The Newsroom

BBC Breakfast

From 6am (April 2012)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
GE
Generic
Joe posted:
Surely that shows how easy travel is..?


Not really as breakfast is on air 0600-0915 and Newswatch is recorded around 1400. Totally different travelling dynamic.
My point is NOT to knock breakfast from Salford, its about what message it sends out. I honestly believe that the interview should have been a dtl with the contributor sitting on the Breakfast sofa.
Perhaps even, Newswatch should have gone to Salford to record that weeks programme from the breakfast base.
CA
Cando
Generic posted:
My point is NOT to knock breakfast from Salford.


That would make a nice change eh Generic Wink
JO
Joe
Generic posted:
Joe posted:
Surely that shows how easy travel is..?


Not really as breakfast is on air 0600-0915 and Newswatch is recorded around 1400. Totally different travelling dynamic.

I don't think people would think too much into it, 'it's about what message it sends out'.
MA
Marcus Founding member
crownprince posted:
This is the same old question that keeps cropping up, rather annoyingly. I can assure you that there are no plans to move Breakfast from Salford. Viewing figures are strong and there is no issue with management regarding the guests on the sofa or 'down the line'.
It needs to be put to bed.


No plans- That you know off...
JO
Justice Once
These tiresome arguments between those who do and don't like the fact that Breakfast in now in Salford, bring a simple point to mind...

Is it not the case that the whole reason why the BBC have moved a certain proportion of their "national" output/departmens to a location in northern England is beacause they were obliged to? (by the government?) Sport + Children's + Breakfast + whatever-else-has-moved-to-Salford obviously equals the correct "proportion" as per the obligations.

So, *if* there were ever a u-turn, and Breakfast moved back to London, would someting else not then have to move up from London to Salford? That Breakfast happens to be one of the things filling the "Salford quota", is surely no better/worse than something else doing so in its place?

It's not as if Breakfast is being presented from the moon, with the presenters speaking exclusively in Esperanto, and introducing only items about skateboarding ducks etc, now is it?
Last edited by Justice Once on 7 September 2012 6:54pm - 2 times in total
NG
noggin Founding member
Justice Once posted:
These tiresome arguments between those who do and don't like the fact that Breakfast in now in Salford, bring a simple point to mind...

Is it not the case that the whole reason why the BBC have moved a certain proportion of their "national" output/departmens to a location in northern England is beacause they were obliged to? (by the government?) Sport + Children's + Breakfast + whatever-else-has-moved-to-Salford obviously equals the correct "proportion" as per the obligations.

So, *if* there were ever a u-turn, and Breakfast moved back to London, would someting else not then have to move up from London to Salford? That Breakfast happens to be one of the things filling the "Salford quota", is surely no better/worse than something else doing so in its place?

It's not as if Breakfast is being presented from the moon, with the presenters speaking exclusively in Esperanto, and introducing only items about skateboarding ducks etc, now is it?


Slight over simplification.

The BBC and the Govt played a game of chicken over the licence fee settlement. The BBC said, we need more money or we won't go to Salford. The Govt said, you're not getting any money and you have to go to Salford (and I accept this - itself - is a simplification)

However AIUI the Govt didn't (and couldn't) stipulate how many and which departments moved. However the BBC agreed a certain number of jobs would move to Salford in return for funding from the NW Development Corporation or similar - and this was based on Five Live, Children's, Sport and some of FM&T relocating. However because of the less-than-expected licence fee settlement, all of these departments downsized.

This left the headcount moving North less than was required to satisfy the agreements made - so an additional programme had to move to make up the numbers. Hence the Breakfast move - which was announced much later - and not part of the studio plans (and thus shares with the regional news operation...)
MA
Marcus Founding member
noggin posted:
Justice Once posted:
These tiresome arguments between those who do and don't like the fact that Breakfast in now in Salford, bring a simple point to mind...

Is it not the case that the whole reason why the BBC have moved a certain proportion of their "national" output/departmens to a location in northern England is beacause they were obliged to? (by the government?) Sport + Children's + Breakfast + whatever-else-has-moved-to-Salford obviously equals the correct "proportion" as per the obligations.

So, *if* there were ever a u-turn, and Breakfast moved back to London, would someting else not then have to move up from London to Salford? That Breakfast happens to be one of the things filling the "Salford quota", is surely no better/worse than something else doing so in its place?

It's not as if Breakfast is being presented from the moon, with the presenters speaking exclusively in Esperanto, and introducing only items about skateboarding ducks etc, now is it?


Slight over simplification.

The BBC and the Govt played a game of chicken over the licence fee settlement. The BBC said, we need more money or we won't go to Salford. The Govt said, you're not getting any money and you have to go to Salford (and I accept this - itself - is a simplification)

However AIUI the Govt didn't (and couldn't) stipulate how many and which departments moved. However the BBC agreed a certain number of jobs would move to Salford in return for funding from the NW Development Corporation or similar - and this was based on Five Live, Children's, Sport and some of FM&T relocating. However because of the less-than-expected licence fee settlement, all of these departments downsized.

This left the headcount moving North less than was required to satisfy the agreements made - so an additional programme had to move to make up the numbers. Hence the Breakfast move - which was announced much later - and not part of the studio plans (and thus shares with the regional news operation...)


