Cost-Effective Video: ATaxonomic Decision-Modelfor Media Selection

Martin FreedmanAssistant Professor, AccountingState University of New YorkBinghamton, NY 13901

and

Jerold GruebelAssistant Professor, Radio-TelevisionUniversity of IllinoisUrbana-Champaign, IL 61801

The increased growth rate of video ornonbroadcast television use in businessand industry (e.g., Brush & Brush,1973; Barwick & Kranz, 1975; Cath­cart, 1976; Brush & Brush, 1977; andCruebel, 1979) has occurred, for themost part, without systematic analysisof costs and benefits and cost-effective­ness in the decisionmaking process. Bar­wich & Kranz (1975), for example, sug­gest that not all video decisions can beexplained by rational processes; thatvideo has some of the earmarks of a fadand part of its popularity can be at­tributed to its being the "in" thing.Brush & Brush (1977) found a new cate­gory of respondents in their most recentsurvey, former users who could notcost-justify their video operation afterseveral years of program productionand distribution. Gruebel (1979) foundthat one insurance company is now aformer user because they "bought someequipment· which was completely out­of-date before we real;y found a use forit." Only 12.6 percent of the total userrespondents to Gruebel's survey indi­cated they h",d a formalized cost-analy­sis/cost-justification system, but it wasquestionable whether any of these or­ganizations were actually measuringcost-effectiveness.

In view of a major investment ofdollars in video, it would have been rea­sonable to assume that some kind ofcosts and benefits analysis would beperformed prior to making the decisionto purchase the video package. Lately,top management apparently has come

to realize that communications­namely, television services-within anorganization must, like every otheraspect of the business, be a managedfunction (e.g., Brush & Brush, 1977). Toprovide guidance in this direction, wehave developed a decision-model for thepotential user of video. In addition,present users also can ascertain with thisdecision-model whether or not they areusing video cost-effectively.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

A cost-benefit analysis consists ofexamining the incremcntal costs of vari­ous alternatives (costs directly related toeach alternative) and comparing thesecosts with the benefits derived fromeach alternative. The alternative withthe highest net benefit (benefits minusincremental co~ts) represents the bestchoice. However, because many of thefigures generated in this type of analysisare estimates, the potential user shouldbe aware that alternatives with smalldifferentials in net benefits are more orless equal choices.

Decision-Model

The decision-model ha~ !){'endeveloped in the format of a t.lxonomy(Figure 1). To sl·II·Ct medi.l. some' SYS­

temJtic way must be found to CI'mpaiecosts and bl·nefits. A lal(onol11Y i\ aclassification scheme. ['revil'us t.lXono­mies in biolon' .Imlloology. edllc.JtiI1n.and accounting (e.g., Simp",". }Ocd;

Bloom, 1950; and Fn·t-tlm.ln. 10 75)were used to compM!." rt·lation\hirs .Intinonrclationships of phenomt"n.l Iu\t .15the present t.ll(onomy (,111 I.... u\ed tI'

comp.lre inCrt'ml·nl.l/ CI"I\ .InJ bl'rll'hlsof medi.l .11l1·rn.III\'(....

I{evil'ws ,,/ rt-'I·.Hch lIn rrH',I,.1 ,(·t,·(­lion and 1O\lrUclI"n.a1 JI"'IJ.;lf (l'.f: ..Caml'e.lU. 107·1. l\lIl'll. Iv7l) r....JchsirnilM l'!lllclu\."n\ r":Md,,,}: 'hI' r.l'(.Jfor" t.1XllnPlIl'( .I1'l'rt,.I .. h :" dl(' pwh­lem. Prl'viou~ nu"(!.01 \.1'''"''011..... have

been useful to such decisionmakers asengineers and media practitioners,teachers, instructional designers; andtextbook illustrators (e.g., Bretz, 1971;Gropper & Glasgow, 1971; Fleming,1967; and Tosti & Ball, 1969). Clark(1975) constructed a taxonomy of mediaattributes for research p~rposes.

The taxonomy divides the decision­model into a number of components:(1) purpose(s) for using video; (2) alter­native ways of achieving purpose(s); (3)cost variables for each alternative; (4)incremental costs for each alternative;(5) benefit variables for each alterna­tive; (6) benefits of selecting a particularalternative; and (7) net benefits of eachalternative.

PurposeIt is necessary to set well defined goals

before the decision to purchase a videoor alternative package. Media consult­ants agree on this point without excep­tion. Brush & Brush (1977) advise thatsetting goals is always a good place tostart. Barwick & Kranz (1975) describedthe mismanaged organization withundefined goals: "The organizationblunders into video operations withoutknowing what it wants to achieve, or ifvideo is the right tool to effect thatachievement. In many cases. a film orfilmstrip could do just as well with farless investment. Without defined goals,there is no rational basis for evaluation.The video operation becomes difficult todefend at budget time..." (p. 9).

