HR
Normally I'm at work, but today watched Daybreak. Personally, I like it. The feel of the show is comfortable. Give it a chance, it's only the end of week two!
GI
Justify my posts the articles I had read last week suggested that It is up from GMTV was and I can give evidence of them poaching viewers
Me
and quite a few people I know are now watching ITV Breakfast , and of couse some would turn over for change ? because they like AC+ CB ? Etc.
Also up until about 2008 I watched GMTV but then it just went dredful (apart from Loraine) , Ive seen sunrise on occasion and out of them along with Daybeak and breakfast I Like daybreak the most changes in viewing happen for example when the one show started out it didant do that well but when it come permantly and It got talked about more it got more ratings.
Re: Dan Lobbs reflection- A Couple of times whilst ive been watching tamsin reading the news ive seen Dans reflection behind her.
Also up until about 2008 I watched GMTV but then it just went dredful (apart from Loraine) , Ive seen sunrise on occasion and out of them along with Daybeak and breakfast I Like daybreak the most changes in viewing happen for example when the one show started out it didant do that well but when it come permantly and It got talked about more it got more ratings.
Re: Dan Lobbs reflection- A Couple of times whilst ive been watching tamsin reading the news ive seen Dans reflection behind her.
BR
Worth noting too they aren't like for like ratings - GMTV's figure is propped up by the old Lorraine slot, which is now reported separately and usually over 1m.
Interesting though to see how it's actually improved in Scotland (IIRC overtaking Breakfast) and in many Northern ITV regions on GMTV, but declined in London. That just proves the TV execs theories about people out of London not being able to watch a programme with a London background are just utter nonsense.
Interesting though to see how it's actually improved in Scotland (IIRC overtaking Breakfast) and in many Northern ITV regions on GMTV, but declined in London. That just proves the TV execs theories about people out of London not being able to watch a programme with a London background are just utter nonsense.
CH
Daybreak is never going to appropriate a meaningful number of viewers from BBC Breakfast because, by and large, the type of people who watch BBC Breakfast are (I don't mean this in a derogatory way) snobs. If ITV created a carbon copy of Breakfast then BBC viewers would still refuse to turn over, because
urggh, it's on ITV!
That's just the way it is and always will be.
HO
You get simply more and more rediculous every time you post. I seriously hope you're not for real and that you're actually some member having a laugh - it's ridiculous enough Asa, Bail or Charlie Wells hasn't banned you already.
Secondly, can everyone stop saying 'go easy on Daybreak it's only been a week or two' - to my knowledge no-one is making any rash or overly critical remarks.
Let's wait and see if these figures hold or improve over time, but surely an average 61,000 viewer increase isn't terribly high given the programmes high spend to date?
I can give evidence of them poaching viewers
Me
and quite a few people I know are now watching ITV Breakfast
You get simply more and more rediculous every time you post. I seriously hope you're not for real and that you're actually some member having a laugh - it's ridiculous enough Asa, Bail or Charlie Wells hasn't banned you already.
Secondly, can everyone stop saying 'go easy on Daybreak it's only been a week or two' - to my knowledge no-one is making any rash or overly critical remarks.
Quote:
Daybreak loses fifth of viewers
The morning show has so far averaged 876,700 (21.67%) viewers, putting it ahead of GMTV’s average audience of 815,700 (20.91%) for the year until it took its final bow on 3 September.
The morning show has so far averaged 876,700 (21.67%) viewers, putting it ahead of GMTV’s average audience of 815,700 (20.91%) for the year until it took its final bow on 3 September.
Let's wait and see if these figures hold or improve over time, but surely an average 61,000 viewer increase isn't terribly high given the programmes high spend to date?
Last edited by House on 18 September 2010 2:28am
HO
I don't know that that's particularly true - I think it comes down to reliability and credibility as much as anything. ITV is incredibly flakey about it's news output - GMTV and Daybreak producing much more consumer and celebrity oriented programming and ITV News going from weak and tabloid to high-quality news overnight, only to fall back down again in a big relaunch.