Absolutely. It was about filling numbers into spreadsheets and nothing to do with what is best for the programme.
AM
amosc100
Marcus posted:
noggin posted:
Justice Once posted:
These tiresome arguments between those who do and don't like the fact that Breakfast in now in Salford, bring a simple point to mind...

Is it not the case that the whole reason why the BBC have moved a certain proportion of their "national" output/departmens to a location in northern England is beacause they were obliged to? (by the government?) Sport + Children's + Breakfast + whatever-else-has-moved-to-Salford obviously equals the correct "proportion" as per the obligations.

So, *if* there were ever a u-turn, and Breakfast moved back to London, would someting else not then have to move up from London to Salford? That Breakfast happens to be one of the things filling the "Salford quota", is surely no better/worse than something else doing so in its place?

It's not as if Breakfast is being presented from the moon, with the presenters speaking exclusively in Esperanto, and introducing only items about skateboarding ducks etc, now is it?


Slight over simplification.

The BBC and the Govt played a game of chicken over the licence fee settlement. The BBC said, we need more money or we won't go to Salford. The Govt said, you're not getting any money and you have to go to Salford (and I accept this - itself - is a simplification)

However AIUI the Govt didn't (and couldn't) stipulate how many and which departments moved. However the BBC agreed a certain number of jobs would move to Salford in return for funding from the NW Development Corporation or similar - and this was based on Five Live, Children's, Sport and some of FM&T relocating. However because of the less-than-expected licence fee settlement, all of these departments downsized.

This left the headcount moving North less than was required to satisfy the agreements made - so an additional programme had to move to make up the numbers. Hence the Breakfast move - which was announced much later - and not part of the studio plans (and thus shares with the regional news operation...)


Absolutely. It was about filling numbers into spreadsheets and nothing to do with what is best for the programme.


So what is best for the programme?

Guests that know what they are talking about still appear on the couch! - ok they may not be from the universities that are based in London but they are from universities that are based in the NOrth West and are just as knowledgable as their counterparts in the London conurbation.

Entertainment section is as good, if not better, than when it was in London!

MP's still being dtl at Westminster so no change there!

Number of viewers watching the programme is stable and has not decreased!

Only difference being is the height of the studio and the backdrop and the weather being presented elsewhere - which happened in London for quite a number of years anyway!
AC
aconnell
So we had Dominic Laurie filling in for Steph today, we've got Susanna Streeter tomorrow.

Also, Adam Parsons is presenting this Sunday with Naga too.

Business people galore! Does that mean Ben Thompson should be flown back from NY?!
AL
AaronLancs
amosc100 posted:
Marcus posted:
noggin posted:
Justice Once posted:
These tiresome arguments between those who do and don't like the fact that Breakfast in now in Salford, bring a simple point to mind...

Is it not the case that the whole reason why the BBC have moved a certain proportion of their "national" output/departmens to a location in northern England is beacause they were obliged to? (by the government?) Sport + Children's + Breakfast + whatever-else-has-moved-to-Salford obviously equals the correct "proportion" as per the obligations.

So, *if* there were ever a u-turn, and Breakfast moved back to London, would someting else not then have to move up from London to Salford? That Breakfast happens to be one of the things filling the "Salford quota", is surely no better/worse than something else doing so in its place?

It's not as if Breakfast is being presented from the moon, with the presenters speaking exclusively in Esperanto, and introducing only items about skateboarding ducks etc, now is it?


Slight over simplification.

The BBC and the Govt played a game of chicken over the licence fee settlement. The BBC said, we need more money or we won't go to Salford. The Govt said, you're not getting any money and you have to go to Salford (and I accept this - itself - is a simplification)

However AIUI the Govt didn't (and couldn't) stipulate how many and which departments moved. However the BBC agreed a certain number of jobs would move to Salford in return for funding from the NW Development Corporation or similar - and this was based on Five Live, Children's, Sport and some of FM&T relocating. However because of the less-than-expected licence fee settlement, all of these departments downsized.

This left the headcount moving North less than was required to satisfy the agreements made - so an additional programme had to move to make up the numbers. Hence the Breakfast move - which was announced much later - and not part of the studio plans (and thus shares with the regional news operation...)


Absolutely. It was about filling numbers into spreadsheets and nothing to do with what is best for the programme.


So what is best for the programme?

Guests that know what they are talking about still appear on the couch! - ok they may not be from the universities that are based in London but they are from universities that are based in the NOrth West and are just as knowledgable as their counterparts in the London conurbation.

Entertainment section is as good, if not better, than when it was in London!

MP's still being dtl at Westminster so no change there!

Number of viewers watching the programme is stable and has not decreased!

Only difference being is the height of the studio and the backdrop and the weather being presented elsewhere - which happened in London for quite a number of years anyway!


I know it may be a bit big headed for a northern lad to say this, but is it me or has the quality and more importantly the variety of guests gone up since the move to MediaCity.
AC
aconnell
Also a Northerner, I'd agree. And I think one of the best things has been more musical performances. There was always space in TC7 (if they moved the desk as they often did at Christmas), but they seem now in Salford to invite more musicians not just to talk but also to sing. I watched London and although there were not always big names, there were still interesting guests, which seems to have been taken a step further in Salford.
LL
London Lite Founding member
Penny Haslam in for Steph tomorrow.

Newer posts