Your whole attitude towards potential viewers is why it would fail. Instead of having pot shots at people and throwing out insults, why don't you answer my original question. Why do you think this kind of show would work, and would any network want to invest into it?
And for the record I know a hell of a lot of about the way media ratings and demographics work within advertising and so on. If you want to put a bold proposal forward in this forum, good on you as that's great initiative, but back it up with some reasoning. That's a very simple request.
The demographic is there for three reasons.
One, they would be talking about RL, thus instant arousal and interest from a huge proportion of the population that follows the largest rating sport on television.
Two, being a female hosted show it would attract, well females to an otherwise maybe uninterested group of fans that would normally switch off due to to much testosterone in the studio from not so very attractive footballers.
And three, blokes would watch if the girls were a) attractive and b) knew what they were talking about, especially if they chose some women that could fire up every now and then. The mandate of the show must be that the girls have to have opinions and know how to state them.
But what is equally or even more important though is the formula needs to be right and the compares must have charisma and appeal. I mean look at the Matty Johns Show, they have assembled stars, legends and experts from everywhere and the thing is still a dog. It just isn't working because the recipe is wrong. If they don't tweak it and hopefully get it right, one of two things will probably end up happening. Either they will can it, or they will move it to a later time slot. But initially it did well in the ratings due to it being Matty Johns and the expectation was high and the fact that it was about RL has also got a huge bearing on who the audience is and why people are still watching in the numbers that they are or it in my opinion would of failed already.
Also the unexpected Storm controversy has I think artificially kept the ratings higher then otherwise would of been the case, due to peoples interest in that on going nightmare. But I am sure, that about 90 odd percent of us would have initially tuned into Matty's show hoping that it was worth the hype because it was about RL and that is what most of us who follow the sport want to see. I mean do we not want to see more RL based products on TV? I know I do.
So in a nut shell the demographic is anyone that has an interest in Rugby League. I would have thought that that was obvious to an experienced man such as yourself Eels Dude. Sure you can drill it down and break it up into different groups, but overall if they get the formula right with the right hosts presenting and not resort to, as I stated earlier, fluff and girly girl topics of interest, then people will tune in.
Surely you can see that? If the host of a show has presence and can appeal to an audience, then people are drawn to it and if the topic of discussion is of massive interest, then really how can it fail? The way I see it, the show would not fail or succeed because it is women who are the hosts, but rather its fate would rest on the type of women that are chosen and how they interact with one another and guests.
