Chris Evans launched ” The Terry and Gaby Show” on Five in 2003, in an attempt to compete with ITV’s ” This Morning”. In less than a year it had been axed.
Looking in detail at an episode from each show, identify the codes and conventions of the daytime TV genre, and suggest why ” The Terry and Gaby Show” failed to dent the popularity of ” This Morning”.
After looking at each of the episodes I found that the presenters in each one were quite the same. In both of the shows they have a man and a woman presenter and in both of the shows they seem very chatty and friendly. I think that in TAGS the presenters (Terry and Gaby) are better known and also have been in lots of different shows working together in the past. I think this shows that they should be able to work together very well and this should help the show, but as they know each other well it could make them more relaxed and so this could spoil it slightly as they talk to each other rather than the audience. In both of the shows the presenters are smiley and happy which is good because this should help people be more relaxed watching the show.
It also makes it more personal to the people watching. For TAGS I think the presenters are more well known and more famous they are well known for some of the shows they have been in and this could make people more likely to watch it. In TM the presenters talk to the audience more rather than talking to each other, which will definitely help the show but the presenters of TM (Fern and Philip) are not as well known and not as famous so people might rather see TAGS. I think that the presenters have nothing to do with TAGS being axed. I feel that the conventions for daytime TV presenters are that they have to be chatty, happy and friendly. Terry and Gaby are well known for being in lots of shows but most of the shows they are in are similar. In all of the shows they are in they are smiley happy and chatty which is the same in TAGS. This is probably why they were chosen for the show in the first place.
You haven’t really differentiated the presenters in terms of their brand image… they are not identical! PH
There are lots of different types of items featured on daytime TV the conventions for daytime TV are Celebrity news and interviews, real life stories, Gossip/News and competitions. In TAGS they had all of this stuff but their celebrities were not as famous as in TM. I think this is mainly because TM had been Going for much longer and so was more known in the celeb world this means more famous celebrities are more likely to agree to be on TM because it was more well known. In the episode of TAGS we watched the celeb they interviewed was mostly just on the show so he could advertise another show which was coming on channel5. In the episode of TM we watched they had a different variety of celeb’s interviewed which could be another reason it was more popular than TAGS.
In TAGS the competition prize was just a DVD player and the competition was very easy to answer they probably did this so that more people would ring with the answer witch would give them moremoneyand as it was easy it would attract more viewers. This obviously didn’t work which is probably because the prize was not as good either. In TM the competition was harder to get but the prize was a holiday, which is much better than TAGS and could have helped them get more viewers. I think that the competitions didn’t have much to do with TAGS getting axed. For both of the shows They had someone on who spoke about celeb news and gossip and a bit of normal news.
I think that in TM it was much more informative and detailed and in TAGS it was much more comedy rather than real news and information. I think they mainly did this because they were trying to target a younger audience by making it more up beat and new. They tried to do this by putting in things to encourage young student viewers as well as the older generation. TM is more targeted at an older generation because they have things In to appeal to older people. I think that TAGS made a mistake by doing this because it is more likely that people who are older are going to be watching a daytime TV show so this could have been one of the main reasons TAGS got axed.
The conventions for the title sequence for a daytime TV show are loud cheerymusic, colourful and light settings and just some thing happy and jolly. The title sequences for both of the shows are very different; in TAGS it shows Terry and Gaby on their way to work and shows the way they are travelling. It shows that Terry is on a bike and is cycling to work and Gaby is being driven to work in a posh car she goes in the back of the television centre and Terry goes through the back.
In TM it has different coloured squares running along the screen some of these have different clips from the show, some have different relaxing objects in them and some just have colour. Both of these are very colourful and bright and both have very happy cheery music in but they both are very different. For TM I think that it has a better title sequence because firstly it has better more catchy music that everybody likes but in TAGS the music is cheery but a bit boring and only some audiences would have liked it. I think that this could have been one of the reasons that TAGS got axed because people might have seen the title sequence and then thought that the show was not for them.
I think that the set in TM is much more calm and relaxing which is good because in daytime TV it should be relaxing so they can relax from whatever job they are doing and sit down and not have to watch anything to bright and confusing. For TAGS the set is very bright and up beat and much more colourful. I think it is the convention of daytime TV to have a very bright set and to have it set up like someone’s living room with a sofa to make it look more homely. I think that the set for TM is much more relaxing and homely and that in Tags it is a bit too bright and colourful. This could have defiantly put people of watching the show. In TAGS They have a studio audience unlike TM who haven’t. I think that TAGS having an audience is good because it includes the viewer more because there are normal everyday people on the TV too but it is also good for TM not to have an audience because it means their wont be any background noises or laughs at the wrong time which could annoy people.
Rather vague, little use of media terminology (Mise-en-scene etc). PH
By Sam Iles
Sam, you have not properly addressed the points I raised from your first draft. Detailed examples are lacking (no mention of specific guests), nor do you make much reference to media concepts or theory (celebrity brands, mise-en-scene).
You do identify some of the codes and conventions of the genre and engage in some limited analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each text.