When I watch clips like this I see a happy show that doesn't seem to take itself too seriously, allowing the presenters to do such links as on the clip, and to make an informative, but alternative programme. I wonder what would have happened if they hadn't have made any tweaks, if things like 5 a day had continued, if they'd relied less on returning to a GMTV format even adopting things like 1 minute tv. If they'd have left the programme as it was for the first few editions, would people have got used to that format, more so than enjoy it today.
They did stick with the original format for the first few weeks, but when Kate & Dan did their first bit of cover presenting a few weeks in there was a shift back to a more GMTV format and the viewing figures went up. They seem to have stuck with that format, but taking it too far in the opposite direction to what we're left with now.
Also, if you say that Lorraine attracted 1m viewers, that needs to be taken into account when comparing Daybreak to Breakfast. It would be interesting to see Breakfast's average until 8:30 and then their average post-8:30 (but not sure if how possible it is).
Even if you put Daybreak and Lorraine together, the average would only be about 0.6m anyway. To look at the ratings in relative terms, Daybreak lost 50% of its usual audience whilst BBC Breakfast lost around 30%. Also, Lorraine got its regular figures despite being a pre recorded "beauty special" presented by Carol Vorderman which makes the Daybreak figure even more embarrassing.
If ITV are determined to make a success of Daybreak, they could easily manipulate the figures by airing CITV from 6-7am and Daybreak from 7-8.30am. They should really test this out on bank holidays, if I remember rightly when they did that over Christmas, CITV managed to get 200,000 viewers compared to Daybreak's usual 300,000 in that slot.