The BBC doesn't change the priorities, angles or agendas of its programmes on a regular basis and is seen both nationally and internationally as a leading source of news output, so why would someone leave what they like and trust for something unlikely to be?
Additionally, prior to 08:30 Breakfast manages to appeal to everyday workers & businessmen and those staying at home - something I'm yet to see proof Daybreak is able to achieve.
Daybreak is never going to appropriate a meaningful number of viewers from BBC Breakfast because, by and large, the type of people who watch BBC Breakfast are (I don't mean this in a derogatory way) snobs. If ITV created a carbon copy of Breakfast then BBC viewers would still refuse to turn over, because
urggh, it's on ITV!
That's just the way it is and always will be.
I don't know that that's particularly true - I think it comes down to reliability and credibility as much as anything. ITV is incredibly flakey about it's news output - GMTV and Daybreak producing much more consumer and celebrity oriented programming and ITV News going from weak and tabloid to high-quality news overnight, only to fall back down again in a big relaunch.
The BBC doesn't change the priorities, angles or agendas of its programmes on a regular basis and is seen both nationally and internationally as a leading source of news output, so why would someone leave what they like and trust for something unlikely to be?
Additionally, prior to 08:30 Breakfast manages to appeal to everyday workers & businessmen and those staying at home - something I'm yet to see proof Daybreak is able to achieve.
CH
What would happen if Daybreak was like Breakfast?
Viewers of Daybreak would turn off and listen to the radio, read a (probably tabloid) paper or channel-hop through the flim-flam on Freeview, as they find serious news boring and definitely aren't interested in constant ecology and health stories. You know the type, "Today, I'll be finding out why Japanese Knotweed is throttling the UK's ponds", or "A study has found that supplements taken to combat joint pain do not work" - Daybreak viewers aren't interested in this kind of stuff, which is why they choose not to watch Breakfast.
Breakfast viewers would stick with Breakfast because there's no point turning over if Daybreak's the same, and with adverts getting in the way. (Plus the fact people think of ITV1 as the Jeremy Kyle channel.)
The end result would be Daybreak having no audience at all. ITV knows this.
If The Sun began printing "high-quality news overnight", Sun readers would stop buying it and Times, Guardian and Independent readers wouldn't start. Why would they?
That's something of a misconception really, House. Businessmen (and women) don't have time to watch TV in the morning. Breakfast provides market information mainly for the benefit of ordinary shareholders. Professionals have access to live market data (the data on TV is 15 minutes out of date) and RNS alerts; they don't sit around waiting for Simon Jack to tell them what's going on. I think professional workers, retirees and stay-at-home mums who live in the south east of England (or live elsewhere yet aspire to that lifestyle) is a more accurate summary of Breakfast's demographic appeal, and to be honest I reckon most viewers fall into the latter two categories.
I don't know that that's particularly true - I think it comes down to reliability and credibility as much as anything. ITV is incredibly flakey about it's news output - GMTV and Daybreak producing much more consumer and celebrity oriented programming and ITV News going from weak and tabloid to high-quality news overnight, only to fall back down again in a big relaunch.
The BBC doesn't change the priorities, angles or agendas of its programmes on a regular basis and is seen both nationally and internationally as a leading source of news output, so why would someone leave what they like and trust for something unlikely to be?
The BBC doesn't change the priorities, angles or agendas of its programmes on a regular basis and is seen both nationally and internationally as a leading source of news output, so why would someone leave what they like and trust for something unlikely to be?
What would happen if Daybreak was like Breakfast?
Viewers of Daybreak would turn off and listen to the radio, read a (probably tabloid) paper or channel-hop through the flim-flam on Freeview, as they find serious news boring and definitely aren't interested in constant ecology and health stories. You know the type, "Today, I'll be finding out why Japanese Knotweed is throttling the UK's ponds", or "A study has found that supplements taken to combat joint pain do not work" - Daybreak viewers aren't interested in this kind of stuff, which is why they choose not to watch Breakfast.
