. Instead, he had the instinct to understand that a show as simple and attractive as “Wheel of Fortune” -- with puzzles almost anyone could solve
-- would be fun and people would enjoy it.
He was right, of course. And “Wheel of Fortune” today is this nightly juggernaut with bright colors and blinking lights, a grinning host,
a smiling hostess in a floor-length gown, contestants drawn from all walks of life and all parts of the country, and an array of sponsors’ products parked prominently on stage and billboarded on
the show’s constantly changing backdrops. Here’s hoping that “Wheel of Fortune” turns forever.