andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (02/26/87)
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"