Breakfast viewers would stick with Breakfast because there's no point turning over if Daybreak's the same, and with adverts getting in the way. (Plus the fact people think of ITV1 as the Jeremy Kyle channel.)
The end result would be Daybreak having no audience at all. ITV knows this.
If The Sun began printing "high-quality news overnight", Sun readers would stop buying it and Times, Guardian and Independent readers wouldn't start. Why would they?
Additionally, prior to 08:30 Breakfast manages to appeal to everyday workers & businessmen and those staying at home - something I'm yet to see proof Daybreak is able to achieve.
That's something of a misconception really, House. Businessmen (and women) don't have time to watch TV in the morning. Breakfast provides market information mainly for the benefit of ordinary shareholders. Professionals have access to live market data (the data on TV is 15 minutes out of date) and RNS alerts; they don't sit around waiting for Simon Jack to tell them what's going on. I think professional workers, retirees and stay-at-home mums who live in the south east of England (or live elsewhere yet aspire to that lifestyle) is a more accurate summary of Breakfast's demographic appeal, and to be honest I reckon most viewers fall into the latter two categories.
Last edited by Chie on 18 September 2010 6:32am - 3 times in total
HO
What would happen if Daybreak was like Breakfast?
Viewers of Daybreak would turn off and listen to the radio, read a (probably tabloid) paper or channel-hop through the flim-flam on Freeview, as they find serious news boring and definitely aren't interested in constant ecology and health stories. You know the type, "Today, I'll be finding out why Japanese Knotweed is throttling the UK's ponds", or "A study has found that supplements taken to combat joint pain do not work" - Daybreak viewers aren't interested in this kind of stuff, which is why they choose not to watch Breakfast.
Breakfast viewers would stick with Breakfast because there's no point turning over if Daybreak's the same, and with adverts getting in the way. (Plus the fact people think of ITV1 as the Jeremy Kyle channel.)
The end result would be Daybreak having no audience at all. ITV knows this.
If The Sun began printing "high-quality news overnight", Sun readers would stop buying it and Times, Guardian and Independent readers wouldn't start. Why would they?
That's something of a misconception really, House. Businessmen (and women) don't have time to watch TV in the morning. Breakfast provides market information mainly for the benefit of ordinary shareholders. Professionals have access to live market data (the data on TV is 15 minutes out of date) and RNS alerts; they don't sit around waiting for Simon Jack to tell them what's going on. I think professional workers, retirees and stay-at-home mums who live in the south east of England (or live elsewhere yet aspire to that lifestyle) is a more accurate summary of Breakfast's demographic appeal, and to be honest I reckon most viewers fall into the latter two categories.
In regards to the first bit - that may be true, but everyone is talking of Daybreak failing to overtake Breakfast. If they genuinely do have two very different markets then I don't see how Daybreak could possibly reach Breakfast's threshold.
And in regards to the last part, I was referring to the many ordinary businessmen and women (not city workers particularly, but various degrees of management and workforce) who watch the programme whilst getting ready for work. If you watch business updates seem pretty much to disappear (I believe) after 08:30 which - if you are correct that they are only there for ordinary shareholders who live in bungalows in Littlehampton - doesn't make sense.
The overall point I was making, however, was that I've always got the impression that GMTV and Daybreak were aimed at - or at least wanted to be attracting - more ordinary, often stay at home consumers. And if I remember correctly, someone posted on here some weeks ago that Breakfast actually attracts GMTV/ Daybreak's core audience better than they do, which springs up many advertising problems for Daybreak.
I don't know that that's particularly true - I think it comes down to reliability and credibility as much as anything. ITV is incredibly flakey about it's news output - GMTV and Daybreak producing much more consumer and celebrity oriented programming and ITV News going from weak and tabloid to high-quality news overnight, only to fall back down again in a big relaunch.
