Why was the 12 question U.K. format unsuccessful?

[Natsuki <3]

I'd like to see your opinions on why the 12 question U.K. format was so unsuccessful. If I remember correctly, the highest amount anyone ever won on that version of the show was £150,000, which equated to just nine correct answers with the use of four lifelines, whereas the 15 question classic variant hosted multiple £250,000, £500,000, and £1,000,000 winners, with just the original three lifelines. Why do you think this is? You'd think it'd be easier to win the game with 12 questions rather than 15, and it wasn't like this format was short-lived either, as if my memory serves me correctly, this format lasted seven years, from 2007-2014.

[kplewisvox]

One of the problems with the 12-question format is that, while they took away three questions, it was three easy questions. That means only two easy ones to get you comfortable before they throw the hard stuff at you.

The first five questions served a purpose by being foolishly easy. They eased you in to the game, and got you into the frame of mind you needed to be in.

[Natsuki <3]

The three questions they got rid of were the easy ones, specifically the £100, £200, and £300 questions. An argument could be made that they served a purpose to get the contestant eased into the game, but I still can't fathom how no one even won £250,000 over the course of seven years. The U.S. version is notorious for having its most recent legitimate Millionaire being Nancy Christie, which happened in 2002 or 2003, but even since then, $250,000 and $500,000 have been won. The modern Chris Harrison version is also much more difficult than the Regis Philbin one, yet people have won upwards of $250,000.

[DoreK]

In my opinion, one of the most important reasons is the difficulty of the questions. In Poland, for example, the level of questions is very well balanced in the 12-question format. Personally, I can not imagine that the 15-question format will come back to Poland, because now it's ok.

[Natsuki <3]

I've never watched the Polish version of the show, but I can see your point about the U.K. questions not being balanced. Some contestants use all their lifelines before even seeing five figures, which pretty much guarantees a short run. It seems as though the level 2 questions take a massive spike in difficulty for each concurrent question, making it more difficult to have someone win the million. I'd say the same is for the U.S. version as well, but this difficulty spike is most likely because of the modern-day prevalence of the internet. I yearn for the days where every other contestant would make it to level 3 without a sweat, but I understand why they don't.

[rifkialqadri]

for me, there are three reasons why the 12-question format was not successful:
1. in addition to reducing the questions, they also changed most of the music scores, especially the post-first-milestone question music. the question musics after the first milestone has much less tension, whereas the show is well-know for its tension. what I could suggest is that they must keep the post-£1000 question musics, but change the pre-£1000 question music, intro music, and milestone correct answer music with the new Rave musics.
2. The payout structure. The contestants were not brave enough to take a risk after the second milestone because their winnings were not doubling.
3. (after 2010) The big bad clock. I don't really know how to explain this, but the big bad clock, for me, contradicts the classic "Take your time" advice from the classic hosts (Chris Tarrant, Regis Philbin, and Eddie McGuire)...

[hadouken85]

In my opinion, the 12-question format wasn't a success because of the following reasons:
1. "Tension", which has been something associated with Millionaire since Day 1. The classic format with 15 questions was also what made it the franchise we all love. When they reduced the questions to 12, the show had less tension. With the first five questions, you may feel at ease. But as the level raises slowly, you become more and more uncomfortable.
2. The questions became painfully harder, which made the contestants too afraid to take risks like the old days. IIRC, they mostly used 2 lifelines before even reaching question 6 or 7.
3. The music change. The Rave music was alright, but was not enough.
4. The clock(After 2010). Yes, with the show already going downhill, the clock completely destroyed it. Everybody has to take time to think and answer the questions, not to mention the pressure they may have when in the Hot Seat and watched by millions of people.

[Natsuki <3]

These are all great opinions, some expected, and some unexpected. Thank you all for sharing your thoughts.

[JCEurovision]

I think most of the world adopted the standard 15-question format, because 12 questions is considered to be "short". However, I agree on hadouken85's first two points, but the third one feels not because when TV5 commissioned WWTBAM in 2009, the Rave format was introduced, but still have the 15-question format. When they decided to adopt the 12-question format in 2015, things went downhill and couldn't return to the glory it once was, so they ultimately ended a remarkable seven-year run in 2016.

[millionaireloveruk]

Personally I think the reason the 12 Questions Format was somewhat unsuccessful in the UK isn’t just the facts that you’ve all pointed out, such as less easy questions to ease contestants in resulting in less people getting into the third tier.

Although that certainly played a part for me, you have to look closer into the political and economic events surrounding the UK from 2007 to 2010, when regular people stopped playing the show in favour of Celebrities. Now obviously, the first thing that probably comes to mind is the financial crash of 2008. Chris Tarrant himself once referenced this when talking about why Millionaire went downhill, saying that the national economic situation for millions of people meant that they’d be a lot less willing to risk £9,000 to win £20,000 than they would’ve been to risk £7,000 to win £16,000 back in 2007. Suddenly the money became too important to many people, due to what they’d lost in the Crash, and so they were less willing to risk it. This would also explain why people seem to be slightly less risk averse in the new Clarkson series, due to a better economic situation at the current time, although this could change after the end of this month depending on how the B-word ends up happening.

Another reason for the less successful contestants could be the change in how they were selected after 2007. Before then, with the phone game and questions, the contestants who made it to the Fastest Finger First Chairs tended to be the smarter ones who applied, and so were more likely to have the knowledge to win £32,000 or more. After the format change, however, this was scrapped in favour of a more generic way of selecting contestants, through auditions and application forms. This, for me, marked a clear change in the way the show was being ran. It seemed to suggest that ITV and the producers had changed from looking for the contestants most likely to win a million pounds, to the contestants who would be better for television. Now, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with this, but for a show that wants to give away life changing sums of money, it would probably be more successful to have a hybrid selection process, of the people most likely to win, and those who are better for television, which I think is now the method they use, an application form followed by a general knowledge round.

So, for me personally, whilst I agree that the format itself had a lot to do with it, the national situation and the direction ITV wanted to take the show in also played significant roles in the downfall of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.

[Natsuki <3]

This is something I definitely didn't think of. As a resident of Canada, I know very little about the financial crash in the U.K. However, it does make sense, as every time Chris would ask the contestants how much they would like to win, they would always respond with one of the lower numbers, such as £5,000 or £10,000, some even saying that winning just £1,000 would be adequate, which is completely different from the past, as everyone back in the day aimed for at least £32,000 or higher.