Daybreak - the launch onwards

In the 1960's!? that's hardly in the memory of most of the 21st century audience! I never said it was a first!

The 5-6 slot was long associated with childrens programmes, soaps (Neighbours, Home and Away) and quizzes (Blockbusters). C4 and BBC2 used to put all sorts of things on in that slot, but never live daytime magazines or chat shows (channel 4 once put The Late Late Show on at 5 once a week but that's not really the same)

Richard and Judy opened up that slot for the likes of Paul O' Grady, Alan Titchmarsh and all the other short lived chat shows. It also led to the BBC having to up its game at that time with Weakest Link

Pamela Armstrong did a chat show on BBC Two in the 1980s which aired at 4pm.

Yes, I remember that. It was a bit of a flop... not that it would have done better at 5!

It lasted a year, which is longer than I would give Daybreak!

Lowest audience yesterday so far I believe.
Daybreak (ITV1) 630,000 / 16%
BBC Breakfast 1.5m (37%)

Yer but if were being realistic Daybreak or any other show itv launches would never beet breakfast and also add loraines result and it will be back to the GMTV ratings.

That looks very bad when you consider that the BBC are basically just broadcasting a 'sofa-bound' version of the same output they offer from a desk in N6 for the rest of their transmission time, but with the addition of regional inserts every 30 minutes.

As much as I happen to like the delivery of Bill Turnbull/Sian Williams & Charlie Stayt/Susanna Reid, it's the information that I want between 06:30 and 07:15 when I'm getting ready for work, not really the faces or personalities.

During that time, the TV isn't necessarily in view for me; so I don't care who's on it, or whether their background is a live sunrise over St Paul's, The Vatican, Salford Docks or something made up in a Graphic Designer's imagination. If I hear something interesting, I may take the trouble to look at the screen, otherwise the only reason for doing so is a timecheck from the clock in the corner.

BBC Breakfast offers me a nice mix between trusted BBC News (local and national), something that may be a talking point at work, or something to view on one of their later bulletins. I don't need to see the screen to know this.

ITV's Daybreak offers me a 'dumbed-down' and regurgitated ITN version of the headlines, no local news (unless I'm very lucky with my timing), a grumpy sounding half-wit and his giggling sidekick, who are probably hoping for the latest skating duck to appear in the corner of their studio, or a vocal quartet whose only collective claim to fame seems to be their sexuality rather than the quality of their singing.

That's not anything that would make me suddenly turn towards ITV rather than what I know I am getting from the BBC.

If ITV are just after ratings, then why don't they just outbid Desmond for Neighbours/Home & Away next time they are up for renewal, and fill the 6-8:30 timeslot with those and other drivel from the land of Oz? Surely it's better than banging their heads against a brick wall.

I see the press are putting it down too the loss of the "will they, won't they?" factor now everyone knows Christine is with Frank Lampard - but seriously, did anyone other than a few gutter journalists ever think Adrian Chiles had a chance with her?


The history of breakfast television shows these things need time, but Christine is definitely the weak link here and is being exposed as the over-rated inexperienced presenter she actually is. IMO Adrian is handling Daybreak with ease, but Christine just can't handle such a show. It's one thing presenting a very tightly formatted half-hour show, it's another presenting a live 150-minute show where you really do have to be able to add something other than what's written on the autocue. The suggestion she's capable enough to take over from Dermot on The X Factor is laughable - she would quite clearly crumble in such an environment.

Chiles is abjectly incapable of appearing as though he's woken from REM sleep for the first hour of the programmes I've watched: either that or he needs to see a good Osteopath and a decent Optician.

Furthermore, for those who are just listening from afar, he sounds as though he's just mumbling in his sleep.

As for Bleakley: if I wanted giggling and nonsensical sniggering before work, I'd get up an hour later and catch the bus to work with all the juvenile schoolgirls!


I've never once watched BBC Breakfast because I'm interested in Bill Turnbull's sex life, or who fathered Sian Williams' children. How odd that I should be so completely detatched from people who have no connection or relevance to my daily life.

Stop taliking rubbish.

If Lorraine's show got as much as 1.5 million veiwers, that would only drag that figure up to 781,500 for the 6-9.25am slot, which, I believe is lower than what GMTV was getting, and I don't think even Lorraine is getting 1.5 million.

ITV getting desparate.

Christine making an appearance on Harry Hill tonight.

Won't getting me switching from Bill, Sian & co!

Ginofish seems to be forgetting these figures are averages across the full time slot. Daybreak would see far higher ratings than 700,000 viewers if they broke the programme down on EPGs to 30 minute slots, as Sky News now do, as the peak times get far higher figures.

The other problem is Daybreak's ratings are lower than GMTV's, and it's primary purpose was to fix GMTV's faltering ratings. While it can take a morning programme a long time to reach success, I think it's fair to say the current version of Daybreak just isn't working. Perhaps tweaks will fix this, but such falling ratings say to me there's a larger issue at the core of Daybreak's problems.

Perhaps "bosses" had too higher expectations of the Bleakley impact, but as their departures from The One Show have shown it takes strong content and format to make a show, not just a presenting duo with chemistry.