SC
I'm not sure that ITV will be pleased by these ratings. When it was announced that Susanna Reid was leaving the BBC to join ITV, much was made of her popularity amongst viewers. Indeed, many articles in the press referred to a) the poll in the Radio Times in which she was voted the country's favourite presenter of Breakfast; and b) her appeal to demographics as broad as 'Footballing Dads' and 'Yummy Mummies'. According to most (if not all) of these articles, Susanna was the 'People's Champion' of Strictly 2013. Given that level of appeal, ITV could reasonably expect a significant uptick in the ratings when Susanna first appeared on air.
Equally, there has also been a great deal made in the press of Ben Shepherd and his appeal to female viewers as much as to male; he's somebody that you could discuss football with over a pint, etc. as much as anchor a show that runs the gauntlet of news, sport, current affairs, entertainment, celebrity and everything else in between.
Given those conditions, an increase of 200,000 will be viewed as... lacklustre (for want of a better word). They are not a disaster, yet neither are they either a runaway success or a false positive, ie., an extra one million viewers on day one, the show is a success, and on day two, the viewing figures return to normal.
Although Joshua is correct to say that there was a lack of promotion it's being a little bit economical with the actualité (as Alan Clark would say). Since it was announced that Daybreak would end and be replaced with Good Morning Britain and since it was announced that Susanna Reid, Ben Shepherd et al , would be anchoring the broadcast there has been ample promotion in the media (though admittedly very little on air). Every story that has featured Susanna Reid has referred to her defection to ITV, her new role on Good Morning Britain, etc. It's been covert, rather than overt, promotion.
For the record, there is much to like about this relaunch. Too much has been made of the desk. There have always been desks in morning television even if only for the news anchor (think back to Anne Davies, Penny Smith and Jo Sheldon anchoring the news bulletins on GMTV). The difference here is that there are four anchors with ill-defined roles. By comparison (as many commentators have noted), the US broadcasts have identifiable anchors, news anchors and contributors and the roles seldom overlap. It's awkward that the 'hard' issues, such as the news headlines, appear to be the preserve of Susanna and Charlotte Hawkins yet the latter appears to be lower in status to Ben Shepherd. It needs work.
I am not sure how well the 'Americanisation' of the broadcast will fare with the viewers. The issue of the date is a bit of red-herring; the morning shows always made reference to the date, even if it was an OTS during the news bulletins. The announcement of the date? That's different and I am sure that there are plenty of people who did think, and do think, "I know fine well what the date is - don't patronise me". Equally, The London Studios are not Rockefeller Center and it certainly is not the landmark that the GE Building is in New York. It may help if there was a large ITV logo on the top, but...
One thing that caught my eye on here were the comments about the 'New This Morning', 'New Overnight', 'Developing' captions on their headlines. Again, this is where the broadcast has been built around an American template and it doesn't work in the UK necessarily. The names of the servicemen killed in Afghanistan was not a story that had developed overnight. The names were released early on Sunday evening and were in the first editions of the newspapers. It's stretching things a bit to presume that everybody watching Good Morning Britain missed any of the news bulletins from Sunday evening onwards or didn't see it on the internet. Descriptions such as 'New Overnight' are most effective in countries with more than one timezone, ie., Australia, Canada and the US, where those in the East will have gone to bed well before those in the West and may miss out on any story that develops subsequently. If I'm honest, I can't see people in Suffolk going to bed much earlier than those in Cumbria.
I like that the regional bulletins are longer but I can't help but think that 26 minutes is too long to wait for their first feed. In the morning, most people want to know the news headlines, whether or not they will need an umbrella and what the traffic is like before they head out of the door to work. The US morning shows have the luxury of an hour-long local newscast as their lead-in. Most people in the US get their local news and traffic updates then and they are updated regularly during commercial breaks with a cut-in. This is a criticism of BBC Breakfast as much as Good Morning Britain. They are both guilty of not providing enough time for local updates.
On screen, the graphics are fine. What struck me most about them, however, is that they don't 'sit' properly and work together. When the stack appears the screen is far too cluttered - the logo, time hashtag on the left, the ticker, any astons that may be necessary, the weather widget, and on top of that, the graphic advertising the local news headlines and the time. It's all too much.
Equally, the one shot with an OTS graphic doesn't work. The curved design of the elements just doesn't work and the colours compete with each other, ie., the gold, orange and white of Good Morning Britain versus the teal and white of the ITV News brand.
http://www.tv-live.org.uk/wp/media/goodmorningbritain/graphics4.jpg
Please don't get me wrong - I liked it. It's a change that has long be required to broadcasting in this country. But those of us who take an interest in these things, those of us who like the graphics, the set, the music, etc., look at the broadcast differently to Joe and Joanna Bloggs. They are both trying to get out of the front door and get to work without hitting a traffic jam and one of them is probably thinking "Can I risk putting the washing out on the line before I go to work or is it going to rain?" How it goes down with the public in general is entirely different to how we feel about it.
