Since DOND began, we have seen few part-monetary offers… and those have normally come early on in the game when people are unlikely to deal, or after the player has dealt – examples include Sarah-Jane’s set of stake knives as part of an early offer, Jaye’s journey home, roses being offered, and of course Nathan dealing £500 and a dinner for two.

In June, we saw Paul B’s third offer of his football dream plus £7,500 - he no dealt, had full monetary offers again and his game fell apart… ending up winning £1,000 and no doubt had regrets about no dealing his dream.

Last week, we saw the first ever non-monetary offer and it was dealt – Brenda’s trip for two to New York, and then this week, we saw the second – Tom’s basketball trip.

As I said in the today’s show thread – there are three elements in the show – the effect of entertainment, the effect on the show and the effect on the statistics.

Non-monetary offers provide something different that the show probably needs to prevent it from losing viewers by going stale, and such unique offers are great entertainment. Maybe if such offers are made too often, it could become like the USA version and pave the way to even more changes being made?! And the stats… such offers mean you can’t work out how much the offer is accurately worth, but DOND is primarily an entertainment show… or an “entertainment drama” as Noel calls it.

Should non-monetary offers happen often? If they do, could the banker really play with them, and if a player ends up with a dream final two of £10k vs £250k, would the banker be right to offer the player’s dream, even if it is worth a lot less than what the offer would be?

What if the banker started offering stuff which could easily be bought using money – such as cars and regular holidays? The banker could also start playing with people’s minds and offering “dreams” at the first and second offer… obviously encouraging the player to no deal and then of course there is no guarantee that the banker would offer the dream again – if this happened, would this be right or would it be too unfair on the playing contestant?

I'm not a huge fan of them to be honest although I can understand Paul B and Tom's ones.

Brenda's was a bit odd as opposed to say 3K although that was on an all or peanuts board so it didn't detract from the game to much.

It probably worked with the sporting interest ones although it was bad/painful when Paul B's game fell apart .

they should only do it very occasionally in these cases as most players 'dreams' can be bought with what they are offered/win whereas you can't put a value on Tom's one. That's the point of the game.

presumably a lot of contestants spend the money on holidays/cars anyway, it would be strange if the banker started offering them.

Definately. It's a show about making dreams come true, and I like that. The show isn't all just about stats.



No, he wouldn't be right to offer the dream, well at least not just by itself...




Not at all, this could be very entertaining... Very differentr way of the show which I could get used to nicely...

Here's my opinion:

This isn't intrinsically a bad thing.

It is, however, a sign of a show that has lost its way.

The issue is not the action itself, but what it implies - a show that's running out of ideas. We've already seen the show reduced to having the host bully players on and practically turn the show into a 45-minute advert for gambling (and it's instructive to remember that the ratings plunged in this period and staged a mini-recovery in May!), and now we're seeing the established order of the show changed in another way (albeit a far more acceptable one, in my opinion, and one that worked particularly well for Man Utd Paul and Hornets Tom).

I think it's fair enough if they are something very specific to the player, and preferably containing something that money can't buy - and like swap offers etc., not happening too often. It does make the shows more interesting and unique, and provides the player with a very difficult decision.

What I really don't want to see is, for example, a sponsorship deal with a car manufacturer leading to a particular car being offered every other show. They need to be personal, appropriate to the situation and if possible a unique opportunity.

As for messing up the stats, there's plenty of games in the past that have done that for various reasons (swaps, board changes, extra offers etc). So the stats are well and truly messed up already... The statisticians just have to come up with a best cash equivalent, or if that's totally impossible then just use the "fair deal" or some other measure based on what remained on the board at that time.

One interesting suggestion they haven't done yet - perhaps a "dream" prize for a particular contestant could be placed on the board instead of one of the red amounts, and then play a part in the offers as well if it remains in play later on in the game?

Hmm... I like that... Possibly the board going...

Well I think that this shows that they fear the show is beginning to go down the sink-hole...

I personally do like the idea, it makes a change, but if they keep this kind of thing to an absolute minimum, it will be good.

However it probably won't. Imagine it. One contestant says "How come they get their dream come true because they came with a story? Maybe I should do the same!" And before you know it, every contestant is explaining their dreams and expecting them to just be handed to them.

Time to post my opinion after asking the questions.

I think that in general it is a good idea if it is used sparingly. Too much and it will get stale. And I agree with KP that it does show a slight sign of desparation and a show trying things to keep it fresh... such as the battle of the sexes and other clear tactics - and whilst it would be boring if everything was the same the WHOLE time, I think they need to strike a happy medium between introducing too many gimmicks and letting the show become stale.

The non-monetary offers thing should only be used once a month at most really, and only when a contestant has a SPECIFIC dream, such as that of Tom's, Paul B's and Brenda's... and whilst it'd be nice if the banker offered them at dealable stages of the game, I bet it won't be long before "dream" offers appear at the first and second offers as the banker assumes they won't get dealt... and if the player no deals and has a trainwreck, it will make for bad viewing for the player (such as with Paul B's game)... but for the banker and some viewers, it'll be entertainment.

