Talk:Undercover Boss

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Undercover Boss. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Undercover Boss at the Reference desk.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Reality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Reality television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The show itself DOES have a forum - http://www.cbs.com/forum/forums/byCategory/70.page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) Feb 08, 2010 19:49:19

Is it real or reenactments?72.219.56.68 (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect there's a bit of both, when Larry showed up at the one woman's house the cameras were already inside, so I suspect that they had to do it twice. But the show was being filmed as a documentary, so the cameras were expected to follow the "new recruit" around, so much of it would have been real.--74.103.142.227 (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The credits include three Casting Associate Producers (two are 'Senior') (and a 'Consulting Psychologist'). --Elvey (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of it is set up. You can tell by the editing, it's very similar to other "reality" shows. Watch Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe when he talks about this stuff, it's pretty interesting.
• I worked on one in the franchise. I'm not sure what you mean by set up. It is not a fly-on-the-wall documentary, but nobody is acting if that's what you mean. All the first encounters between bosses and employees are real and genuine. The chips fall as they may. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.229.197.31 (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The encore airing of the premiere episode on Feburuary 12th, should be noted and added to the ratings table. CBS: "Undercover Boss" rerun (4.2 million, 2.8/4)

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2010/02/tv-ratings-winter-olympics-opens-big-for-nbc.html

--Cooly123 18:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Hey Cooly123

I'm not sure. While I agree that it should possibly be noted, it's not really appropriate to place in the table with the original showings (those airings are far more important, they are in a different league).

Do you not agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRiver28 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information about it being the highest rated superbowl program and reality show are wrong, had 45+ million viewers premiere back in 2001.--Cooly123 19:29, 17 February 2010

But the Survivor Australian Outback premiere in 2001 was for the second season of Survivor. Undercover Boss had never been seen before and so it was the highest rating premiere for a reality show in the real sense of premiere - i.e. the first time it has been seen. -- User:Seesot, 20 February 2010

January 26, 1986 Super Bowl XX NBC The Last Precinct "Pilot" 39.729 million viewers would be the highest show.--Cooly123 19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Last Precinct was an NBC Sunday Night Movie,it was not the start of a new series. -- User:Seesot, 20 February 2010

Seesot, do you work for Studio Lambert or are somehow related to that company? In any case, it's splitting hairs. For instance, I could say "Tedder is the smartest Foo High School graduate after the Reagan era who is a white male with blah medical condition". Sure, it's easy to be #1 when you define your category very specifically. tedder (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tedder what is wrong with you? You think everyone who disagrees with you works for Studio Lambert! And it's not splitting hairs, it's an appropriate categorisation!

You dedicated 151 words (incl six or seven quotes) of the reception section to criticism, vs. 51 to praise (incl two quotes). We all know you are as biased as they get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRiver28 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a large number of

You think everyone who doesn't agree with your misrepresentation is a SPA. You are biased, and should not edit Boss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRiver28 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tedder, and have tagged the page COI conflict. My reasoning is that at least the several single purpose accounts should be noted as such, and their edits be scrutinised before removing this tag, and hopefully some transparency with the COI editors. Widefox (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any COI was resolved by 'the ed17' on February 22nd, view the page's history. While I appreciate the point, if you scrutinise the reception section it is balanced (as it was written by the exceedingly neutral 'the ed17').--BlueRiver28 (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlueRiver. The article was temporarily protected by that admin on that date - to help protect from COI - quite different from permanently fixing COI issues as you assert. I take it you were involved in that too using another account? As you are an

