Early schedules suggest ITV aren't bothering to do Daybreak on the 28th/29th/30th December this year. With the show in the shape it is in, it's probably for the best. At least it'll avoid the "Troubled Daybreak falls to 300,000 viewers" stories in the tabloids. They will air CITV and children's films instead.
I do wish our breakfast presenters could work more on making the show a success. When you look at the US equivalents, they usually work 5 days a week and seem to put a lot more into it, it almost seems more like a job. Here it feels like not just on Daybreak, but throughout they are waiting to sign off.
You would think the BBC at least would use the current economy as the excuse to get people on a five day week. The radio hosts generally manage it, so why not on TV? BBC Breakfast at Salford might see their main hosts on a three day week if some reports are to be believed.
To be fair to Adrian and Christine up until recently they've probably worked more days than any other presenters on a weekday show in the last year - and would have done more if Adrian wasn't doing the Champions League.
When Anne Diamond got the job presenting TV-am she had only been a local TV reporter for three years.
The idea that presenters must be well-known and have loads of experience behind them is a fairly recent phenomenon which has meant we've been stuck with the same tired merry-go-round of presenters and newsreaders for the last half a decade.
If Adrian and Christine didn't prove that picking personalities off a shelf is a really lazy way of putting a show together then I don't know what does.
In my opinion, advertise the jobs properly, scour the country for hidden talent and bring some new faces to the fore. Viewers probably say they want someone they are familiar with but frankly the public don't really know what they want, and I think if given the chance, Daybreak viewers would actually appreciate getting to know a pair of brand new presenters and kind of making them their own, if that makes sense.
Just a few thoughts.
I have to fully agree with you there, I dare say TV-am started using the new employees, who were already in the station as cheap form of labour, but it paid off. even CITV, STV and whole host of other companies have done the same. Just look at Countdown. who outside Yorkshire would know who Richard whitely would be
I do wish our breakfast presenters could work more on making the show a success. When you look at the US equivalents, they usually work 5 days a week and seem to put a lot more into it, it almost seems more like a job. Here it feels like not just on Daybreak, but throughout they are waiting to sign off.
You would think the BBC at least would use the current economy as the excuse to get people on a five day week. The radio hosts generally manage it, so why not on TV? BBC Breakfast at Salford might see their main hosts on a three day week if some reports are to be believed.
To be fair to Adrian and Christine up until recently they've probably worked more days than any other presenters on a weekday show in the last year - and would have done more if Adrian wasn't doing the Champions League.
If the presenters work three days then no doubt they will be doing so for reduced salaries/fees.
If the presenters work three days then no doubt they will be doing so for reduced salaries/fees.
I thought Sian & Bill currently did 4 days a week on BBC Breakfast, together with other stints doing the national news bulletins.
I doubt they are far short of the usual 37 hours that most people do each week with their other commitments.
They're in at 4am, and probably don't get away until about 11am. That might only add up to around 28 hours just doing Breakfast: but I wouldn't relish doing live TV for more than 3 hours a day, even if it was a 4 day week.
:-(
A former member
To my knowledge John Mckay of STV news does at least 9 hours a day,, with only up to 60mins of "live" broadcasts a day.
If the presenters work three days then no doubt they will be doing so for reduced salaries/fees.
I thought Sian & Bill currently did 4 days a week on BBC Breakfast, together with other stints doing the national news bulletins.
I doubt they are far short of the usual 37 hours that most people do each week with their other commitments.
They're in at 4am, and probably don't get away until about 11am. That might only add up to around 28 hours just doing Breakfast: but I wouldn't relish doing live TV for more than 3 hours a day, even if it was a 4 day week.
You may find they're in even later than 11 - working on stuff for the day after, for example, or in meetings, Sian also does a lot of other work for the One/Six and Radio 4 too. (I've certainly seen Sian on twitter tweeting that she has to go back in to work).
I don't know if Bill would have his salary reduced for three days - they may just leave it as it is to accommodate him. I imagine the last thing they want to do is lose him!
Confused by all this discussion about how many days a week each presenter does.
I don't know the specifics of Sian's contract, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if she was contracted to a specific number of days a year. The BBC will decide how to to allocate her presentation duties based on the number of days they have decided to contract her for.
It may be a bit of wild assumption to assume any presenters contract is for 5 days a week, 47 weeks a year, many contracts are for fewer days than this...
Most - but not all - presenters are not staff, and have individual freelance contracts instead.
I have to fully agree with you there, I dare say TV-am started using the new employees, who were already in the station as cheap form of labour, but it paid off.
Not really, TVam started with 5 very famous and high-profile presenters and then only promoted the likes of Ann Diamond and Nick Owen when the station started to fall apart and 3 of them got fired or resigned (it was even less successful than Daybreak!). It was because they had no-one else rather than cost cutting!