Daybreak - the launch onwards

To return, now, to the subject of the thread - which is Daybreak, for those that might have forgotten amidst the fog of today's grammar lesson - I'm not certain, in fact I know, that your argument does not stand up to scrutiny, ginofish.



As I understand it, GMTV averaged 689 000 viewers per diem throughout August (traditionally, a time in which many individuals and families are away on holiday) whilst Daybreak averaged 891 000 viewers on 8th September (a time at which the schools have returned and very few people are on holiday). Although it is possible to say that Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley are responsible for an additional 202 000 viewers (which accounts for 22.6% of Daybreak's total average viewing figure for that day), you haven't explained how Chiles and Bleakley are responsible for the 689 000 (77.4%) viewers that tune in each day. I realise that some of the viewers will be lifetime subscription members of the Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley Fan Club and will naturally have followed their idols to ITV, but it beggars belief that they alone are responsible for the 891 000 viewers that tune in.

With regards to Dan Lobb and Kate Garraway taking over in the event that Daybreak proved to be a ratings disaster, I think that it's fair to say that Kate Garraway was one of the most recognisable faces of GMTV. If you can argue a case for Chiles and Bleakley being responsible for 891 000 viewers, then I'm sure that I can argue a case for Garraway both being responsible for 689 000 viewers and being able to sustain that level of viewing figures.

[[Mod edit to remove off-topic nitpicking relating to spelling & grammar.]]

At the end of the day, this is only the second week, viewing figures are up on GMTV and the show has to be given time to establish itself. GMTV was not popular when it was launched after TV-AM and it then stayed for 17 years.

The newspapers are not going to report what a fantastic and amazing show it is, that doesn't make a "spicy" news story!

moreover, The One Show massively under-performed in its first few months (though was of course subject to less publicity). Peter Fincham must feel like he's seen it all before.

GMTV dumped its own format and went running back to the TVAM format within 3 months...... only reason its been around is it followed the Tvam fomat ( which has been around since 1984.....

I get the feeling that if ratings don't improve, within a few months they will build a GMTV style set in front of the window, rather than the window being the entire set.

Many people are complaining that Daybreak's set is too cold and dark, but then many people complained GMTV's set was too cosy and outdated. They can't win.

But here's the thing - unless ratings fall below those of GMTV's, why would they change anything? Surely the only benefit of reintroducing GMTV elements is to try to attract back GMTV's audience who (at the moment, at least) seem to be sticking with Daybreak, but with an additional audience too.

I think if Daybreak fails to maintain a significant lead over GMTV's previous ratings then the launch was a waste of money, but nothing more. If Daybreak can increase its audience share and therefore bring ITV some much needed extra advertising sales, it's worked a treat. But can anyone (and did anyone) genuinely believe that will/would happen?



Oh and fish, please b*gger off. It's beyond pathetic now.

We are two weeks in and already people are saying bring back the features of GMTV Why ? why change anything when its already doing better than it ? , The studio is fine , the presenters are popular there is no need.
As far as im concerned GMTV was getting to showbiz and stupid features and needed a drastic change like has went on .

Its already poached some viewers from bbc and I think ratings will go up , and lets be honest beyond these tv forums no ones going to sit there and think oh that reflection of Dan lobb is not as cocha as gmtv .

As far as im concerned its fantastic.

The ratings are now lower than what GMTV used to get.

Source? (I'm not suggesting you're wrong, just curious about figures)

First of all, to the Moderator who edited my last post, I'd be grateful if you got in touch with Asa; I emailed to explain why it's important that somebody does actually try to correct ginofish's spelling, punctuation and grammar.

Secondly, ginofish, is it beyond you to justify your comments just once in a while? I've suggested this to you before and I'm trying to be helpful in the hope that some of the criticism directed at you might abate. You say that Daybreak has poached viewers from the BBC but offer no evidence to substantiate it. The last time I checked, the viewing figures for BBC Breakfast had increased so I don't see how you can make this claim. I doubt very much that people who used to watch Breakfast for hard news in the morning switched to Daybreak. You also think that the ratings will go up but don't explain why. All the evidence, at the moment, is to the contrary.

By the way, could you explain the comment about Dan Lobb's reflection and GMTV?

Not really to do with this thread as such, but close enough.

Had to love Dame Edna Everage calling Alex Jones , Christine on The One show. Also saying something along the lines of "Christine was good on Daybreak this morning" !

Ratings from Broadcast and Breakfast has actually held its ratings but Daybreak is up on one GMTV was getting. So the facts are Daybreak has lost some of its launch audience but is doing better than GMTV. But Daybreak has yet to steal viewers from BBC Breakfast and Breakfast is still the leader.