WP:COI. Also from your comments to Tedder above, please refrain from attacking other editors. How do you feel about trying some other articles to get some more experience and avoid these issues completely?. I will tag all COI editors to help get some transparency. Widefox (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Widefox. I'm 18 and so no I don't have any affiliation to UB. I thought Wikipedia was about people sharing information and my edits on Boss (which were initially, admittedly, one-sided but only a reaction to the disproportionate reception section drafted by Tedder) have since been solely for the purposes of adding statistics and quotes etc. and producing a more concise section which incorporates all the main points (such as reducing Huffington's quote in size). I hope you can come to appreciate my contributions, provided of course they are fair-minded and non-single purpose.--BlueRiver28 (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a See also section should link to Back to the Floor, a TV show with a similar premise? -93.97.122.93 (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC) 94.5.153.40 (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Back to the floor is more of the premise of the show, in that the show opens with a narrative says bosses are going back to the lowest positions in the company, to learn what is going on. The secret millionaire is about the person giving money away - nothing to do with the company they work for.[reply]

Back to the Floor (Canadian TV series)

please do; i have not heard of either until a couple of minutes ago. No objections from myself if someone wants to list both series in the 'See also'.

Alao, speculation on the unknown status of season 2 of Undercover Boss really does not belong in the article. Surely someone at CBS knows the plans. If they don't i highly doubt they would publicly admit it so that we could get a reference for the statement. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 11:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

added. Widefox (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a major rewrite to make it about the format, and not the US series. Compare with Big Brother. This will balance it for a world perspective without creating multiple articles. Widefox (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually completely disagree with rewriting this page to a global article. If anything this article as it is could be moved to

Undercover Boss (U.S. TV series)

as a disambiguation for the American series and a page created for the UK series. That would be more in line with the style of Big Brother than rewriting this page. As to the COI that is another matter. As to the tag for being an Americanisation not presenting a globalised view... well duh, this is an article on an American tv show. It is very rare that i am for something having American coverage.

I am working on an article for the UK show. It is on my wiki. I should have it ready for WP within a day or two. I need time to watch series 1 and the première of series 2 so i can write the episode summaries and have some time to gather reception and production info. It doesn't help much that tv.com has barely a mention and IMDB doesn't even have an entry for the UK show at this time. But those are American sites :P delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 06:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - either multiple articles, or a global view with a single article. If this article is about the US series, it needs renaming and multiple articles creating, as per Big Brother. Widefox (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This show is somewhat more hard to write up than i thought. I can't watch the 4oD because i am in Canada and i can't find a download of s1e2. The merged infobox is just awkward. Not to mention Channel 4 doesn't show the episodes in 480i - i am trying to find out if it is 576i or 1080i but either way it is 16x9, not 4x3 like the American show. The series 2 premiere was really good. I had no idea that Best Western is a global company until i was prompted by the episode to read up on it. Then there is the difference in the length of the episodes between US and UK and the two official websites for the respective shows. If this were one show that had the episodes show interchangeably between the countries then most certainly i could work with one article but i don't know of any channel showing the UK show on this side of the Atlantic. The article is a mess with headings all off and rather poorly organised. Something better needs to be done with this but for right now i am not sure what. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I will attempt to fix this in the upcoming week, however there is not hardly as much information on the U.K series as there is on the U.S one.
  talk) 05:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I have finished moving the information about the American version to it's own article, I also added more information to the American version. I removed most of the American version information on the franchise article
  talk) 07:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The US version of this show is unusual because of the frequent discussions of the participants' Chrisitan faith, including that of the bosses and the employees. There's never reference to other faiths, and the discussion of Christian beliefs (such as that contraception is against God's will, according to the Frontier boss), the inclusion of Christian prayer, witnessing the Lord, turning to God in times of crisis, and the discussion of doing Christian missionary work are unusual on American television. Is this common on other versions of the show internationally, and is there any explanation for why Christianity is emphasized? It makes me wonder if the producers have a Christian evangelical point of view, in addition to the desire to spread the view that corporations are fundamentally good and are run by good people. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there was a book based on the show, called Undercover Boss: Inside the TV Phenomenon that is Changing Bosses and Employees Everywhere. Not sure how best to add it to the article, or where. -- 109.76.132.95 (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is SNL satirizing Undercover Boss with Adam Driver worth mentioning? [1][2][3][4][5] Maybe also Key & Peele satirizing Undercover Boss [6](Comedy Central)[7](YouTube) -- 109.76.132.95 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]