I didn't enjoy Paul B's game that much to be honest, it was ugly viewing.
I do like the conventional games best where players get victories. e.g. Theresa, Alexandra, Kathy etc.
Why do endemol need to try so hard anyway, the show should always have its fan base and I doubt possible floating viewers would be that bothered anyway. it's inevitable that the show has lost some viewers but why can't they just stick to the simple idea of financial risk and reward that made it work in the first place?

I have something to say on the subject aswell and Aaron won't like it.

For part 1: Of course not. It's not called Dream or No Dream, and when there is no money mentioned, it usually means there is no money in the offer - so Tom will have to pay for the flight, pay for the hotel room, pay for the VIP seats. Costing him more than it cost the banker to make a few phone calls - a rip off. Also, it voids the game, just like the hypo swap. [Paul's £7,500 + match doesnt count as non-monetary H, since there was cash mentioned]

For part 2 Aaron, ITA.

And on all this non-money stuff, the bottom line is Dreams shouldnt be offered anyway. At all, whatever the circumstances.

The show needs something fresh, and having these types of offers every now and again will be great.

It is the Dream Factory after all, and some prizes money can't buy, well obviously now they can be bought with luck, I guess.

ITA with the general opinion; if used sparingly it'll be wicked!

Just makes you wonder what other changes we have in store...Noel did say on the 13th of August that he can promise us many surprises!

I just don't know how KP can complain that the show degenerated into a 45 minute advert for gambling? That's what the show is! A 45 minute greed-fest that plays on public lust for easy money and gambling.

Its like watching a football match and complaining that it has degenerated into a 45 minute advert for football.

Anyway. Back on the subject of 'dream offers'. To repeat what I worte in the Todays Show thread :

'In my heart I just know they are going to milk this for all its worth and eventually degenerate the 'dream offers' to cars and holiday etc.

Oh well. Sigh .......'

Yes, having the occasional offer as a dream will work. Having it nearly on every game will defeat the object. I don't mind if they do this, what does matter if they don't ruin the core format. I know people have moaned about Battle of the Sexes but at least they haven't messed with the main format, all they've done is shifted the playing days around.

I can't see them offering cars and I don't think they will. The Aussie version does offer a car on every show but their set-up is more glitzy and their studio is built to have the car on display. Would you like to see a Peugeot 309 in the Bristol studio?

Also on other game shows, sponsorships for cars are always for the long term, in other words the programme offer them nearly on every show (see The Price Is Right, Play Your Cards Right & Sale of the Century for examples). DoND can offer holidays as it's a much cheaper option, I'm also wondering if they've signed up a deal with a independant travel agent in Bristol. Given many of their suppliers are local (see their website).

I would say the crew are trying to fresh the show up and I don't blame them for doing so. I've spoken to a couple of people in recent months who are now fed up with Weakest Link. I don't know if anybody watches it anymore but their opening titles have been the same for 6 & 1/2 years also the set hasn't changed. Ditto with the contestants and the amount won in every episode is always around £2K-£3K.

Well they are very different shows, aside from being the two most successful late afternoon game shows of the last decade. Weakest Link has never been about life-changing money, it's about the questions and the Anne Robinson factor, and cosmetic changes would achieve little. Every show has its sell-by date and I'm surprised it's lasted so long.

DOND on the other hand is largely about the tension and drama and to keep it fresh it has to be unpredictable. The boxes achieve that, to some extent, but once in a while they will throw in something that shocks and surprises the viewers and contestants. It gets people talking about it and that's what they want.

Another thought, although DOND is still a relatively "young" show in that it's only been going for 2 years, the 6 days a week/11 months a year plus a few extras means there have been almost 600 shows now, and some shows that run for decades don't manage that. That's why I've always thought it would burn out faster than most comparable shows.

That can be easily resolved by following what the Australians so. Their version is broadcast weekdaily, not on weekends and for only ten months a year (February-November). While through the winter months they air classic episodes instead. Not counting the original primetime version, they've had the daytime version for 3 & 1/2 years but produced around 870 episodes. Including the primetime episodes, they'll hit 900 shows with three weeks.

Had DOND been been put on once or twice a week in the evening then I think it could go on for decades. As it is, on 6 times a week, in a late afternoon timeslot then it will fade away as ratings gradually slip.

For most viewers its throwaway TV. They can't remember who was on yesterday, let alone last week and watch it purely for its entertainment value. Endemol will do what is necessary to keep it fresh and appealing to the general public and if whatever gimmicks they need to do the trick they will do I'm afraid. This is why the 'dream offers' are going to be more common and less dream like in my opinion.

But the fact that The Weakest Link juggernault is still going after all those years gives us hope that DOND will do the same.

they have increased in frequency - this means we will unfortunately be seeing more of them

Don't forget Endemol's other show Ready, Steady, Cook. They'll clock up 13 years come next month. Also Countdown (which is aired weekdaily for 50 weeks a year) is set for 21 years in November.

Isn't it 25 years for Countdown this year?

I know it wasn't always 50 weeks a year, I seem to remember it used to alternate with Fifteen to One. But the show count certainly runs into the thousands now. It's one of these shows that could go on forever, whoever hosts it, it remains a great play-along-at-home game and even though its audience is now a fraction of what it once was (not helped by the earlier timeslot in recent years) I think it will always have a dedicated following.