I think Daybreak was doomed from the start due to constant efforts to undermine it. For some reason the press just had it in for the show, with constant negative stories about ratings and the presenters.
For what it’s worth, I rather liked it. Adrian and Christine worked well, the look of the show was relatively slick (certainly compared to what came before and also the competition) and it had a decent mix of stories and features. At the time I had a job that required being up stupidly early and it was always my choice of show whilst getting ready to leave the house.
The studio was obviously an issue being so dark, and any attempts to fix that were poorly done - however once it was light it looked stunning. A pitch black view partially obscured by orange panels wasn’t a good look.
I reckon if Daybreak had never happened, and Piers and Susanna left GMB, Christine and Adrian would probably be a decent replacement. Given all the bad press, I’m pretty sure they still had some of the highest ratings for ITV Breakfast post-GMTV didn’t they?
I agree with you on everything but the studio. I actually liked how they didn’t have the usual garish bright background that breakfast shows had, instead it was actually how it looked outside at that time, and got lighter as the morning went on. An unfortunate side effect of that was the reflections on the windows, which is one of the reasons why they eventually covered up the view on dark mornings.
The rest of the set design was very modern looking - it was such a breath of fresh air compared to GMTV and Breakfast, and looked great in HD.
It’s amazing looking back now how many changes happened in that five year period from 2009–2014. 2009: new GMTV look, 2010: Daybreak, 2011: Adrian and Christine leave and we have the Kate and Dan era, 2012: Daybreak 2.0, 2014: GMB. Compared to that the last five years have been pretty stable!