Premise: When confronted with an opportunity to receive financial help for personal needs, would an individual (and family) succumb to temptation and use the funds for unnecessary items – or remain committed to only accessing the funds for immediate needs?
This program is developed to test the premise of need versus greed – offering single individuals, couples and families access to “emergency” funds to help out in desperate (or simply stressful) financial times and seeing if the participants limit access to the money to items (issues) they need or if they become greedy and use the funds for unnecessary purchases.
The Offer: Recruit a group of individuals willing to participate in this social experiment; seek out participants interested in receiving a “gift card” for which up to $1,000 per month will be made available for them to use as they need. The caveat is that they must provide a summary of the expenses each month, plus recorded interview, to receive the next months’ card. The show will have electronic access and permission to see where, when and how the funds are pulled from the card – and can compare with the written summary to determine if the participant is being completely or partially truthful.
Question: If a participant received a debit card offering them access up to $1,000 per month – how would it be spent? a. Food, utilities, medical treatment, home or vehicle repairs? b. Frugally spending on personal needs while also using funds to help others? c. New electronic gadgets, toys, and playthings?
d. Vacations, restaurants, or other immediate gratification spending? e. Not at all – or combination of the above?
Participants: Seeking a broad mixture of participants from various socio-economic backgrounds, employment status, marriage or family status – however; focus in on one broad geographic area (Orlando, Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, etc). a. Retired individual, fixed income
b. Low-income household, high-school graduates, maybe some college, with or without children c. Middle-income household, children, mortgage, struggling to meet expenses d. Upper-income household, with or without children, some financial set-backs but strong outlook Participation should include a mix of these broad categories among racial, religious, political, gender, academic, professional and marital status.
The Host/Hostess: In this proposal, we are including potential candidates (or types) for consideration of hosting the program – however, it is not known if any of these individuals could be contracted for the launch of the unscripted program due to financial considerations, scheduling conflicts, or other considerations. These individuals were selected because of impressive character and moral positions taken during their professional careers: a. Angie Harmon
b. Elizabeth Hasselbeck
c. Siobhan Fallon Hogan
d. Neal McDonough
e. Edward James Olmos
Personal preference would be for either Neal McDonough (willing to lose a job rather than bend on moral convictions) or Olmos (long history of ethical conduct – holding strong to ideals of self-respect, self-esteem and self-worth). Obviously, these are stereotypes for consideration of the direction the show is seeking to go.
A panel of three individuals will perform the task of evaluating and deciding on elimination. The staff “accountant” receiving and questioning the participants will be one, the host/hostess a second, and the final may be a rotating individual that is selected based on moral/ethical background (priest, politician, public figure or parent – not locked in on a specific individual, but it does need to be a person of moral authority). This panel will review footage and documentation and determine least eligible candidate to remain on the program (clarification to come later).
Regular/Recurring central characters: The...