I'm guessing ITV are pretty pleased with this rating, given lack of promo and Daybreak's abysmal figures.
I'm not sure that ITV will be pleased by these ratings. When it was announced that Susanna Reid was leaving the BBC to join ITV, much was made of her popularity amongst viewers. Indeed, many articles in the press referred to a) the poll in the Radio Times in which she was voted the country's favourite presenter of Breakfast; and b) her appeal to demographics as broad as 'Footballing Dads' and 'Yummy Mummies'. According to most (if not all) of these articles, Susanna was the 'People's Champion' of Strictly 2013. Given that level of appeal, ITV could reasonably expect a significant uptick in the ratings when Susanna first appeared on air.
Equally, there has also been a great deal made in the press of Ben Shepherd and his appeal to female viewers as much as to male; he's somebody that you could discuss football with over a pint, etc. as much as anchor a show that runs the gauntlet of news, sport, current affairs, entertainment, celebrity and everything else in between.
Given those conditions, an increase of 200,000 will be viewed as... lacklustre (for want of a better word). They are not a disaster, yet neither are they either a runaway success or a false positive, ie., an extra one million viewers on day one, the show is a success, and on day two, the viewing figures return to normal.
Although Joshua is correct to say that there was a lack of promotion it's being a little bit economical with the actualité (as Alan Clark would say). Since it was announced that Daybreak would end and be replaced with Good Morning Britain and since it was announced that Susanna Reid, Ben Shepherd et al , would be anchoring the broadcast there has been ample promotion in the media (though admittedly very little on air). Every story that has featured Susanna Reid has referred to her defection to ITV, her new role on Good Morning Britain, etc. It's been covert, rather than overt, promotion.
For the record, there is much to like about this relaunch. Too much has been made of the desk. There have always been desks in morning television even if only for the news anchor (think back to Anne Davies, Penny Smith and Jo Sheldon anchoring the news bulletins on GMTV). The difference here is that there are four anchors with ill-defined roles. By comparison (as many commentators have noted), the US broadcasts have identifiable anchors, news anchors and contributors and the roles seldom overlap. It's awkward that the 'hard' issues, such as the news headlines, appear to be the preserve of Susanna and Charlotte Hawkins yet the latter appears to be lower in status to Ben Shepherd. It needs work.
I am not sure how well the 'Americanisation' of the broadcast will fare with the viewers. The issue of the date is a bit of red-herring; the morning shows always made reference to the date, even if it was an OTS during the news bulletins. The announcement of the date? That's different and I am sure that there are plenty of people who did think, and do think, "I know fine well what the date is - don't patronise me". Equally, The London Studios are not Rockefeller Center and it certainly is not the landmark that the GE Building is in New York. It may help if there was a large ITV logo on the top, but...
One thing that caught my eye on here were the comments about the 'New This Morning', 'New Overnight', 'Developing' captions on their headlines. Again, this is where the broadcast has been built around an American template and it doesn't work in the UK necessarily. The names of the servicemen killed in Afghanistan was not a story that had developed overnight. The names were released early on Sunday evening and were in the first editions of the newspapers. It's stretching things a bit to presume that everybody watching Good Morning Britain missed any of the news bulletins from Sunday evening onwards or didn't see it on the internet. Descriptions such as 'New Overnight' are most effective in countries with more than one timezone, ie., Australia, Canada and the US, where those in the East will have gone to bed well before those in the West and may miss out on any story that develops subsequently. If I'm honest, I can't see people in Suffolk going to bed much earlier than those in Cumbria.
I like that the regional bulletins are longer but I can't help but think that 26 minutes is too long to wait for their first feed. In the morning, most people want to know the news headlines, whether or not they will need an umbrella and what the traffic is like before they head out of the door to work. The US morning shows have the luxury of an hour-long local newscast as their lead-in. Most people in the US get their local news and traffic updates then and they are updated regularly during commercial breaks with a cut-in. This is a criticism of BBC Breakfast as much as Good Morning Britain. They are both guilty of not providing enough time for local updates.
On screen, the graphics are fine. What struck me most about them, however, is that they don't 'sit' properly and work together. When the stack appears the screen is far too cluttered - the logo, time hashtag on the left, the ticker, any astons that may be necessary, the weather widget, and on top of that, the graphic advertising the local news headlines and the time. It's all too much.
