I was at the Ecobuild fair in London today, and Peter Bazalgette, who was Chief Executive & Chairman of Endemol UK and Creative Director of Endemol Worldwide from 2005 - 2007, was on the panel during a seminar I went to about Sustainability in the Media. He was responsible for bringing DoND to our screens, and helped to persuade Noel Edmonds to host the UK version.

After the seminar, I privately spoke to him about DoND, and I explained I'd been a contestant and so on, and he patted me on the shoulder and said £6,500 is very nice for a student. He thanked me for being a contestant, and I thanked him for bringing DoND to everyone.

Seeing as they were discussing what the word "sustainable" actually means, I want to ask a question on here:

What does the banker have to do to be sustainable in the future? Are his strategies sustainable, when you consider that he's trying to save money? Is the show itself sustainable?

You can take the word "sustainable" to mean whatever you want it to mean!

You should consider a career as a lecturer!!!

I think the Banker has several gameplans...the ones we know full well about:

1) He knows he's against a person very capable of turning down meaningful money in an attempt to win more
This is when he's known for bringing out The One That Gets Everyone Out should the board merit it...or indeed even higher! Big examples, regardless of back stories, are MJ, Doreen and Corinne.

2) He knows he's against a person very capable of turning down meaningful money in an attempt to win more, but might not be completely braced for the worst case scenario
There are too many to mention, but more recently Gaz. These are players, who are prepared to deal when necessary but are goaded on, whether it be by F&F, Noel's impartial advice reminding them there's always two sides of a gamble, or in this thread's case, the Banker making promises regarding the next offer should they go on. Note he doesn't do it with everyone who struggles!

3) He knows, to be harsh, when he's against a player who will take anything remotely decent on a semi-dangerous board
The amazing thing about this one, is you can even rope in the players who collapse mid-game yet maintain a foothold, and reluctantly end up Dealing before it ALL goes boobs up! But the majority of players under this grouping often have a touching story of some sort to label them as someone who is clearly not on the show to gamble a rare offer of good money, tax free.

4) He knows the player might just be there to play the game, and could either prove to be a gambler or cautious Dealer depending on the gameplay
Big examples of such tactics is when he makes small increases to the offer despite a big amount leaving the game, which should make him want to value the player's box less...but the more common approach is for him to offer an identical offer (or a stick, as Noel has coined it on the show)...and it has been known to work on a fair few occasions, unnerving the player in the process and making them wonder if he'll do the same again in three boxes time.

5) His dishonesty regarding knowledge of box contents
This one is simply the best to examine - because to put it very simple and blunt, because he is the only one who knows the contents of the players box, he can make out it contains any of the 5 remaining amounts and almost always get away with it...the small minority of times he's been known to be dishonest is for example last year when offering £4,000 on a blue/£5,000 finish...because why would he offer £4,000 if he saw £5,000 on the table; surely he'd risk offering less to save money over £4,000 for a small value box which could possibly have £5,000 to a player it would be potentially saving £1,000 at the end of the day rather than losing £3,000+!

The last big one can be split into two equally big tangents:

6a) He reflects his behaviour on the intelligence of the player
So far we've only seen two different cases of this; good game readers, and those who DIDN'T remember to count to 3 (he hasn't "punished" players for this in literally years!) - as for the former, it's been the statisticians and Daddies who have benefitted from these behaviour changes...in the form of generous offers and occasionally the extra twist of letting them proceed through the final round one box at a time.

6b) His desperation shows from a player's behavior
This used to be shown with big money being offered on the final gamble (two amounts remaining)...Anyone with one of the life changing amounts still in play at the end would use to be toyed with a huge offer that was simply far too great to turn down...of course having work so often, the Banker has seen it as a massive way of saving money, and therefore very rarely offers big money on a big gamble. The only big examples of it still happening in terms of the last year, off hand, are Calum (£40,000 on 10p/£100,000; albeit after a one-at-a-time final round which in large has seen Banker's offers increased in generosity), and Corinne (£88,000 offered on 1p/£250,000; albeit probably because she looked destined to literally turn down anything that stood in the way of her dream of winning the jackpot for her Straight 8 Bentley, valued at £200,000).
But of course, far more widely recognised, his tactics fall under this category when he offers the Banker's Gamble, despite 9/10 times he knows the player simply won't risk big money...


