Commentary

TV's Happy Place: Never-Ending 'Wheel' Goes 'Round And 'Round

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.

3 comments about "TV's Happy Place: Never-Ending 'Wheel' Goes 'Round And 'Round ".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, November 5, 2015 at 12:05 p.m.

    Interesting article, Adam. I would add that shows like "Wheel" also benefit greatly in terms of TV home rating success and longevity because their core viewing constituency is adults aged 60+, who not only watch a lot more TV than the younger age groups but are also more loyal, once hooked, to habitual viewing patterns. This is also true of shows like "Jeopardy", many of the early evening newscasts, primetime cable news "commentary" programs such as are the norm on the Fox News Channel, many daytime talk shows, and many other forms of TV content. In days long past, the same viewer segment bolstered the audiences of Lawrence Welk, Ed Sullivan, Jackie Gleason, Red Skelton, Lucille Ball, the top westerns, and many other TV stalwarts.

  2. Patricia Friedlander from Word-Up!, November 5, 2015 at 12:41 p.m.

    I'm 71 and I watch these shows--especially Wheel and Jeopardy--with my 42 year old son and grandkids who are 8 and 11. I think the appeal is that it is something for everyone, and we can "play" along with the TV guests. And for what it's worth, the aforementioned son and grandkids watch a lot more TV than I do. Hate generalizations about old people!

  3. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, November 5, 2015 at 2:01 p.m.

    Pat, I, too, dislike generalizations about any demographic segment.  It is true that some millennials are very frequent TV viewers while some oldsters-----are relatively light consumers of TV fare. Nevertheless, when one weighs the overall stats, which take into account the highs and lows and present what amount to total tonnage projections, it is clear---and this has always been the case---that the average person aged, say, 70 years old, watches two or even three or four times as many TV telecasts as the average person aged 30 years. Moreover, this is especially true of shows like "Wheel". It may be a generalization, but in terms of planning and scheduling program content, if you count on exceptions rather than heeding what the volumetrics tell you, you are probably courting disaster in the rating surveys.

Next story loading loading..