Equally, the one shot with an OTS graphic doesn't work. The curved design of the elements just doesn't work and the colours compete with each other, ie., the gold, orange and white of Good Morning Britain versus the teal and white of the ITV News brand.
http://www.tv-live.org.uk/wp/media/goodmorningbritain/graphics4.jpg
Please don't get me wrong - I liked it. It's a change that has long be required to broadcasting in this country. But those of us who take an interest in these things, those of us who like the graphics, the set, the music, etc., look at the broadcast differently to Joe and Joanna Bloggs. They are both trying to get out of the front door and get to work without hitting a traffic jam and one of them is probably thinking "Can I risk putting the washing out on the line before I go to work or is it going to rain?" How it goes down with the public in general is entirely different to how we feel about it.
BA
Does this mean Kate has been moved from GMB
Looks like kate, ranvir and john's pages have been moved from the GMB website. They've added all of the reporters and correspondents etc.
Does this mean Kate has been moved from GMB
BA
Does this mean Kate has been moved from GMB
No
they must be either updating the website again, or are editing their 'bio'.
Looks like kate, ranvir and john's pages have been moved from the GMB website. They've added all of the reporters and correspondents etc.
Does this mean Kate has been moved from GMB
No
they must be either updating the website again, or are editing their 'bio'.
WH
The same as Wales and Scotland.
I've often wondered about this - given that Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain, do people from those parts object to often being referred to as such?
I know that GB and UK are often interchanged, but are in fact different.
Great Britain and United Kingdom are different, but the word "Britain" on its own can be used for both.
Whataday
Founding member
How do they handle handing over to NI? As NI isn't part of Britain, it's a separate nation altogether, is it not very clunky?
The same as Wales and Scotland.
I've often wondered about this - given that Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain, do people from those parts object to often being referred to as such?
I know that GB and UK are often interchanged, but are in fact different.
Great Britain and United Kingdom are different, but the word "Britain" on its own can be used for both.
MA
They are still on the main "meet the team" page, you need to scroll down, they haven't featured on the presenters link though.
Looks like kate, ranvir and john's pages have been moved from the GMB website. They've added all of the reporters and correspondents etc.
They are still on the main "meet the team" page, you need to scroll down, they haven't featured on the presenters link though.
MI
The same as Wales and Scotland.
I've often wondered about this - given that Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain, do people from those parts object to often being referred to as such?
I know that GB and UK are often interchanged, but are in fact different.
Great Britain and United Kingdom are different, but the word "Britain" on its own can be used for both.
Don't make me get the Venn diagram out again.....
NI is part of the British Isles, and the United Kingdom, but in and of itself refers to nothing more than the land mass between John O'Groats and Land's End. To take it to its extreme logical end, Anglesey and the Isle of Wight are not in Britain. However its usage has come to mean the UK in the same way Holland has come to mean the Netherlands. It's a lazy but harmless term. As such perfectly suited to the low-brow world ITV permanantly inhabits (see also Britain's got Talent). The only residents of NI who would object to being called Britain are the Irish nationalists, who have access to Irish TV.
How do they handle handing over to NI? As NI isn't part of Britain, it's a separate nation altogether, is it not very clunky?
The same as Wales and Scotland.
I've often wondered about this - given that Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain, do people from those parts object to often being referred to as such?
I know that GB and UK are often interchanged, but are in fact different.
Great Britain and United Kingdom are different, but the word "Britain" on its own can be used for both.
Don't make me get the Venn diagram out again.....
NI is part of the British Isles, and the United Kingdom, but in and of itself refers to nothing more than the land mass between John O'Groats and Land's End. To take it to its extreme logical end, Anglesey and the Isle of Wight are not in Britain. However its usage has come to mean the UK in the same way Holland has come to mean the Netherlands. It's a lazy but harmless term. As such perfectly suited to the low-brow world ITV permanantly inhabits (see also Britain's got Talent). The only residents of NI who would object to being called Britain are the Irish nationalists, who have access to Irish TV.
WH
He's bitter because he was dropped from the lorraine newspaper review in August 2012, he kept quiet during the worst era of daybreak. I wouldn't care for his opinions on anything.
I posed the above to him and he responded.
Whataday
Founding member
Ratings for ITV's new breakfast show Good Morning Britain... 800,000. Crap. Here we go again...
— Kevin O'Sullivan (@TVKev) April 29, 2014
He's bitter because he was dropped from the lorraine newspaper review in August 2012, he kept quiet during the worst era of daybreak. I wouldn't care for his opinions on anything.
I posed the above to him and he responded.
@TVKev Fair point.
— Matgo Styles (@MatgoStyles) April 29, 2014
MK
Anyway, don't think I like these individual regional handovers. What's the point? Those of us who are aware that they're handing over to several different newsreaders around the country know it's pre-recorded and therefore essentially fake and the casual viewer won't ultimately care one way or the other.