Re: [Swprograms] [ODXA] BBC to Caribbean

["Richard Cuff" <rdcuff@xxxxxxxxx>]

Warning:  continued philosophising follows...

Here's my hypothesis:  The problem boils down to that nasty "T-" word,
TRADEOFFS.

I propose that the logic used by commercial enterprises is perceived
as generally more adept at dealing with situations involving tradeoffs
-- I believe the economists would use the term "pareto-optimums" --
than non-profit or governmental enterprises.

Believe it or not, I had the same discussion about a month ago as part
of a leadership activity I'm involved in at our church.  We were
looking at various means of evangelism, and the issue boiled down to
the fact we have limited resources and need to sort out how best to
apply those resources to the goals of our church.

I lack your career public sector experience, but in the two years I
rubbed shoulders with the US EPA, it seems that the decision rationale
for tradeoffs was based on political expediency as much as anything
else -- i.e. which decisions were most likely to secure funding the
next year for the agency, thus ensuring its own survival.  While that
is a rational approach for decisionmaking, it is not an optimal
approach.

Faced with tradeoff-filled quandaries, public service broadcasters
have adopted decision-making processes from their for-profit bretheren
because The Powers That Be felt those would be improvements versus
other methods used.

In the end, I agree wholeheartedly that the decision to drop analog SW
to any region is foolhardy -- at least maintain a single-frequency
presence at convenient times of the day.

Alas, as we lamented back in '01, the BBCWS is/was not willing to be
sufficiently transparent to allow us to judge the statiscal analysis
used to reach these conclusions.

BTW -- I like the new BBC program "Business Daily".  It deconstructs
business issues to an understandable discussion.  Better than this
e-mail does, for sure.

Unspoken in all this is the "cost per listener" argument.  That likely
remains the real culprit here.  The WS is willing to trade indpendent
control of its programming -- i.e. letting public radio stations make
choices -- for the costs required to maintain shortwave to North
America.

No argument with your points -- as to whether or not the BBC was (and
is) wrongheaded in its thinking.

Richard Cuff / emulating Rodin's sculpture in / Allentown, PA



On 3/30/06, jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx <jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes, I accept your criticism that the remit I suggested was a bit too
> wide.  I suppose I would place greater emphasis on the fact that the
> BBC seems to be hewing more to commercial standards in its self
> analysis over traditional public service standards. It is all the rage
> today--the flavour of the month, if you will--so not entirely
> surprising that the BBC would succumb to it.  But it is disappointing
> to some of us, all the same.
>
> Re: your comments regarding "shortwave enthusiasts".  In response I
> would say (and think you would agree) that shortwave is simply just
> another platform.  One may prefer it for a number of reasons, only one
> of which would be some kind of "hobby" orientation.  It still holds
> some clear technical advantages over the others, not the least of
> which are its inexpensive nature and low energy requirements (from the
> listener's point of view) as well as its avoidance of "the
> gatekeeper".  (And I would posit that this latter phenomenon is not
> confined to the third world.  I don't really want my public radio
> station deciding what BBC programs I should hear any more than I want
> the government to do so.)
>
> No sentient being would argue that the BBC should stay on shortwave
> just to satisfy hobbyists.  But BBC constantly raises (politely) this
> argument as a defense. It is just a straw man that management uses to
> avoid talking about the harder questions.  I do find this
> objectionable, if only because it flies in the face of factual data
> that undermines at least partially the BBC stance.
>
> Ignoring facts is no way to create and set policy.  Of course, as a
> policy analyst by trade I see this approach taken every day.  It is,
> sadly, quite effective--mostly because most people either lack the
> time, facility or interest to pursue the facts. After 30+ years in the
> profession, it still sticks in my craw.  We are all entitled to our
> own opinions; but we are not entitled to our own facts.
>
> Sorry if some see this as a rant.  It is not intended as such.
>
> John Figliozzi
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Cuff <rdcuff@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, March 30, 2006 8:26 am
> Subject: Re: [Swprograms] [ODXA] BBC to Caribbean
> To: Shortwave programming discussion <swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > While I agree with most everything you've said, I am not sure I
> accept
> > the statement I quoted below as fact.
> >
> > I would add the following qualifying statement to this sentence:
> >
> > "...in every way possible, consistent with the instutition's reasons
> > for existence -- its charter -- and the resources allotted to the
> > institution to accomplish its tasks."
> >
> > By the logic you used, then the BBC should broadcast in every known
> > language -- that's part of "every way possible".  That isn't
> practical
> > either, as I am sure you'd agree.
> >
> > In many ways I'm convinced this logic dates back to the discussion we
> > had here on "BBC Audibility" back in June 2001.  In 1999/2000,
> > pre-cuts, the audibility of the WS in North America was "63%" on some
> > sort of percentage scale, whereas the global audibility target was
> > 81%.  We never did sort out what "audibility" meant, or what the
> > percentages meant as well.
> >
> > The BBC at that time categorized its target audiences -- i.e. its
> > "reasons for existence" -- into three groups:  "Information Poor",
> > "Aspirants", and "Cosmopolitans".  Nowhere did "Shortwave
> Enthusiasts"
> > enter into the mix of audience demographics.  Those first two
> > categories, it was determined, didn't apply to we Americans /
> > Canadians.  The report then looked at how each demographic habitually
> > received its media.
> >
> > Also, back then, the average weekly audience size for English lanuage
> > services in various regions was compared:  9 million for the
> Americas,
> > 70 million for Asia/Pacific, and 47 million for Africa & the Middle
> > East.
> >
> > Take those three "facts", or more correctly, those perceptions,
> > add in
> > a helping of budgetary pressure, and you have a surefire recipe for
> > shortwave closedown to the Americas.
> >
> > While that *explains* the Bush House rationale, it still doesn't
> > justify it.  Even if the Americas aren't worth 66.7 transmitter hours
> > per day, a  75% reduction -- to 17 transmitter-hours -- would be
> > enough to preserve *some* decent shortwave access for those motivated
> > to seek it out.
> >
> > I'll send that old 2001 e-mail observation out in a separate e-
> > mail.
> > Unfortuantely the weblink that referred to the annual reviews in
> > question is no longer valid.
> >
> > Richard Cuff / Allentown, PA
> >
> > On 3/29/06, John Figliozzi <jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >  It is also a fact
> > > that the primary task of an institution founded on public
> > service is
> > > to serve the public in every way possible.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Swprograms mailing list
> > Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
> >
> > To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@hard-core-
> > dx.com?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Swprograms mailing list
> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
>
> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.
>
>

_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.