I must say, this months 'Viewback' survey was
extremely
interesting! The whole survey was based around the news outputs from Sunrise, Daybreak and Breakfast. Many of the questions were such like 'Should there be more news on Daybreak', 'what to do make of the length of the bulletins', 'should the presenters read the news or should there be a separate presenter', should news come from behind a desk'. It appears ITV are conscious of the difference in news provisions between the 3 main breakfast channels - and are perhaps looking to rectify this? In september?
Some stirring from The Mirror about Daybreak. Not sure I believe it but you never know...
Quote:
Daybreak: Bosses can't afford compensation to axe Christine Bleakley and Adrian Chiles
ITV chiefs want to dump Daybreak presenters Christine Bleakley and Adrian Chiles – but can’t afford the £4million pay-off.
The breakfast show is “horribly underperforming” according to senior sources and profits from advertising have halved since it replaced GMTV last year.
Bosses are desperate for a sofa shake-up but the duo are on £3million three-year deals and would have to be paid £2million each if they were axed now.
ITV finance chiefs say that is not an option as profits continue to slide.
A source said: “We got stiffed on the deal. We can’t pay them millions for nothing.”
Bleakley, 32, has already turned down a prime-time ITV entertainment show and Chiles is being urged to focus on Champions League football and his Sunday chat show.
Daybreak kicked off last September with about 900,000 viewers, slumped to a low of 300,000 in January and currently pulls in about 700,000. Predecessor GMTV attracted a steady 900,000 and rival BBC Breakfast pulls in about 1.5 million viewers.
It is Daybreak’s failure to win back the breakfast crown from the BBC that has prompted crisis talks over Bleakley and Chiles.
One source said: “It’s a common thing in television.The original faces on GMTV didn’t work, it was only when it was overhauled after six months on air that they became successful.
“The same needs to be done here. People have had a look at Christine and Adrian in the mornings and said ‘no thanks’.
“There was too much hype and fanfare about them. The show is horribly underperforming and needs to be fixed.”
Daybreak currently earns ITV only half of what GMTV did. The source added: “We spent £15million on Daybreak and we’ve gone backwards. It needs sorting. But Christine and Adrian are an expensive headache.”
ITV spent much of Daybreak’s budget poaching Bleakley and Chiles from the BBC’s One Show but the “chemistry” that brought them success there has failed to materialise on the breakfast sofa.
Bosses admit their big salaries and Bleakley’s status as Chelsea star Frank Lampard’s WAG was a turn-off in a recession.
In November, Bleakley admitted the show had “teething problems” but after no improvement, sources now view them as rather more terminal.
Earlier this year, former GMTV boss Peter McHugh said: “It is six months now since ITV launched Daybreak. The audience doesn’t like it. It’s time for a change.”
He said Chiles was “not a morning person” and that Bleakley looked “uncomfortable”.
Even ITV chief executive Adam Crozier has admitted: “Daybreak has not performed as well as we would have liked.”
And earlier this year, Chiles himself said: “I don’t think the British public wants to be told what to watch.
“I wish that we hadn’t done that and had let people discover it for themselves – more low key with less fanfare.”
Last night an ITV spokesman insisted: “We have no plans to change Daybreak’s presenting team.
“Daybreak has continued to see steady growth in viewing particularly amongst housewives with children and younger viewers, and we continue to listen to feedback from our audience and develop the show.”
To axe Adrian and Christine would cost £4m (£2m each)? How much would a replacement team's ratings have to go up by to pay for a new team (both on-screen and presumably partially off), cover the £4m pay off for the old presenting team and still make more money ? It's another gamble isn't it?
There is also the Breakfast moving to Salford opportunity I'm sure ITV can see looming... They don't have long at all if they want to bed down a new team before Breakfast moves..
Some stirring from The Mirror about Daybreak. Not sure I believe it but you never know...
Quote:
Daybreak: Bosses can't afford compensation to axe Christine Bleakley and Adrian Chiles
ITV chiefs want to dump Daybreak presenters Christine Bleakley and Adrian Chiles – but can’t afford the £4million pay-off.
The breakfast show is “horribly underperforming” according to senior sources and profits from advertising have halved since it replaced GMTV last year.
Bosses are desperate for a sofa shake-up but the duo are on £3million three-year deals and would have to be paid £2million each if they were axed now.
ITV finance chiefs say that is not an option as profits continue to slide.
Profits are hardly going to rise while ITV keeps Adrian and Christine on.
Viewers liked TV-am and GMTV because the shows were cosy and the presenters felt like an extended family.
Daybreak is set in a poncy riverside apartment and when the presenters gather on the sofa it's like a scene out of Friends.
Just scrap the whole show and start again. (Keep the name, obviously.)
