VM
It's a nice idea but I don't think they'd be willing to reduce one of the main incentives for competing at breakfast in the first place, to get income from advertising. That said if they continue with the Wheel of Crass and it already earns them a substantial amount, it would be nice if they reduced the amount of advertising, but I don't see them doing it.
AN
Andrew
Founding member
The problem is that if you make it more serious and drop GMTV legacy presenters, you may lose some viewers who like those elements
Meanwhile hardly anybody new joins in because they have no reason to. They just stick on the same as they always do and go about their business
This is probably what has happened with GMB. Breakfast's rating is the same as ever but GMB is lower than Daybreak. The same happened when Daybreak V2 replaced V1.
Meanwhile hardly anybody new joins in because they have no reason to. They just stick on the same as they always do and go about their business
This is probably what has happened with GMB. Breakfast's rating is the same as ever but GMB is lower than Daybreak. The same happened when Daybreak V2 replaced V1.
RD
rdd
Founding member
[quote="Markymark" pid="918946"]
ITV can't just switch to cartoons and repeats, at least not before they've bribed Ofcom to ditch the licence requirent for news (Oh, did I just say that out loud)
The real danger with axing a breakfast show completely is that any argument for breakfast to be a separate franchise will go and STV and UTV would have a good case to get the separate breakfast franchise axed.
ITV can't just switch to cartoons and repeats, at least not before they've bribed Ofcom to ditch the licence requirent for news (Oh, did I just say that out loud)
The real danger with axing a breakfast show completely is that any argument for breakfast to be a separate franchise will go and STV and UTV would have a good case to get the separate breakfast franchise axed.
NG
If you are talking about quiz and game shows - then they have both "play along" and "entertainment" values which make them appealing to viewers. Not sure that "Wheel of cash" has either of those...
… which is why it only lasts 90 seconds, shorter than an average ad break. It's commercial television and has to generate income in order to operate.
Yes - but does commercial TV need to exploit its audience and get them to pay for it directly in addition to the indirect funding via advertising? I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking I am being treated with contempt by ITV when they expect me to pay them to enter a ridiculous competition I have an insignificant chance of winning (at least you can enter online for free...)
noggin
Founding member
Also, whole hours of the schedule are given over to programmes where members of the public try to win cash, there's no benefit to the viewer in those either, yet they remain hugely popular.
If you are talking about quiz and game shows - then they have both "play along" and "entertainment" values which make them appealing to viewers. Not sure that "Wheel of cash" has either of those...
… which is why it only lasts 90 seconds, shorter than an average ad break. It's commercial television and has to generate income in order to operate.
Yes - but does commercial TV need to exploit its audience and get them to pay for it directly in addition to the indirect funding via advertising? I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking I am being treated with contempt by ITV when they expect me to pay them to enter a ridiculous competition I have an insignificant chance of winning (at least you can enter online for free...)
PI
If you are talking about quiz and game shows - then they have both "play along" and "entertainment" values which make them appealing to viewers. Not sure that "Wheel of cash" has either of those...
… which is why it only lasts 90 seconds, shorter than an average ad break. It's commercial television and has to generate income in order to operate.
Yes - but does commercial TV need to exploit its audience and get them to pay for it directly in addition to the indirect funding via advertising? I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking I am being treated with contempt by ITV when they expect me to pay them to enter a ridiculous competition I have an insignificant chance of winning (at least you can enter online for free...)
ITV needs to make money. Content like Broadchurch and Endeavour doesn't come cheap and it would be suicide for them to rely on the traditional business model where the revenue from commercials covered the costs and satisfied the expectations of its shareholders.
You're being offered the chance to win a significant amount of cash. You can choose to not to take that chance or you can take that chance for free, or you can choose to pay for that chance. That's not exploitation - that's a game of chance, it's a free-to-enter lottery. What's contemptible about that?
Also, whole hours of the schedule are given over to programmes where members of the public try to win cash, there's no benefit to the viewer in those either, yet they remain hugely popular.
If you are talking about quiz and game shows - then they have both "play along" and "entertainment" values which make them appealing to viewers. Not sure that "Wheel of cash" has either of those...
… which is why it only lasts 90 seconds, shorter than an average ad break. It's commercial television and has to generate income in order to operate.
