Reality TV

TO: Mark Burnett, Survivor Grand Pooh-Bah

FROM: Bluenoser, a humble Survivor fan

RE: Returning Survivor to the Nielsen Top-10

Dear Mark:

While I enjoyed watching Survivor: China, there seems to be a downward trend in the TV ratings for your show. I personally chalk that up to four major reasons:

1. Alliances are making the game as predicatable as Stephen Hawking vs. Miss Teen Sough Carolina on Celebrity Jeopardy.

2. The two tribes are as evenly matched as the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals.

3. Blind tribal loyalty. Every alliance has its doormat, the person who will be the first to go when the alliance is forced to “eat one of their own”. Does that person use their vote to dissolve an alliance, knowing they have no chance to win in their present alliance? No…they stay loyal to their tribe and get rewarded with a fourth or fifth place finish.

4. Not enough fireworks. Let’s face it–everyone loves a train wreck. How else do you explain Britney Spears’ popularity? The first Survivor worked so well because there were fireworks between the contestants. If someone was pissed off they let the world know it, consequences be damned. Now people bite their tongues and fake diplomacy for fear of being voted out. A smart move, but boring TV.

I’m here to help, Mark, with two master strokes that can clean this up and catapult Survivor’s ratings back into the stratosphere.

1. Put all 16 contestants in one tribe from the beginning. Problem 4 would disappear faster than Chicken did in Survivor: China. It’s hard enough for contestants to get along with seven other Type-A personalities. Imagine the fireworks you would have with 16 of them living together! A group like that living in such trying circumstances would make for more fireworks than the 4th of July. Also, since all 16 players are together from the start, the “blind tribal loyalty” problem would be solved.

2. Randomly pick teams before each reward and immunity challenge. This move will address all of your problems. Regarding problem 1, it would be almost impossible to keep alliances intact. What are the chances that all four or five members of any alliance will be on the same side of every immunity challenge? This makes breaking up alliances much, much easier. Problem 2 would be gone, as the teams in the challenges would be different every week. You’re bound to get some entertaining match-ups, and nothing builds rivalries (and destroys friendships) faster than intense physical challenges. When you move to individual immunity challenges you’ll rid yourself of problem 3; there will be no situations with one tribe having “the numbers” over another after a merge. As for problem 4–can you imagine the fireworks at camp after an immunity challenge? Half the tribe has to suffer the humiliation of leaving for tribal council while the other half relaxes back at camp. The gloating they’ll have to endure before they go won’t feel so good, either. Eventually their relationships will make Trump and Rosie look like Romeo and Juliet.

Don’t get me wrong, Mark…I still like the show and haven’t missed a season yet. I’m just a fan who would like to see Survivor return to the heights from which it has recently fallen. May the tribe speak clearly to you!

Sincerely,

Bluenoser