SK
When the new breakfast show launches, I take it the whole GMTV company/franchise will be abolished.
How come then they are still advertising vacancies on their website and the ITV website under the GMTV brand/ franchise if it will no longer exist soon. Surely they'd be promoting it as an ITV thing not GMTV?
http://www.info.itvjobs.com/wd/plsql/wd_portal.show_job?p_web_site_id=204&p_web_page_id=110807
http://www.gm.tv/about-us/555-careers-at-gmtv.html
How come then they are still advertising vacancies on their website and the ITV website under the GMTV brand/ franchise if it will no longer exist soon. Surely they'd be promoting it as an ITV thing not GMTV?
http://www.info.itvjobs.com/wd/plsql/wd_portal.show_job?p_web_site_id=204&p_web_page_id=110807
http://www.gm.tv/about-us/555-careers-at-gmtv.html
NI
BTW, Who are you thinking will do it? Obv not as good as David Lowe.
I believe Michael W is talking about Dave Hewson, who has been composing music for ITN/ITV News programmes since the November 1992 revamp of News at Ten.
Lowe may be a good composer but the BBC News music is getting somewhat tiresome lately. It is essentially the 1999 music beefed up once again. Hewson, on the other hand, has managed to incorporate new musical elements alongside the famous sounds of ITN with each rebrand. Take the current ITV news theme as an example: a blend between the traditional (brass and strings) and the modern (drum backing, 'whooshes', etc).
Lowe is great and I suppose he is only being told to 'beef up' the same theme over and over again by the BBC. It's recognisable and so does that job well, but it's also tired-sounding. A fresh, new theme still retaining the 'beeps' would be nice.
Anyway... back to GMTV/Daybreak...
If the person I think is doing the music, it will be good.
BTW, Who are you thinking will do it? Obv not as good as David Lowe.
I believe Michael W is talking about Dave Hewson, who has been composing music for ITN/ITV News programmes since the November 1992 revamp of News at Ten.
Lowe may be a good composer but the BBC News music is getting somewhat tiresome lately. It is essentially the 1999 music beefed up once again. Hewson, on the other hand, has managed to incorporate new musical elements alongside the famous sounds of ITN with each rebrand. Take the current ITV news theme as an example: a blend between the traditional (brass and strings) and the modern (drum backing, 'whooshes', etc).
Lowe is great and I suppose he is only being told to 'beef up' the same theme over and over again by the BBC. It's recognisable and so does that job well, but it's also tired-sounding. A fresh, new theme still retaining the 'beeps' would be nice.
Anyway... back to GMTV/Daybreak...
IS
The breakfast license requires a change in the law to be abolished so that won't be going for now. The company GMTV is already a wholly owned subsidiary of ITV PLC
Presumably because the new programme doesn't have an official new name yet. It's a good idea to mention in the ad what the job is for
When the new breakfast show launches, I take it the whole GMTV company/franchise will be abolished.
The breakfast license requires a change in the law to be abolished so that won't be going for now. The company GMTV is already a wholly owned subsidiary of ITV PLC
Quote:
How come then they are still advertising vacancies on their website and the ITV website under the GMTV brand/ franchise if it will no longer exist soon. Surely they'd be promoting it as an ITV thing not GMTV?
Presumably because the new programme doesn't have an official new name yet. It's a good idea to mention in the ad what the job is for
CH
I guess it depends where you live. I've always got the feeling that Breakfast sees middle-class south eastern women as its main audience, which can feel quite exclusionary. So Daybreak has to fill the gap.
10 million people don't work, and a further 10 million are retired. It's not all about working people.
It will take a lot to equal or better BBC Breakfast. They need to offer something completely unique (not a copy of Breakfast) for people to switch.
Breakfast has everything it needs to have, without Daybreak copying. LIKEABLE presenters, news, sport, business, regional news and entertainment.
Breakfast has everything it needs to have, without Daybreak copying. LIKEABLE presenters, news, sport, business, regional news and entertainment.
I guess it depends where you live. I've always got the feeling that Breakfast sees middle-class south eastern women as its main audience, which can feel quite exclusionary. So Daybreak has to fill the gap.
Breakfast is a winning formula, for me anyway.
I like the rigid timings too - I know exactly when to leave for work with the arrival of the regional news. Don't even need to refer to my watch.
If I'm watching the "big" interview then I'm already late..
Whatever ITV do, they'd be wise to stick to a strictly timed format. God knows that's what working people need in the morning.
I like the rigid timings too - I know exactly when to leave for work with the arrival of the regional news. Don't even need to refer to my watch.
If I'm watching the "big" interview then I'm already late..
Whatever ITV do, they'd be wise to stick to a strictly timed format. God knows that's what working people need in the morning.
10 million people don't work, and a further 10 million are retired. It's not all about working people.
DO
But it's the working people who're earning the money the advertisers which pay for the programme want.
10 million people don't work, and a further 10 million are retired. It's not all about working people.
But it's the working people who're earning the money the advertisers which pay for the programme want.
HO
What on earth makes you think that? The fact that the presenters aren't gossip-hungry celebrity-wannabes who read stories and interview in a calm, professional manor?