Yes - but does commercial TV need to exploit its audience and get them to pay for it directly in addition to the indirect funding via advertising? I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking I am being treated with contempt by ITV when they expect me to pay them to enter a ridiculous competition I have an insignificant chance of winning (at least you can enter online for free...)
ITV needs to make money. Content like Broadchurch and Endeavour doesn't come cheap and it would be suicide for them to rely on the traditional business model where the revenue from commercials covered the costs and satisfied the expectations of its shareholders.
You're being offered the chance to win a significant amount of cash. You can choose to not to take that chance or you can take that chance for free, or you can choose to pay for that chance. That's not exploitation - that's a game of chance, it's a free-to-enter lottery. What's contemptible about that?
CW
Charlie Wells
Moderator
I think comparing ratings is a bit unfair as since GMB's launch we've had 2 bank holidays and a school half-term week. Still it does make for easy articles to fill the tabloids, one article to make the claim, and another the following day to report the claim being denied. 
HJ
ITV must realise that BBC Breakfast are going to have to make a mistake in order to attract viewers from the Beeb. They need to really work on getting people who don't watch Breakfast to turn them on!!! Otherwise it's going to snowball.
EDIT: I realise that they are going to announce a replacement for Breakfast in the winter, if its a bad choice, which it won't by hypothetically, GMB could attract viewers!
EDIT: I realise that they are going to announce a replacement for Breakfast in the winter, if its a bad choice, which it won't by hypothetically, GMB could attract viewers!
MA
And all this can lead to a vicious circle, as tales of low ratings are only going to be off-putting to the new viewers they need to attract. And, with the school holidays approaching, ratings aren't exactly likely to shoot upwards - which means these kind of stories are likely to be around for a while.
I reckon now's the time (with a month left until the summer holidays) for a proper targeted marketing push, backed up with a real drive for A-list content behind the scenes. There's so much more potential - as they've only had a small handful of big-name guests so far, and they've got a performance area in the studio that, to my knowledge, hasn't yet been used for a performance.
mark
Founding member
I think comparing ratings is a bit unfair as since GMB's launch we've had 2 bank holidays and a school half-term week. Still it does make for easy articles to fill the tabloids, one article to make the claim, and another the following day to report the claim being denied.
And all this can lead to a vicious circle, as tales of low ratings are only going to be off-putting to the new viewers they need to attract. And, with the school holidays approaching, ratings aren't exactly likely to shoot upwards - which means these kind of stories are likely to be around for a while.
I reckon now's the time (with a month left until the summer holidays) for a proper targeted marketing push, backed up with a real drive for A-list content behind the scenes. There's so much more potential - as they've only had a small handful of big-name guests so far, and they've got a performance area in the studio that, to my knowledge, hasn't yet been used for a performance.
DT
Which is presumably the reason that it's taking the BBC more than a half a year to announce the new presenter. The BBC are seemingly very keen not to slip up, which is probably why there has been several different presenters on recently to gauge social media response to pick the best choice in order to make sure that Breakfast stays in top spot.
EDIT: I realise that they are going to announce a replacement for Breakfast in the winter, if its a bad choice, which it won't by hypothetically, GMB could attract viewers!
Which is presumably the reason that it's taking the BBC more than a half a year to announce the new presenter. The BBC are seemingly very keen not to slip up, which is probably why there has been several different presenters on recently to gauge social media response to pick the best choice in order to make sure that Breakfast stays in top spot.
AS
It won't be a bad choice. Simple as that! And people who don't watch breakfast television at all won't be attracted to GMB because they don't have a need for it.
ITV must realise that BBC Breakfast are going to have to make a mistake in order to attract viewers from the Beeb. They need to really work on getting people who don't watch Breakfast to turn them on!!! Otherwise it's going to snowball.
EDIT: I realise that they are going to announce a replacement for Breakfast in the winter, if its a bad choice, which it won't by hypothetically, GMB could attract viewers!
EDIT: I realise that they are going to announce a replacement for Breakfast in the winter, if its a bad choice, which it won't by hypothetically, GMB could attract viewers!
It won't be a bad choice. Simple as that! And people who don't watch breakfast television at all won't be attracted to GMB because they don't have a need for it.