Daybreak - the launch onwards

I agree. Too much messing around with a good, very different, more entertaining format that daybreak had. I didn't understand people's want for hard news, as that is available from sky, and a more news led programme on the BBC. The studio, as nice as it looked with sun was always going to be a problem in the winter. It's just a shame that they didn't experiment more with the studio before applying yellow blinds, then more wooden walls, and a giant red replacement sofa.

Maybe dropping GMTV was the start of the problem, Adrian & Christine coming to GMTV would have created a fanfare without a backlash from old GMTV viewers, with a tweaked format, and modernised presentation.
But what's done is done, I hope we don't end up with the later years of GMTV again, even if they keep the daybreak name.

The original Daybreak was just a modernised GMTV and I feel the negativity surrounding it was much more than the show itself. They just managed to alienate their audience in the run up with all the stories in the press with ITV basically saying how bad GMTV was and how amazing Daybreak will be. They alienated this audience to chase an upmarket and younger audience that simply isn't there. All GMTV needed was a revamp and a reshuffle of their presenting team.

I really don't think any reversal to the GMTV brand would do the show any favours at all. I'd still be in favour of keeping the Daybreak brand and hoping like TVam and GMTV before it that a revamp can see it through - as if it doesn't and they do rebrand they'll be in the same boat a year or two down the line anyway.

As for other brands - I don't think any ITV News branding would help it, and more importantly I think lending the ITV News brand to breakfast would actually devalue the already fairly unloved ITV News brand as it is. I just had a random thought pop into my head of linking it to This Morning and perhaps branding it "Early Morning", with it being more lifestyle focus - but again that risks harming the This Morning brand too - and having 4 hours or so of effectively the same show (with two sets of hosts) would be too much. Could they get away with ITVam - a nod to the 80s, but possibly a nod too far to TVam?

As for hosts - well if Kate Garraway and Richard Arnold are anywhere near it I won't be tuning in for sure. I really don't think there are many viable options at the moment (Adrian and Christine were actually very good signings on paper - it just didn't work out). Maybe rather than looking for young upstarts they'd be better off looking towards older hosts that might get more BBC Breakfast viewers tuning in to give them a try rather than the random young upstarts that seem to be mentioned in the press.

No, just no.

GMTV needed to go. It needed to go for ITV to refresh its breakfast offering. There's no "all it needed was revamp" about it. Whatever happens, GMTV should not come back. It's in the past. Bringing GMTV back would be the absolute worst decision IMO. I cannot stress that enough.

ITV did get the Daybreak launch wrong, and they launched it with the wrong presenters. Really, the show should have tried to become successful at first and then try and get Adrian and Christine in and see if they would work.

But at the end of the day this is just another one of those "what if" posts in the biggest "what if" thread on the biggest "what if" forum on the internet.

I agree with you that it was the right decision at the time but if they were serious about getting rid of GMTV they should have tried a completely different format. It had turned back into GMTV within 6 months and with how the show looks now, and the direction it is going in (Lorraine Kelly presenting, Richard Arnold supposedly returning, hassled mums, newshour etc) it makes the entire exercise pointless. What was the point, really? They didn't have enough perseverance to stick it out for the first year or so and backtracked too quickly.

Meh, the woe of people thinking of the return of GMTV. It's not going to happen, any more than GMTV would've resurrected the name TV-am when their own station failed in the beginning.

Reproduce, copyright permitting - if you can.

As for Daybreak: they're returning to an indoor studio ( )

OK I may give 'Daybreak' another chance if I'm not told it has to be 'LONDON: as the centre of the known universe' in the background.

Chances are that my viewership would last <5 mins before a sponsorship or advert comes up: then the channel is changed to either BBC One, Sky News or Bloomberg.

I have limited time in the morning. I don't want to be sold things, or even told who sponsored their 'weather/pollen, jamboree' forecasts. It's irrelevant and pathetic, and I have little memory retention sub-8am anyway, so I don't know why they bother telling me.

When I get to work I can't remember whether it was marmalade, pate or cheap cream cheese I had on my toast. However, I like my routine - BBC Breakfast still provides that - despite the sniping DM comments. To most people it looks the same.

Oh yes, definitely agree on the sponsorship stings, they really take up valuable time. All those transitions between the logo and the sponsorship. It's just as bad on the regional news, but not as nearly as wasteful as on a breakfast programme.

"Over to Fred on the roof"
"So, what do we have tonight well..."
*5 sec weather sting*
*5 sec sponsorship sting*
Actual weather forecast
*5 sec sponsorship sting*
*5 sec weather sting*

It really takes up too much time. It's the only part of TV I'd like to see Americanized, flowing better with the adverts integrated, maybe just fading up in the corner if they have to have sponsorship.

The only problem for me with Breakfast is the stiff and staid feeling of it, plus the oh so obvious "reports" that are just blatant adverts for BBC programmes coming up later on in the day. I know ITV does this on Daybreak too, but it does it a lot less and it's a lot less annoying.

Phil, there are only 'obvious and blatant' promotions for BBC programmes after 08:30 when they're only for BBC One viewers.

It's the 'entertainment' section of the programme.

Futhermore, I've never found it 'stiff'.

Tv forumers loved it not the general public. Tv forumers who are obsessed with studio's, graphic's, titles and sets, the public are not. From Daybreakers to 5 a day it seemed to me to be 'RI:SE' 2. Totally style over substance and far too gimmicky. It was far from the Today show that ITV promised.

My most prominent memories of the launch were of the OTT laughter from the crew at Adrian's jokes. It was natural on The One Show, it was clearly fake/put on here.

Are you joking? Their current obsession with interviewing BGT auditionees drives me up the wall and its the same when Dancing on Ice and The X factor is on. At least the BBC Breakfast leave the SCD/ X Factor/ The Voice acts until past 8.40pm

BBC Breakfast is very smug though - I much prefer no TV in the morning...

You misunderstand me. Did you not see the report which was just an ad for Bang Goes the Theory the other day, on well before 8.40? (by which time I'm not watching it anyway).

And I guess Daybreak must do it more now then, haven't watched it in a few weeks.