Some stirring from The Mirror about Daybreak. Not sure I believe it but you never know...
Quote:
Daybreak: Bosses can't afford compensation to axe Christine Bleakley and Adrian Chiles
ITV chiefs want to dump Daybreak presenters Christine Bleakley and Adrian Chiles – but can’t afford the £4million pay-off.
The breakfast show is “horribly underperforming” according to senior sources and profits from advertising have halved since it replaced GMTV last year.
Bosses are desperate for a sofa shake-up but the duo are on £3million three-year deals and would have to be paid £2million each if they were axed now.
ITV finance chiefs say that is not an option as profits continue to slide.
Profits are hardly going to rise while ITV keeps Adrian and Christine on.
But will profits rise enough to cover the pay off if ITV decide to axe them? ITV now lives and dies by the bottom line I think...
Some stirring from The Mirror about Daybreak. Not sure I believe it but you never know...
Quote:
Daybreak: Bosses can't afford compensation to axe Christine Bleakley and Adrian Chiles
ITV chiefs want to dump Daybreak presenters Christine Bleakley and Adrian Chiles – but can’t afford the £4million pay-off.
The breakfast show is “horribly underperforming” according to senior sources and profits from advertising have halved since it replaced GMTV last year.
Bosses are desperate for a sofa shake-up but the duo are on £3million three-year deals and would have to be paid £2million each if they were axed now.
ITV finance chiefs say that is not an option as profits continue to slide.
Profits are hardly going to rise while ITV keeps Adrian and Christine on.
But will profits rise enough to cover the pay off if ITV decide to axe them? ITV now lives and dies by the bottom line I think...
At this rate, ITV1 could get more viewers, and a better demographic by showing reruns of ITV2 shows like TOWIE and Kerry Katona in the morning. That's NOT what they should be doing but it's a sign that things need to change NOW.
This story is on the front page of The Mirror, and of course they held it up during 'in the mix'. Adrian quickly noticed it and covered it up, looking quite embarrassed and then moved on to the next paper.
I don't see why ITV would need to pay them compensation to drop them, it isn't as though they are being released from their contract and wouldn't be presenting other shows unless ITV stupidly put Daybreak into their contract. There could be ways round it though, including dropping Daybreak completely.
I don't see why ITV would need to pay them compensation to drop them, it isn't as though they are being released from their contract and wouldn't be presenting other shows unless ITV stupidly put Daybreak into their contract. There could be ways round it though, including dropping Daybreak completely.
I suspect that their contracts are for a certain number of hours. If they were moved from Daybreak, I doubt ITV could find enough programmes for them to fill 10 hours a week.
I don't see why ITV would need to pay them compensation to drop them, it isn't as though they are being released from their contract and wouldn't be presenting other shows unless ITV stupidly put Daybreak into their contract. There could be ways round it though, including dropping Daybreak completely.
I suspect that their contracts are for a certain number of hours. If they were moved from Daybreak, I doubt ITV could find enough programmes for them to fill 10 hours a week.
They could give them another daytime show after the lunchtime new (Des & Mel style) but I'm not sure ITV would purposely not include a get out clause for a contract of that sum.
I don't see why ITV would need to pay them compensation to drop them, it isn't as though they are being released from their contract and wouldn't be presenting other shows unless ITV stupidly put Daybreak into their contract. There could be ways round it though, including dropping Daybreak completely.
I suspect that their contracts are for a certain number of hours. If they were moved from Daybreak, I doubt ITV could find enough programmes for them to fill 10 hours a week.
They could give them another daytime show after the lunchtime new (Des & Mel style) but I'm not sure ITV would purposely not include a get out clause for a contract of that sum.
That would make sense, A little low-budget Daybreak in the middle of the afternoon! 'Day
time
' rather than 'Day
break
'
I don't see why ITV would need to pay them compensation to drop them, it isn't as though they are being released from their contract and wouldn't be presenting other shows unless ITV stupidly put Daybreak into their contract. There could be ways round it though, including dropping Daybreak completely.
I suspect that their contracts are for a certain number of hours. If they were moved from Daybreak, I doubt ITV could find enough programmes for them to fill 10 hours a week.
They could give them another daytime show after the lunchtime new (Des & Mel style) but I'm not sure ITV would purposely not include a get out clause for a contract of that sum.
It's incredible if ITV didn't insist on a get out clause if the show didn't hit certain targets. After The X Factor debacle where they spent a hell of a lot of money renewing a bare bones format without any of its stars at the same time, maybe ITV should get some new lawyers in.
I'm surprised it's so difficult for ITV to get out of these contracts. I just assumed they were signed to ITV so bosses could move them to any show they wanted. Sounds like an own goal of a contract from ITV.