Anyone who reads this do what I did and please write to CBS itself and also to your local CBS station asking them to please cancel this show. At least we can try. If we do nothing then The Hunger Games is not far off.
http://audienceservices.cbs.com/feedback/feedback.htm
I talked to CBS and they are hoping you send them complaints, and they are praying you make a big noise in the media. They love the free publicity.
I saw a preview of this show as part of a focus group last fall, and I told CBS it was total garbage. They don't appear to be listening. I didn't watch last night's episode, so I don't know if they did any serious revamping from the pilot episode; however, from watching the commercials, it didn't sound like it. The episode I saw they were given $100,000 each. I don't know the rationale for adding in the extra $1000. Did they take a trip to each others' houses to see how the other people lived? That was a major part of the original episode.
Both couples in the pilot episode had dug their own graves, financially. It was really hard to mustard up any sympathy for them. I kept thinking throughout the whole thing "if they get the money and no financial counseling, they'll be back at square one within 2 years anyway, so what's the point?"
Apparently, CBS didn't think enough of my original criticisms to scrap the whole series, but I'll definitely have the TV tuned to something else when this is on. I hope that gets the message across better than writing statements about unlikeable contestants and a totally flawed premise.
First off, it's "muster", not "mustard". Mustard is a noun, it's a condiment you put on a hot dog.
The extra $1,000 was earmarked to be spent immediately for the family to treat themselves. It's a common idea in financial planning to do exactly that, splurge a little amount first as a celebration before sobering up to make more long term decisions about the money.
For the sake of the TV show, it adds length and gives us scenes where we can see the family being self-indulgent. It offers story telling opportunities, such as this case where it told us one family needed a crib and another had broken laundry.
> Both couples in the pilot episode had dug their own graves, financially.
Most likely, the debt was from medical expenses, so you can't say that dug their own graves.
> "if they get the money and no financial counseling, they'll be back at square one within 2 years anyway, so what's the point?"
Again, if the majority of their debt is medical, they will just ignore it and pay off credit cards and bills and put the rest in the bank.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
Nothing was mentioned about the debt coming from medical expenses, and I'm sure if that had been the case, it would have been included to increase the sympathy factor.
> Nothing was mentioned about the debt coming from medical expenses,
Not directly, but the clues were all there. One had fallen and hurt his back, the other needed many surgeries. And, in one house, the woman held up a pile of medical bills and said, "Oh, and they don't have insurance." How would she know that?
> I'm sure if that had been the case, it would have been included to increase the sympathy factor.
No. Because that would lessen the sympathy factor. All Americans know that medical care is insanely high and that hospitals cannot refuse care to poor people and they just send huge bills knowing that they will never be paid. The poor people know that too and they just don't pay.
The huge debt basically only exists on paper. If the home audience was told that, people would see that these families are pretty much breaking even in their day-to-day life. They can still buy new trucks and snow mobiles and new houses just fine.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
We're not talking about the same episode. I saw the original pilot as part of a focus group. I have not watched any of the episodes that have aired on CBS, and I won't because of how awful the pilot was. Based only on having seen the commercials, it sounds as if the episodes that have aired have only been slightly revamped from the pilot (they are now getting $101,000, instead of the "mere" $100,000 they got in the pilot).
My main complaint that I stated in the focus group was that the couples had both gotten themselves into their financial situations by making poor money choices to begin with, which elicited zero sympathy from me. Maybe they have since decided to base their choice of contestants instead on unforeseen expenses like medical bills because of that. I'd actually be surprised if they did listen to complaints from the focus group, but I can hope that maybe I had something to do with them finding people who are likeable.
I'm not watching it, but I read the recap. It's hilarious...if you are struggling you have zero, I repeat, ZERO Obligation to 'help'someone else out -- That'd be like doing a version of "The Christmas Carol" where the three ghosts show up to guilt the Cratchit's into giving up the meager Christmas they've scraped together to 'give to another family' -- hey Ghosts, go hit up that Miser Ebineezer.
The sad truth is there's only ONE factor to effect if this P.O.S. experiment in poor people guilt porn stays on the air -- that is if folk watch. So everyone needs to do their part and not watch.