The Glee repeats weren't getting 1.5m+. If they had been getting that in the overnights, it would've charted in the official BARB Channel 4 Top 30 but it hasn't for any week.

The first two repeats had about 1m: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...postcount=3758

In February, ratings for the Glee repeats fell. The most watched repeat was on the first Sunday of the month: http://www.channel4sales.com/data/tv.../February/2010

And in March, they were down to only 0.7m: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...&postcount=248

That's probably why Channel 4 switched the slot - it wasn't rating too well. Time Team last week got nearly double Glee's audience in the same slot.

Yeah from September , GMTV ( currently in Studio 5) will be moving to the previous London Tonight Studio - Studio 7 at the London Studio's. So will have the real London backdrop.

I dont understand the GMTV/Chiles thing either-surely he has a more blokeish image and I thought GMTV went for women?
Personally, despite the headline ITV Sport billing I reckon ITV have gone for Chiles just to keep him off the BBC-it wont be the first time. Chiles has spent 17 years at the Beeb, it still continues to amaze me that they conspired to lose his versatility by attempting to fix something that isnt broken.

Quite a few CIA shows this year. JJ Abrams one is the most high profile but CBS are doing one as well which "still has buzz" according to Deadline.

I like the new direction that The CW seem to be going in, they seem to be favouring more action/sci-fi and less of the rich kids. Gossip Girl is a guilty pleasure, but they just had too much of it this year adding Melrose Place and The Beautiful Life.

Hellcats could be seen as the "old CW" as it revolves around cheerleading but it depends on the execution. If it's funny and offbeat (like Glee's Cheerios) they might have something. If it takes itself too seriously, it won't work. Ashley Tisdale is a good lead.

Earlier in the season "The Damn Thorpes" (horrible title, IMO) had some heat:


And HMS which quite bizzarely has Hayden Panetierre (yes, her from Heroes) attached as a Co-Executive Producer.


The final pilot is a novel adaptation which follows up on the success of The Vampire Diaries.


It's amazing how little time they leave themselves. ABC apparently haven't seen any of their drama pilots yet and in 3 weeks they need to present their 2010-11 primetime schedule to advertisers!

This Morning is currently more successful than it has been for ages! According to Phil, ITV have committed to another 7 weeks of This Morning Saturday/Sunday because it has been a success. It might not be reaching the heights it once did but what shows that have been on for 21 years are as successful now as they were in the 90s?

I agree with Brekkie, Holly has definitely injected new life into the show. Its perhaps worth noting that yesterdays was presented by Ruth & Eamonn and I guess the ratings are down for those two.

ITV's daytime line up is quite strong. It might not beat the BBC's but both attract different demographics and clearly it works for ITV. BBC daytime has an older audience whilst ITV daytime is watched by housewives and students. Quite frankly, ITV should be concentrating more on their prime time output.

However, where the exception lies is GMTV. That is in a dire state at the minute and whilst I think its foolish they're scrapping the GMTV name, it definitely needs an overhaul and I seriously hope it gets one. And by that I don't mean a new sofa in front of a new window. I really like the sound of Helen Fospero joining Adrian, someone new yet someone who GMTV viewers are familiar with.

I think they ought to axe the remaining sofa presenters and place them elsewhere within ITV for example Emma Crosby could replace Katie Derham on the national news. They are a competent bunch of presenters but I think GMTV is too much of a mish mash at the minute. The only way for it to have clear direction is for them to start from scratch.

Yes I thought last nights was excellent too. Its a shame that maybe the scheduling and the fact that the impetus has been worn away over five series has made A2A less of a must see. However Hunt is one of the greatest tv characters and I for one am looking forward to the outcome and the explanation as much as I was after episode one of LOM.

Great stuff!

These ratings don't tell the whole story though, for such long programmes, it's not as if only 2.39m viewers are watching Breakfast TV.

It was funny in a tabloid newspaper this week when they claimed Chiles had made the wrong decision, leaving 5m viewers behind for less than a million. But in reality, I'd imagine more than 5m people watch GMTV.

Well they claimed once upon a time that 25 million did.

If you add up their figures from Monday to Friday, then yes.

GMTV also has a much bigger social impact, for example you'll get people at school or work talking about something they've seen on GMTV that morning, or there are Facebook groups about the GMTV clock. One has over 100,000 members. Can you really say the same about The One Show?


The ratings are simply the average of people watching at a given time. The million watching at 6am are almost certainly a different million to those watching at 9am! Who actually watches the whole 6-9.25am? Nobody. Its designed to be watched for half an hour to an hour, so it will probably reach 5m people a day.

I dont know the figures but I would rather suspect that repeats of This Morning are extended because its much easier for ITV to do that than anything else. (Phil gets excited when anything he is associated with gets 10 extra viewers)
As for the demographics, Im sure you are right, but it seems that Homes Under The Hammer gets more viewers even when certain items within it are on their fifth and sixth repeat.
I happened to see,at the gym, a picture only version of Phil and Holly on some peculiar seating arrangement doing what appeared to be a horoscope. That cringeworthy ten minutes would be enough to put me off TM completely.Each to their own though.

It isn't a perfect show by any means and I'm not an avid watcher but I find it more watchable now than I did a year ago with Phil & Fern. That's when it was in axing territory. They were good in their heyday but Fern's love for the show just went.

Parts of it are cringe worthy but its not really a show that takes itself seriously.