The BBC doesn't change the priorities, angles or agendas of its programmes on a regular basis and is seen both nationally and internationally as a leading source of news output, so why would someone leave what they like and trust for something unlikely to be?
The BBC doesn't change the priorities, angles or agendas of its programmes on a regular basis and is seen both nationally and internationally as a leading source of news output, so why would someone leave what they like and trust for something unlikely to be?
What would happen if Daybreak was like Breakfast?
Viewers of Daybreak would turn off and listen to the radio, read a (probably tabloid) paper or channel-hop through the flim-flam on Freeview, as they find serious news boring and definitely aren't interested in constant ecology and health stories. You know the type, "Today, I'll be finding out why Japanese Knotweed is throttling the UK's ponds", or "A study has found that supplements taken to combat joint pain do not work" - Daybreak viewers aren't interested in this kind of stuff, which is why they choose not to watch Breakfast.
Breakfast viewers would stick with Breakfast because there's no point turning over if Daybreak's the same, and with adverts getting in the way. (Plus the fact people think of ITV1 as the Jeremy Kyle channel.)
The end result would be Daybreak having no audience at all. ITV knows this.
If The Sun began printing "high-quality news overnight", Sun readers would stop buying it and Times, Guardian and Independent readers wouldn't start. Why would they?
Additionally, prior to 08:30 Breakfast manages to appeal to everyday workers & businessmen and those staying at home - something I'm yet to see proof Daybreak is able to achieve.
That's something of a misconception really, House. Businessmen (and women) don't have time to watch TV in the morning. Breakfast provides market information mainly for the benefit of ordinary shareholders. Professionals have access to live market data (the data on TV is 15 minutes out of date) and RNS alerts; they don't sit around waiting for Simon Jack to tell them what's going on. I think professional workers, retirees and stay-at-home mums who live in the south east of England (or live elsewhere yet aspire to that lifestyle) is a more accurate summary of Breakfast's demographic appeal, and to be honest I reckon most viewers fall into the latter two categories.
In regards to the first bit - that may be true, but everyone is talking of Daybreak failing to overtake Breakfast. If they genuinely do have two very different markets then I don't see how Daybreak could possibly reach Breakfast's threshold.
And in regards to the last part, I was referring to the many ordinary businessmen and women (not city workers particularly, but various degrees of management and workforce) who watch the programme whilst getting ready for work. If you watch business updates seem pretty much to disappear (I believe) after 08:30 which - if you are correct that they are only there for ordinary shareholders who live in bungalows in Littlehampton - doesn't make sense.
The overall point I was making, however, was that I've always got the impression that GMTV and Daybreak were aimed at - or at least wanted to be attracting - more ordinary, often stay at home consumers. And if I remember correctly, someone posted on here some weeks ago that Breakfast actually attracts GMTV/ Daybreak's core audience better than they do, which springs up many advertising problems for Daybreak.
GI
The problem for me is although the GMTV brand is gone its being taken over by ITV Breakfast and in essence it's the same behind the scenes operation just a different look show, I would have just had it produced by ITV Plc. or ITN they need to get wid of this stupid lifestlyle gimmack thing with covering these american celebs and award ceremonys and although the bulk of Daybreak is better than its predocesor it does need to let go of any similaritys with GMTV.
The advertizements are also very bad the one for cherrie blair and also for Seal were like those off GMTV it just does not appeal .
The advertizements are also very bad the one for cherrie blair and also for Seal were like those off GMTV it just does not appeal .
NG
noggin
Founding member
There are some incredibly oversimplified audience arguments going on here - as if all Breakfast viewers are one type of viewer, and all GMTV viewers are another.
The reality is that the audience is a continuum of people - with complicated likes and dislikes, interests etc. GMTV used to hammer Breakfast News, Breakfast relaunched and after a while - when it actually got simpler and simpler in production terms - the audiences rose and overtook GMTV (though the competition scandals did no favours to GMTV)
It is entirely possible for ITV to produce a show that rates better than Breakfast - finding out how is not going to be easy though.
