Overall I thought the documentary was very good. I feel they showed a bit too much of the compulsive aspect of the hobby versus the fun side. But, how interesting would the documentary be if they just showed the average contestor sitting in front of the computer clicking away for an hour? They needed to show the various extremes of the hobby. Also, the director had hundreds of hours of film to condense down to 45 min. along with ensuring she told a very compelling story.

There were questions and aspects I wish they had time to show. For example, when I meet new people that don’t enter, they don’t because; they don’t think they will win, they think no one wins or they are afraid of spam, scams and identity theft. What are the marketers doing to overcome those fears and perspectives to increase their dialog with the average consumer? The UGC (User Generated Content) contest they showed costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to create and execute for the sponsor. The reason many companies have simple form-based promotions is the cost.

What about the radio stations? They didn’t explore the fact that many parent companies are now blending the marketing budgets of all the stations they own in one market, or possibly the country, decreasing the odds of their loyal listeners winning a prize. How many contestors need or want to win a $20,000 wedding? Had it been a promotion for a car or trip, there would have been far more competition from the contestors.

What did you think?

NOTE: I am waiting to hear back from the production company to see if they will be selling the Winning for a Living documentary as a DVD as I have received many emails from those not within the viewing area. I will keep everyone posted.