And of course, any others you think could be included, add add add!

Wow, that's a nice list to sum up all of his strategies! I can't think of any more to add...

What's interesting about the banker is that sometimes he uses a mixture of those tactics, when you don't expect him to. I'm sure there have been examples of where the banker has made very generous early-stage offers, followed by stingy late-stage offers (or vice versa), simply to play mind games...

Don't forget the behaviour of a player can fluctuate just as easily; a big example being Stevie (Ploughing through her game full-stride until a mid-game crash and admitting defeat with the £1,300 offer being Dealt)

Considering how much advertising revenue Endemol gets, they could probably keep DOND going for as long as they want. It's still successful in terms of ratings, so I don't see any reason why DOND won't continue for at least another two years.

As for the banker, although we're led to believe the offers are based mainly on the board, a good deal of it is based on how he reads the player. If he thinks they're cautious, he'll offer low amounts to get them cheap. If he thinks they're gamblers, he'll offer large amounts to stop them potentially winning life-changing money. The players know this, and can try and make themselves look like gamblers to get extra money. For example, Adam managed to squeeze an extra 2.5k out of the banker by lying about having a 31k target. But when George tried to get him to increase the offer from 4k to 5k on her board, he refused, and she dealt, suggesting that the banker knew he did not need to increase the offer, as she would deal anyway.

The banker's ability to read the player has varied drastically over the years. Sometimes he's been able to read players amazingly well. For example, take Michael's game in November 2007. He had 7 blues/100k, and was offered 1k. It appeared to be a derisory offer designed to force him on, but he dealt! Of course, there are also occasions where he completely mis-reads the player, such as Phil back in the 'Wakey Winter' of 2007, who gave an aura of being a big gambler, then dealt at the 3rd offer.

However, while we're led to beleive that the banker simply wants players to leave with as little as possible, this isn't strictly true. Endemol wants high ratings obviously, and if they fear that viewers think it's getting stale, they can manipulate (but not fully fix) the game to try and get a big win. Take Alice's game. He offered a BG on 1p vs 250k, with 17.5k dealt. Anyone who solely wanted to save money would have to be an idiot to make such a gamble, since they'd almost certainly take it. Of course, similar no-brained BGs have been rejected in the past (Ann, David etc.), which kind of ruins it a bit. Also, such manipulations can fail simply due to the luck of the boxes (PJ's game stands out).

All in all, it's a very, very complicated affair, and I would write more, but in all honesty I can't be bothered.

P.S. What did you spend your £6,500 on?

We'd be here all day, Matt.

But deep down, we ALL know of a certain forum member who is dying to post his two cents worth on here

It's sitting in the bank (along with other money - I wasn't totally skint when I went on the show! ). I learnt to drive in 2008 (and that cost £1,000) plus I bought a new laptop just after I filmed my game (£400), so I suppose those two things could technically be paid for with part of my winnings. If any lecturers ask me, then I tell them the winnings have funded my postgraduate year (which I suppose is technically true too ).

Anyway, I agree with what you say about the relationship that the player has with the banker - it does of course play a fundamental role in the banker's behaviour and strategy throughout the game.

A spanner can be thrown in the works by further discussing the influence of friends and family - and the effect that any comments of theirs can have (e.g. about monetary targets)! It's all very psychological, and of course, the banker says he has "several psychology degrees". When he says "psychology degrees", I think you should read "psychologists helping me"...


Hmm, do you mean Cherry Blossom? Ian Walsh? Suezan?

Haha no not defunct members!

I kinda wanted to see what KP wanted to say on the subject...incase it'd throw a new spanner in the works!

Right, here we go.

First things first, let's forget right away the notion that the Banker's sole task is saving money. The Banker is a personification of the production team, and is the main driver of gameplay. In effect, his role is analogous with the question-setter on a quiz show, creating the questions which the contestant has to answer correctly to win the most money. The difference is, of course, DoND changes literally in front of our eyes and there's no way of pre-preparing questions precisely...

There are strategies, of course, and this is where the original question comes in. There is no doubt that the Banker is not playing a strict payout-minimisation approach - counter-examples to comprehensively disprove that have been posted already. However, we need to consider the far more opaque opposite side of the ledger, the income side for the Banker. This is why I have written about a 'banker-producer' - it is entirely necessary to recognise that in order to gain a full awareness of the bank strategy.

