Crazy Idea for Future House Series

I have a crazy idea for the House series, having rewatched Texas Ranch House last week, rewatched the entire Colonial House series in one day today, and about to rewatch Frontier House. Unfortunately, after three years, I think I must revise that with "should they ever make another House series."

I think there should be a modest non-guaranteed cash prize for the participants, large enough that the prize would be nothing to scoff at, but small enough that it wouldn't attract the wrong type of participant. Before all the shows start degenerating into personality conflicts and hard labor in one form or another, the participants start out with an eye towards reliving history which guides them through their burdens.

The actual people whose lives they are recreating had something more: pressure. Real, palpable pressure. Pressure to the participants extends no more than making a good showing of themselves on TV and earning a favorable assessment at the conclusion. Perhaps to that we can add the alleviation of one's own physical discomfort (such as by seeking out more food or making a better bed).

In Colonial House, not having collected enough food or valuable trade goods costs you points on the assessment. In 1628 Massachusetts Bay Colony, not having collected enough food or valuable trade goods could mean that your colony's charter would get revoked and the colony would fail.

In Texas Ranch House, not having collected enough cattle costs you points on the assessment. In 1867 Texas, not having collected enough cattle could mean that the rancher lost his ranch to foreclosure and the hands lost their jobs.

In Frontier House, not having enough firewood or a well-enough stocked root cellar costs you points on the assessment. In 1883 Montana, not having enough firewood or a well-enough stocked root cellar could have meant that you might not have lived to see 1884.

This pressure and sense of urgency that hung over the head of each of the real-life people just cannot translate to the House participants, no matter how well-intentioned they may well have been. You know going in that barring a freak accident, you are not going to die. Whether your ranch is repossessed or your colony's charter is revoked or not, no matter what you were never going to be living on the ranch or in the colony the following year anyway.

The only thing I can think of to replicate that type of motivation is a cash prize. Say $10,000 per person or $25,000 per family. But the thing is, your prize is contingent upon a favorable assessment. If the experts say, "No matter what they might have done between now and the onset of winter, this homestead could not survive the winter," you get nothing. If you meet some of the goals, you only get a portion of the prize.

The point here isn't to turn this into a game show or to attract people just in it for the money. There are far easier ways to make $10,000 than to sleep on a dirt floor and make trade goods using 400-year-old technology every day for four months. It's to simulate some sort of tangible motivating factor that is lost by virtue of the fact that these are not actual life-or-death make-or-break situations. The only difference is that this would be striving towards a positive (earning the full prize) rather than trying to avoid a negative (not surviving the winter, or the failure of the ranch, colony, or homestead).

What do you think? I'm going to post this on the other "House" boards as well.