(My comments are about Mrs Garraway and Mr Shepard, not so much about Ms Crosby and Mr Castle).
That's true, but I doubt either make up the bulk of GMTV and Breakfast's audience between 06:00 and 07:30.
I guess it depends where you live. I've always got the feeling that Breakfast sees middle-class south eastern women as its main audience, which can feel quite exclusionary. So Daybreak has to fill the gap.
What on earth makes you think that? The fact that the presenters aren't gossip-hungry celebrity-wannabes who read stories and interview in a calm, professional manor?
(My comments are about Mrs Garraway and Mr Shepard, not so much about Ms Crosby and Mr Castle).
10 million people don't work, and a further 10 million are retired. It's not all about working people.
That's true, but I doubt either make up the bulk of GMTV and Breakfast's audience between 06:00 and 07:30.
GS
That's true, but I doubt either make up the bulk of GMTV and Breakfast's audience between 06:00 and 07:30.
Please don't attribute Chie's quotes to me.
Kthnxbi.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
10 million people don't work, and a further 10 million are retired. It's not all about working people.
That's true, but I doubt either make up the bulk of GMTV and Breakfast's audience between 06:00 and 07:30.
Please don't attribute Chie's quotes to me.
Kthnxbi.
CH
Not at all.
Breakfast is very fast-paced and repetitive, so Daybreak needs to avoid going down that route if they want a sustained audience over one or two hours. Sure, the essentials need to be there for workers - news, time checks, markets - but going over the same things every 15 minutes is off-putting to non-workers (most of whom are stay-at-home mums (formerly called 'housewives'), who are the target market for food, cleaning and baby products) and retirees.
It should also be remembered that another 7.7 million people only work part-time, so many of those will not necessarily be working every morning either.
IIRC, there is a breakfast TV show in America whose studio is at ground level with Times Square, which, through floor to ceiling windows, provides the backdrop. This sort of approach, using the Thames embankment, would certainly give Daybreak an atmospheric creative edge over Breakfast's comparatively bleak and claustrophobic studio environment.
What on earth makes you think that? The fact that the presenters aren't gossip-hungry celebrity-wannabes who read stories and interview in a calm, professional manor?
Not at all.
But it's the working people who're earning the money the advertisers which pay for the programme want.
That's true, but I doubt either make up the bulk of GMTV and Breakfast's audience between 06:00 and 07:30.
Breakfast is very fast-paced and repetitive, so Daybreak needs to avoid going down that route if they want a sustained audience over one or two hours. Sure, the essentials need to be there for workers - news, time checks, markets - but going over the same things every 15 minutes is off-putting to non-workers (most of whom are stay-at-home mums (formerly called 'housewives'), who are the target market for food, cleaning and baby products) and retirees.
It should also be remembered that another 7.7 million people only work part-time, so many of those will not necessarily be working every morning either.
IIRC, there is a breakfast TV show in America whose studio is at ground level with Times Square, which, through floor to ceiling windows, provides the backdrop. This sort of approach, using the Thames embankment, would certainly give Daybreak an atmospheric creative edge over Breakfast's comparatively bleak and claustrophobic studio environment.
BE
Ben
Founding member
Of course it should be remembered that a lot of the people who are not at work are not going to be up early enough to see most of breakfast TV anyway.
The standard GMTV/TV-am formula has pretty much always been newsier/repetitive for the first hour. A bit of everything in the middle hour and then the fluff and slower pace by the end. To be fair that exactly what Breakfast has done down the years too.
The standard GMTV/TV-am formula has pretty much always been newsier/repetitive for the first hour. A bit of everything in the middle hour and then the fluff and slower pace by the end. To be fair that exactly what Breakfast has done down the years too.
BR
Breakfast TV though isn't about sustaining the same audience for the bulk of the show - most people only tune in for a period of time, so there is a need for a certain amount to be repeated, plus also for the focus to shift in accordance with the likely audience throughout the show.
Breakfast is very fast-paced and repetitive, so Daybreak needs to avoid going down that route if they want a sustained audience over one or two hours. Sure, the essentials need to be there for workers - news, time checks, markets - but going over the same things every 15 minutes is off-putting to non-workers (most of whom are stay-at-home mums (formerly called 'housewives'), who are the target market for food, cleaning and baby products) and retirees.
Breakfast TV though isn't about sustaining the same audience for the bulk of the show - most people only tune in for a period of time, so there is a need for a certain amount to be repeated, plus also for the focus to shift in accordance with the likely audience throughout the show.
SP
I've seen the American show in question, and that only works because there are so many people about on Times Square that it always looks busy and bustling.
But can you imagine how depressing it'll look on a dark, December morning on a deserted Embankment when it's chucking it down and blowing a gale outside?
IIRC, there is a breakfast TV show in America whose studio is at ground level with Times Square, which, through floor to ceiling windows, provides the backdrop. This sort of approach, using the Thames embankment, would certainly give Daybreak an atmospheric creative edge over Breakfast's comparatively bleak and claustrophobic studio environment.
I've seen the American show in question, and that only works because there are so many people about on Times Square that it always looks busy and bustling.
But can you imagine how depressing it'll look on a dark, December morning on a deserted Embankment when it's chucking it down and blowing a gale outside?