GuruRoo

Very important, since ratings are a metric for corporate donors to gauge whether or not getting a 30 second promo at the top of a program is worth millions of dollars.

Love that place.

I haven't worked in private sector, but we make comparisons to private sector ratings as a metric for corporations to consider ad value.

So, ratings are a big deal. But, also a big deal is the integrity of programming on PBS. Attaching a brand to the PBS name offers a lot of value to corporations. I've certainly seen donors more interested in the programming itself than the eyes it attracts. In that vein, I would say, yes, NewsHour is less concerned with ratings than your CNN or Fox.

Gonna delete my previous comment soon because it makes me a little too identifiable.

Thanks for doing the AMA Chris.

I wanted to ask about the work environment at Oracle. Specifically, is there any tension or aversion between the developers and the salespeople/non-developers? My SO is starting a sales position there in June, and I worry her inexperience with technology may catch her a lot of criticism from coworkers.

She could sell shit to a bull, but I had to explain to her what cloud computing is after she got the offer to work there. Wondering how you think that might play out.

I'm not going to pretend to understand all the reasoning a corporate board goes through before approving underwriting, but in my experience, it's a mix of four things.

1. Ad value in conventional metrics like viewership

2. Ad value in unconventional metrics really only available to PBS, like educational programming used in schools throughout the country.

3. Attachment to PBS, which is polled as the most trusted public institution in the country.

4. Being able to show investors "hey look, we helped make this thing" -- in which case, the PBS product is usually related in someway to the work the corporation is involved in (i.e. pharma companies supporting The Emperor of All Maladies.

I think #4 is the closest to believing in public broadcasting.