Should viewers and others be allowed to wager on how a TV
series -- reality, scripted or otherwise -- might end?
Right now that would most likely be considered “gaming,” according to Commodity Futures Trading Commission rules -- and not
allowed for those prediction sites like Kalshi and Polymarket.
The concern is with regard to inside knowledge on the part of writers, producers, industry executives who would know the outcome
and could rig those betting contracts.
For many, this seems to be the case for CBS' "Survivor," in giving its 50th season champion title to Aubry Bracco. Her odds of winning -- for users on
Kalshi and Polymarket -- were over 80% that she would win. That is worrisome.
This pulls in key questions about what is "gaming" and what is not.
And what about sports? That would seem to be fair game for those who want to wager.
advertisement
advertisement
But it seems to be a no-go for say popular scripted shows for users to be able to wager on, where a few insiders with knowledge could financially benefit.
But when it comes to award shows
-- “The Oscars,” Emmys, and Grammys -- where, say, hundreds of professionals can vote on who gets the hardware-- the CFTC has characterized those TV shows as a 'contest.'
So there
is safety in numbers. Of course, the selling of that wagering would be popular in terms of wondering how popular TV series would end -- for example, Netflix’s “Stranger Things” or
HBO Max’s "Euphoria."
The positive in all of this is that content owners of shows -- big media companies or digital-first streaming platforms -- would seem to greatly benefit from the
marketing spin one might get.
But ultimately is it what premium streaming and TV creators really want? And do the marketers that support those shows want that as well?
Think about the
approach of new outcomes of digital "water-cooler"/social media engagement.
With more content coming from everywhere including that of the creator economy, it has been harder to get
noticed.
Is wagering, gaming, or being in a "contest" the way to go?