Its obviously doing the business for ITV otherwise it wouldn't still be around after so long- more so with the weekend shows. They might be filler but if it wasn't performing, compilation shows wouldn't see the light of day.

As I said in my initial post, I don't think (barring GMTV) daytime is really a concern for ITV, they desperately need to fix their weekly 7-10pm slots.

Friday's soaps: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/ne...-april-23.html

Another new low for Hollyoaks with 831k on C4, 240k on E4.

that Hollyoaks rating is cause for concern, is there any way they can get to the PM episode sooner?

Channel 4 might as well just hand Hollyoaks over to E4 where it will probably get close to 1m daily and continue airing it as part of T4. With all this 'creative renewal' nonsense its a good excuse for them to do it before ratings fall even further. I don't think they'll ever get the viewers back they've lost in the past year or so. I was one of those viewers and watched one ep a few weeks ago, its a completely different show now and pushes me further away from it than draws me back.

If I were Channel 4, I'd have the end of the 'flash forward' storyline (if it hasn't already concluded) as the Channel 4 finale, with the aftermath and beyond on E4.

The daily reach of unique viewers is presumably what Andy was talking about. BARB used to publish this on their website. Not sure if they still do?

I'm sure the last one in the 5.30pm slot (28 March) got 1.7m, and the one before not far off that. I can't have imagined that, surely!


They should be due anytime now - and the wedding will finally be over within a month, so then it can really get moving.

It is worrying though, but I don't think C4 will be too concerned unless we're still in this position come September / October.

According to Phil any show he is presenting is a massive success and blows away the competiton. At the end of the day This Morning's ratings lag far behind its competition that consists of Homes Under The Hammer, Car booty or something like that. Ive never seen the audience profile of This Morning but I cant imagine it to be fantastic.


GMTV and social impact should never be used in the same sentence. The fact that the clock is the most popular part of the show sums up the show's problem.


Going to a show that averages 1m from a show that usally gets about 5m is a backwards step however you look at it. Overall, The reason Breakfast is far in front of GMTV is that it attracts an audience that mostly arent listening to The Chris Moyles Show.

Well 95 pc of the population is digital now and it's not as if it's going to Sky, which is subscription only, but to a Freeview channel with a successful youthful image. I think now is the time to big up digital offshoots of the three main channels and give them some shows which would raise their profile instead of the same old repeats on a loop. Putting Hollyoaks on E4 would then free up the 6.30 slot on Channel 4 for their property, cookery, lifestyle stuff that does so well in the previous hour.

The audience is up 20% on this time last year, although the place I read that also said that ITV were slightly ahead of the BBC in daytime and quotes figures.

Male viewership of This Morning is also up since Holly's arrival. The audience profile might not be fantastic, but obviously its doing the job well enough to warrant 2 hours a day for at least 44 weeks of the year. I don't think its fair to judge it based purely on Friday's rating- for a start Holly & Phil do Monday-Thursday.


People still reference GMTV far more than they do The One Show, or even BBC Breakfast for that matter. GMTV is in a horrific state and the ratings are crap but I do think they need to keep the name, it's almost iconic. Obviously it has a lot of negative connotations at the minute but nothing that can't be fixed with the right work. They just need to have a clear out (which they are doing) and give the show a direction, not be a mishmash of Five News and This Morning.

If there's any indication of the success of iplayer branding, it's that rival broadcasters' programming has made it onto the BBC iPlayer Charts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/

ITV has hardly ever beaten BBC in Daytime, its usually only ahead when CBBC is on. Im not disputing the fact that This Morning is worthy of its place in the schedule but it should be more competitive with BBC1's offerings.

Im sure people reference GMTV the most of the three shows but what has people talking about GMTV actually done for its ratings? I agree with you that the show needs to find an identity and stop being a mixture of many other shows. I think the best thing would be to just axe it and start a similar show in its place, with a new name and Chiles heading a new presenting team.

I can't help think about The Big Breakfast though. At the end that had lost it's identity and wasn't as good as before. Channel 4 axed it, replaced it with Rise, that was even worse, nobody watched it, the few remaining BB viewers switched off, nobody new switched on and it was axed altogether. Therefore I think it is best to carry on with the GMTV brand.

GMTV maybe has become too stuck in a rut and its gossipy, HEAT magazine image is probably even driving away a lot of women viewers. Adrian Chiles moving there is a brave move, but maybe GMTV must hear all the comments about them and want to refresh their image and attract more male viewers.

I just noticed that Graham Norton was trending worldwide on Twitter, which I thought might indicate a boost in interest for Over the Rainbow. I was wrong though. People are instead tweeting about the cartoon Graham Norton that appeared on the screen during the climax of Doctor Who, raging about how it ruined the tension. Bit of an own goal from the Beeb there!

I know ITV have hardly ever beaten BBC in daytime, thats why I'm questionning the original article. The article in question is here. I don't get how it can be more competitive though, the only way would be to get bigger stars or high profile news stories on the show but would it really be worth it for an extra hundred thousand viewers? Viewership at that time of day is very limited and both BBC and ITV already cater for a lot of the available audience, two audiences which are different to each other.

My reasoning for explaining how GMTV is more spoken about is purely, what I think is, evidence for them to keep the GMTV name but radically overhaul the show. It benefits them in two ways, they get to keep GMTV which is a well recognised brand, and if the relaunch goes wrong then at least they can undo some of the changes to win back viewers. Otherwise they've got a RI:SE situation on their hands. They tried something completely different, it didn't work. Then it just ended up as a watered down Big Breakfast in all but name.