Essentially, to maximise his income, the banker-producer's strategy is to create challenging decisions, add variety to what really is a blank canvas of a game (millions of permutations, but it's still the same game day after day) and basically create a compelling product for advertisers, which (indirectly) is where the banker is sourcing his piles. Twists of the kind we've seen and discussed over the years help allow the show to run profitably over time... or so we think.

Where I'm going to make my slightly interesting point is that ultimately, people watch for the show, the curious game-show-meets-soap-opera hybrid that it is. They don't want it to become stale, sure, but I doubt they want it to become a circus, or change too much, too often. Especially the older crowd which the new sponsors are explicitly targeting...

Using too many twists reduces the sustainability of the show by hastening the day when the show feels like it has done everything it can do. Too few, though, and people will turn off as well (although it will be different people turning off and staying tuned in relative to an over-use scenario!).

I've over-criticised the show's apparent emphasis on risk-taking, with Edmonds (occasionally assisted by the Banker) as the vessel through which the production team preferences are transmitted through certain turns of phrase. Ironically, though, there is a way in which this acts as reducing the sustainability of the show that I hadn't realised before - it recalibrates the show's expectation frame into a space where more money is given away, either through games going to the end more often or needing more generous offers to even produce any excitement or tension. The payouts are higher, but the ultimate end-product for the viewer (and hence the audience size) is not materially improved as a result (c.f. Millionaire in 1999-2000, where questions were much easier than now, big wins much more prevalent, but the show really was more exciting for it).

There's probably more to say, but I can't think of a much better way to end...

If I ever got on the show (which I wouldn't since I'm too young...), I'd probably put it towards driving lessons and university too. Well, I'd probably reserve a grand for a holiday or something .

I've come to the conclusion that bringing family members to the show with you is generally NOT a good idea. There are exceptions of course (Eddy's girlfriend got him an extra 5k through all the emotion!), but often they do more harm than good. For instance, a while back someone (his name was Stephen I think) was offered £3,250, and his wife was heard saying that it was 'pocket change'. As a result, he was offered that for the next two rounds (including on a £500/£20k final two), leading him to play until the end and win £500. There's also the risk that they'll accidentally reveal any targets. For example, Bev's friend revealed that her target was 10k, so the increase she got from a 10k offer after a good round wasn't that big (up to £13,013). Had her friend not been there, she'd have probably been offered roughly 15k or 16k instead.

The thing is, the banker can pick up on any little thing that a contestant or friends of family says, and twist it anyway he wants to in an attempt to mindgame or unnerve the player. For example, Sharron mentioned, in a throwaway fashion, 'I didn't come here for three grand'. She got a final two of 1p/20k, the banker picked up on it and offered 3k, and she ended up with a penny. People got VERY mad about that game afterwards... In a way, almost nothing you say is safe from being used against you.

It's like stepping into a minefield, and every time you say anything that can be used as ammo, a new mine is added, and at any point it can blow up in your face (or the banker's face if he pushes his luck too far).

When I watched the show for the first time, I wondered why the character of the banker had agreed to do the show, as he's not making any money - he's just minimising his losses. He still has to pay out each day (or pay out 0p on rare occasions!) - he's not actually making any money. I think that's a slight flaw in the character of the banker. Unless of course the boxes are made of gold and he sells them on...

The fact that DOND has been going for 4 and a half years nearly shows that it is sustainable to some extent. It continues to get high ratings for the time slot..

To be perfectly honest, a while back, I didn't think I'd still be watching it for this long. But the sheer variety/uniqueness (not a word?) of it has kept me watching. Now that surely makes it sustainable?

I mean, if people could only win the 22 amounts on the board, then DOND wouldn't have lasted I don't think. The sheer variety and scale of how much can be won (ie ANY value between 1p and £250,000) makes it stand out compared to other gameshows (compare to Millionaire where only 10/15 prizes avaliable).

Incorporate the many twists that we see (BG etc), and you've got a sustainable show in my view.

bazelgette is a very cool bloke

joseph bazelgette is the bloke who built the london sewers so peter must be his grandson or summat

Great-great-grandson to be precise.