A bunch of people have already commented about how the highest-rated game show in recent history (Millionaire) achieved those ratings without screening contestants for looks or telegenicity. I suspect game shows \"cast\" contestants because it gives them the opportunity to take credit when a show is successful (\"it's a hit because we know how to pick contestants\"). Odd that no one uses the opposite argument (\"it's a flop because we don't know how to pick contestants\"). The game is the principal factor in determining success or failure, but in Millionaire's case it's clear that the lack of contestant casting wasn't a detriment; if anything, it helped give the show an \"everyman\" appeal. If \"The People's Quiz\" ever makes it to the air and succeeds, maybe that will change some minds - but I doubt it.
It's also worth noting that there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the 18-49 demographic is really all that valuable. Yes, advertisers currently believe that, and networks plug that idea, but there's never really been any solid proof for that. There was a great article in the NY Times Magazine about this last year (10/13/2002), which you can read online if you cough up a few bucks:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...DA90994DA404482The upshot of the article was that younger people have less money to spend than advertisers believe, they are less malleable to brand loyalty than generally thought, and don't really pay that close attention to commercials. Older age groups, conversely, have more discretionary money than generally thought, are willing to spend it, and can be influenced by commercials, and yet only 10% of advertising dollars are aimed at 50%+ of discretionary income.
