Celebrity quiz shows where they raise money or lose money for charity

[chomalungma]

Does anyone else feel they are a bit strange?

I mean it's nice to see charities winning money...but then a charity has the potential to win lots of money - such as on Pointless or The Chase, and they don't win. And on Millionaire, a charity is in a position to win £32,000 but then the contestant fails and they only get £1000.

Especially on The Chase. The Chaser is aiming to stop the contestants actually winning money for a charity. How does that work?

We were saying the same thing earlier with the chase. My dh said " you'd think the chaser would try a little less hard when a charity stands to win 75K ". It seemed odd when the chaser then said something along the lines of "it's my job to stop that happening " !!

£75k would make a massive difference to a small charity.

It does feel strange when the chaser has to try and stop them winning that amount of money.

I suppose that any amount of money is better than none and that the charity gets exposure ( and donations if viewers feeling sorry for them missing out). So it's worth it from that point of view.
It would be boring viewing if the chaser let them win all the time.

But if that's the format of the show, that's what people are expecting to see.

They can't just wheel out a bunch of celebs, have a cosy wee chat and then bung them some cash because that's not how the show works.

It was a bit sad last night on Millionaire.

The charity stood to get a lot of money, then they got the question wrong and it went down to £1000.

Nice to get exposure, nice to get some money, I suppose...but that was a lot of potential money to lose.

I always think the chasers do get more questions wrong when it’s s celebrity one, but I do agree with what you’re saying.

There are rules about such competitions. They cannot be seen to be acting differently.

I think they make the questions easier for celebrities, that's the concession. The chase without a chaser would just be people answering questions.

And Ed Byrne on the Chase would not be as dramatic without the risk.

For anyone who hasn't seen it, well it's 2

Although I think they could make him the chaser for a future charity edition

The charity hasn't lost money cos they didn't have it in the first place.

he charity hasn't lost money cos they didn't have it in the first place

I did feel for the charities last night in Millionaire when the celebrites had a decent amount of money in the bank, and then lost it because they got the question wrong.

That was money lost for the charity in a sense. I doubt that someone who needed the money would have taken a punt on the question with such a big drop.

Sometimes, they have celebrities on WWTBAM who are seriously loaded, so there's no real jeopardy for them in the first place. It would be the equivalent for the rest of us of having "Who Wants To Win £20". On more than one occasion, I've seen them saying "We'll go for it and, if we lose, I'll make up the money myself". I'm guessing there are also some others who do that without announcing it. For somebody like Duncan Bannatyne or Tim Rice, it is literally the equivalent of pennies down the back of the sofa.

Slight swerve, but I feel sorry for the lesser-known minor celebrities who are probably not particularly well-off in the first place, but who are still expected to play for charity, because they're on the telly. I know that it's good exposure for them and that they probably wouldn't have been invited on the show if they were an ordinary member of the public, but it still seems a bit unfair that a high-flying lawyer from Guildford with a lucrative 35-year career under their belt can go on and keep the prize money all to themselves whereas somebody who once played a minor character in Hollyoaks for a couple of years has to give the prize away to charity.

I also wonder if the charities themselves have any say in the celeb's playing strategy. Apparently (not sure if it's always the case), the usual way is not that the celeb is approached and then chooses their favourite charity; rather the charities themselves will contact a celeb's agent and petition for them to go on the show.

Some big charities can be extremely 'driven', shall we say (obviously, they want to maximise their income) - so it wouldn't surprise me if they try to push 'their' celeb to go for the really big money, thinking it a worthwhile gamble to risk a thousand or two in the hope of getting tens or hundreds of thousands.

DP is obsessed with The Chase (and quite a lot of other quiz shows too), they've been showing the celebrity charity ones permanently on one of the satellite channels for a week or two now. The questions are definitely skewed towards the celebs in the cashbuilder and chase table rounds, and if the celebs haven't built up a huge lead in the final chase round I've seen Anne Mark and Sean all quite deliberately get an easy question wrong in the early part of their two minutes to give the celebs a chance. But ultimately they won't make utter fools of themselves, if the celebs are thick as pigshit the chasers aren't going to hand over vast sums.

I have noticed that the celebrity version of The Chase is usually easier than the normal one. The celebs will get easy questions or the chaser will throw a question or two.

Any money is good for the charity as well as the publicity.

I have noticed that the celebrity version of The Chase is usually easier than the normal one. The celebs will get easy questions or the chaser will throw a question or two.

Yes, they definitely keep some of the easy questions for the celeb versions - especially where there's clearly a silly answer done for a laugh e.g. they give a famous German footballer's surname and ask "Is his first name A. Hans; B. Nies; or C. Boompserdazy?".