For me - Daybreak is actually a more taxing watch than Breakfast (too many set areas, too much movement, too many random segments), and the basics of the Breakfast set (ignoring the backdrop - which is just moving wallpaper on either show) work better. (Guests closer to presenters, presenters not quite as close together) GMTV has much higher studio craft values - but whether they are being used effectively is another matter. Breakfast appears, to me, to have a much better wheel (predictable pattern of news, regional news, weather and sport etc.) and cater for a large chunk of the audience who want to watch for 10-20 mins and have a rough idea of whats going on in the world, the UK, and whether to take an umbrella to work.
The reality is that the audience is a continuum of people - with complicated likes and dislikes, interests etc. GMTV used to hammer Breakfast News, Breakfast relaunched and after a while - when it actually got simpler and simpler in production terms - the audiences rose and overtook GMTV (though the competition scandals did no favours to GMTV)
It is entirely possible for ITV to produce a show that rates better than Breakfast - finding out how is not going to be easy though.
For me - Daybreak is actually a more taxing watch than Breakfast (too many set areas, too much movement, too many random segments), and the basics of the Breakfast set (ignoring the backdrop - which is just moving wallpaper on either show) work better. (Guests closer to presenters, presenters not quite as close together) GMTV has much higher studio craft values - but whether they are being used effectively is another matter. Breakfast appears, to me, to have a much better wheel (predictable pattern of news, regional news, weather and sport etc.) and cater for a large chunk of the audience who want to watch for 10-20 mins and have a rough idea of whats going on in the world, the UK, and whether to take an umbrella to work.
CC
Absolutely wrong it is a completely new management structure, every single member of the management team is new from Deputy Editor to Head of Programmes. The behind the scenes operation is made up of a very skilled and experienced team of journalists, creative staff and technical staff who have worked on numerous programmes during their careers and can (and have) adapt to any style of programming the management want to produce.
I am bias towards Daybreak/Lorraine for obvious reasons but I do have enough experience to realise that things take time to settle in and am big enough to admit that some things need addressing and I'm sure that will happen.
The problem for me is although the GMTV brand is gone its being taken over by ITV Breakfast and in essence it's the same behind the scenes operation just a different look show
Absolutely wrong it is a completely new management structure, every single member of the management team is new from Deputy Editor to Head of Programmes. The behind the scenes operation is made up of a very skilled and experienced team of journalists, creative staff and technical staff who have worked on numerous programmes during their careers and can (and have) adapt to any style of programming the management want to produce.
I am bias towards Daybreak/Lorraine for obvious reasons but I do have enough experience to realise that things take time to settle in and am big enough to admit that some things need addressing and I'm sure that will happen.
GI
Absolutely wrong it is a completely new management structure, every single member of the management team is new from Deputy Editor to Head of Programmes. The behind the scenes operation is made up of a very skilled and experienced team of journalists, creative staff and technical staff who have worked on numerous programmes during their careers and can (and have) adapt to any style of programming the management want to produce.
I am bias towards Daybreak/Lorraine for obvious reasons but I do have enough experience to realise that things take time to settle in and am big enough to admit that some things need addressing and I'm sure that will happen.
So is there any of the behind the scenes staff remaining from GMTV?
The problem for me is although the GMTV brand is gone its being taken over by ITV Breakfast and in essence it's the same behind the scenes operation just a different look show
Absolutely wrong it is a completely new management structure, every single member of the management team is new from Deputy Editor to Head of Programmes. The behind the scenes operation is made up of a very skilled and experienced team of journalists, creative staff and technical staff who have worked on numerous programmes during their careers and can (and have) adapt to any style of programming the management want to produce.
I am bias towards Daybreak/Lorraine for obvious reasons but I do have enough experience to realise that things take time to settle in and am big enough to admit that some things need addressing and I'm sure that will happen.
So is there any of the behind the scenes staff remaining from GMTV?