Survivor has been in production for multiple decades now, over the course of 48 seasons and counting. Since the first season, there have been a plethora of changes and shifts in format, strategies, production, and the way the team designs the show. The main premise of the game has largely stayed the same, though, and is the model that international versions have almost always attempted to replicate.
One thing that has shifted a bit over the years, though, is reward challenges. In older seasons, each episode had a reward challenge and an immunity challenge, whereas now they are often combined, or there is no reward at all. On the flip side, a couple of rewards offered in season one were so minimal that the cast almost staged a riot over them. There were far more connections to sponsors as well.
Now, rewards seem to be solid and consistently worth it for players. But rarely are they some of the massive rewards, like cruise ships, overnight spas, or even the older rewards where players got to go and help out local villages. And forget about the great car curse rewards. So, how does production decide what is fair to offer to players to keep them motivated?
On episode 10 of Survivor 48, the producers offered the players a fairly rare reward challenge. The reward that was offered was fried chicken and waffles, which somehow Jeff Probst convinced the entire cast to turn into a song, dance, and chant. Yes, it was as cringeworthy as it sounds. Still, that interaction shows players' enjoyment in rewards, so it begs the question: what does Jeff use to decide the offerings?
On the associated episode of On Fire with Jeff Probst podcast, the group was discussing rewards, and specifically the fried chicken and waffles song and dance clip. Both Rachel LaMont and Jay Wolff also discussed the scene where losing players could hear the winners cheering from the bot, which triggered a discussion around the idea of an immediate reward as triggering exciting social dynamics.
This is where Jeff chimed in with how they determine rewards in general.
"My only contribution to the reward conversation is that we do take them seriously in this sense," Jeff said. "To Rachel's point about how rare they are to get, we want them to pay off. We want you to be happy, we just don't want to tilt the game so much that the reward now changes everything. It should be a momentary respite, maybe a little fuel, maybe a little emotional fuel, and then it is back to the game."
This makes sense and likely explains why most of the rewards these days are very similar and relatively predictable at this point. The production team has found their sweet spot that balances enjoyable without being game-breaking, and simply plans to recycle this plan since they know it works. That said, it would be nice to see some of the clever throwback or cultural rewards we saw in earlier seasons.
There is definitely a balancing act that needs to be done when offering Survivor rewards. Naturally, there is always an advantage for players who win, as there should be, since they, you know, won. At the same time, it is boring if the advantage is so dramatic that players just run the show from there. I agree with Jeff that it needs to be worth playing for while still properly balanced.
I think the idea behind instant rewards is an exciting one because it adds in that level of possible taunting or social dynamics that could make for interesting discussions and strategies. I still think that there is a way to be more creative with some of them, though, and offer castaways some once-in-a-lifetime memories. Hopefully, the production team can continue to brainstorm on some new ways to shake things up.
More from Surviving Tribal: