Daybreak - the launch onwards

Well you were never going to like it then. It's not a news programme.

It's like complaining that the Today programme on Radio 4 is awful because you wanted to hear some music.

In the UK, people are creatures of routine at Breakfast time.

Whether their preferred TV / Radio programme / channel is
Radio Two, Radio Four, BBC Breakfast or SKY, it doesn't matter.

It will take a long time for any new programme on any network to establish itself.

Unfortunately, now, schedulers, Programme controllers, TV Network shareholders, TV Forum posters are impatient.

Personally, I have only seen a few clips of the new ITV show, but from what I have heard, they have made some rather fundamental and crucial errors.

The most basic are:-

Keep it simple. (i.e. don't spend a fortune illuminating part of the set, when the viewer couldn't care less about it). Spend the money on content.
Don't treat your viewers as though they are stupid and / or 'a number'. Aim high, and fail, rather than aim for the LCD and succeed.

Go for the journalism. Get it right.


(I don't watch this programme, but I have been involved in Breakfast programmes in general).

Hallelujah! I thought I was just about the only person to realise this.

All this over-analysis of audience figures is ridiculous at this early stage. I'd wager ITV had no expectation that Daybreak would be an overnight success, because very, very few TV shows ever are. The press were always going to slam it, and run stories of a 'ratings disaster' because that's what they do - it's a lazy story about an easy target.

Of course the show's not perfect. It never was going to be from day one. But I would be very surprised if ITV was as concerned as the press is making out at this early stage.

Frankly though, to hemorrhage viewers at the rate Daybreak has, does seem to indicate something pretty bad has gone wrong. It's beginning to look terminal, if in the lead up to and over Christmas things don't reverse then it must surely be game over. I doubt that ITV would seek to replace though and the 0600 slot would be just be another one to fill with repeats.

Which is why Daybreak now needs to settle down a bit. I've watched a handful of programmes since it launched and each time something has been drastically different. I'm not saying they shouldn't have made the changes to the format and the set - they were needed but now they need to stick with it and build an audience.

The format now is much closer to GMTV's, and the repositioning of the main shot this week has improved things visually (even if it does mean more bloody flowers in shot) now they just need to settle down and ride out whatever the press throws at it.

I said "some news" and also pointed out that I don't mind features and light-hearted items, but I do like a bit of substance. I'm perfectly aware of the range of TV/radio channels and show formats available to me, thanks.

But, if we're going to selectively quote then,this is one from prior to the launch of the show: "Joining anchors Adrian and Christine will be an unrivalled team of special correspondents tasked with setting the day's agenda; delivering reputation building news and distinctive, credible journalism..."

I am yet to see that, and I don't think the show is delivering this (based on my two experiences). I don't think I should be expected to sit down and wait for 25 mins+ to get a brief idea of what's going on away from 'funny pets' and 'YouTube clips we thought were a laugh'.

I was no fan of GMTV, but if I did indulge in it, there was usually some showbiz gossip or a newsy feature that was attention-grabbing. Daybreak is just so "meh" in comparison, in my opinion.

By the way, I'm not looking for Radio 4 in-depth news. I usually listen to Galaxy radio in the morning and whilst it is light on news, I still get more headlines off there than I have from my two goes at Daybreak.

Unless the owner of the newspaper also owns the TV channel .....

The issue with spending the money on content rather than the set etc. is that the former requires significant amounts of continued investment on an ongoing basis (more/better production team and updated more productive facilities), the latter can be achieved with a one-off cash injection (presenters and new set).

I don't think ITV1 are that interested in spending more on production for Daybreak - effectively the backroom operation is still the same as GMTV's.

I think they were banking on a new set and revised talent, coupled with a redeployment of the existing, limited, production team and facilities to work. Whether they should have instead gone back to basics on the actual production model and methods instead is a good question.

I sent Eamoon Holmes a tweet explaining how unprofessional I thought he was over his behaviour re Daybreak. I also said that I was sure ITV could easily replace him! I received a reply from him, "Bless u .... how naïve".

From the Dictionary: "Patronising: to behave in an offensively condescending manner toward".

I decided not to retaliate - I said what I wanted to say... (although it is very difficult not to reply and remain mature! ).

Apologies - I meant Eamonn. How dare I spell the "Lord of Breakfast TV" name incorrectly.

Blog from Ben Dowell on Media Guardian now questioning the programme's future ,,,

here….

WWW.GUARDIAN.CO.UK/TV-AND-RADIO
28-Oct-2010 @ 13:26

Watched from seven until the end of Loraine this morning (with it being the half term ) and Ive only rellay watched post 8am this week so noticed the changes I don't think it looks GMTV I think it looks good.

However if you look at Daybreak on the 6th september and you looked at it now very little remains the same and I think this is for the worse .

/ 5 a Day - This come in for quite a lot of criticism but it did actully ensure that daybreak did something different and I quite liked it.

/ Studio - it's changing every secound the studio daybreak launched with was fantastic state of the art but then they messed it up by putting in the light panels and now we have a back drop of yellow panels and a clock behind the main presenters which is okay but I wish they would just stick to something.

/ Features - When the show started the show was quite Newsy or certainly with features which add something to current affairs such as Johns report on that christmas pay- pack business going bust , or the report about Delhi etc. Daybreaks reporting team is strong and they should use it more but were these stories were its now all showbiz like GMTV again.

/ Presenters being no where near anyone else - Theres no need to put Kate/Steve in the green room and have Dan at a seperate desk ages away why not just let them sit on the sofa .