Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utegc!utai!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
From: andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Evaluating the CBC
Message-ID: <872@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Feb-87 13:12:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.872
Posted: Thu Feb 26 13:12:00 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Feb-87 02:11:52 EST
References: <191@fornax.uucp> <3047@watdcsu.UUCP> <636@watcgl.UUCP> <3058@watdcsu.UUCP>
Reply-To: andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews)
Distribution: can
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 27

In article <3058@watdcsu.UUCP> brewster@watdcsu.UUCP (Dave Brewer, SysDesEng, PAMI, UWaterloo) writes:
>	One common method for evaluating performance is monetarily and in this
>	evaluation CBC is a failure.  If you don't like this evaluation then
>	feel free to suggest an alternate evaluation method, since I don't
>	think anyone proposes we provide 1 billion + every year to a company
>	without some sort of minimal guarantee of performance.

     Well, as far as CBC AM radio goes, it is a public service
which has no revenue from ads or sources other than the government
(with the possible exception of CBC Enterprises, which may or may
not be non-profit).  So the "monetary" argument hardly applies.

     CBC AM is very ratings-conscious, and has recently revamped
its schedule in order to appeal to a younger audience.  I think
they have done a good job, even though I wasn't hot on the new
schedule when it first came out.  As far as I can see, the ratings,
i.e. the share of the target market which is listening to the
service you're trying to provide, is a good way of evaluating
the service.

     If there's inefficiency or mismanagement or waste somewhere
in the CBC, then of course that should be examined.  But I don't
think their programming can be faulted, at least for AM radio.

--Jamie.
...!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"The university, to me the most congenial of lives"