Video has been used for a variety. ofpurposes that can broadly be defined aseducational. Television programs havebeen developed for proficiency upgrad­ing, training and job skills, sales train­ing.. safety, sales meetings, and promo­tional/product demonstrations. man­agement commun~ations, employe;orientation and news, managementtraining and development, communityand public relations, and the like. Re­gardless, the starting point of the deci­sion-model is that the potential user

2 JOURNAL OF INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Figure 1. Decision-Model for Media Selection.

Purpose AlternativesBenefit

Cost Variables Costs Variables Benefits Net Benefits'(A) (B) • (C)" (0) (Ei (F) (G)

Training LIVE Presentation PRODUCTION- INCREMENTAL Type of EX ANTE DifferencePRINT DISTRIBUTION- COSTS of E.lch MESSAGE/ Benefits for BetweenLive Presentation RECEPTION: Alternative OBJECTIVES Each Benefits-Costs

& PRINT HARDWARE S Value, 1 Alternative (D-F) for EachAUDIO-ONLY 1. Selection of Medium Employee AlternativeAUDIOTAPE & 2. Specs Trained EX POST

SLIDES 3. Time Factor AUDIENCE Benefits forAUDIOTAPE & SOFTWARE SIZE . Each

FILMSTRIPS 1. Product % Employees AlternativeVIDEO-ONLY 2. Time Factor TrainedFILM-ONLY DISTRIBUTION % Task(s)LIVE Presentation 1. Selection of Medium Performed

& AUDIOTAPE 2. Location of Audience/LIVE Presentation Presenters (TRAVEL)& SLIDES 3. Trainees' Time (LOSS OF

LIVE Presentation PRODUCTIVITY)& AUDIOTAPE/ 4. Time FactorSLIDES LABOR

LIVE Presentation 1. Full-time Media Staff& FILMSTRIPS 2. Part-time Media Staff

LIVE Presentation 3. Free-lance Personnel& VIDEO 4. Time Factor

LIVE Presentation OVERHEAD& FILM 1. Space Allocation &

OTHER Development2. Running Costs3. Time Factor

SERVICE:HARDWARE 'Samecost

1. Specs variables for each

2. Time Factor alternative

DISTRIBUTION1. Selection of Medium "Deduct

2. Travel investment

3. Loss of Productivity tax credit

4. Time FactorLABOR1. Full-time Media Staff2. Part-time Media Staff3. Free-lance Personnel4. Time Factor

OVERHEAD1. Space Allocation &

Development2. Running Costs3. Time Factor

knows specifically the intended users)for the video or alternative package.

.If video is to be used for one purposeonly, then that purpose should be in­cluded in the decision-model. However,if video is to be used for several pur­poses, then each of the intended usesshould be included in the decision­model and compared with the alterna­tives. Although the decision-model willbe described with consideration to asingle purpose (training), it can be usedfor multipurpose situations. Shouldother or additional purposes be con-

SPRING 1979, VOL. 2. NO.3

sidered, those purposes also must beincluded in the decision-model.

AlternativesThe second component of the deci­

sion-model consists of possible mediaalternatives for achieving the intendedpurpose(s). Examples provided in thetaxonomy have the same alternativesregardless of purpose(s). This does notmean necessarily that these alternativesexist for every media decision. Rather.these alternatives exist for purposesincluded in the taxonomy.

Prior to the development of audio­visual and video technology, educa­tional programs relied on some form ofwritten communication (print) or face­to-face communications (live presenta­tion). Either print or live presentation orprint and live presentation still are alter­natives.

A live presentation also may be de­livered in conjunction with other media.Because the addition of other mediachanges both costs and benefits of thelive presentation, each combinationshould be included as an alLernative.

3

"To select media, sow I' systematic way must be found to compare costsand benefits."

These other combinations include: livepresentation with audiotape, live pre­sentation with slides, live presentationwith audiotape and slides, live presenta­tion with filmstrips, live presentationwith audiotape and filmstrips, live pre­sentation with video, and live presenta­tion with film.

Live presentation refers to the presen­tation of educational material by ateacher (an expert in the field), or someother professional. When the presenta­tion of educational material is in com­bination with other media but the per­son in charge of the media serves anauxiliary function, the presentation willbe considered media-only.

Because educational material may bepresented without face-to-face com­munication by an expert in the field,other alternatives include: audio-only,audio-tape and slides, audiotape andfilmstrips, video-only, and film-only.

Cost VariablesThe cost variables for each alterna­

tive include annual costs of production­distribution-reception and serviCe.These cost variables have been cate­gorized regardless of cost types; that is,without considering whether these costsa're fixed, variable, recurring, non­recurring,or 'joint (shared with otherprojects). Production-distribution-re­ception costs include: equipment (hard­ware), programming (software), distri­bution, labor, and overhead. The costsof service provided by technical supportstaff (e.g" engineers) do not involvesoftware, but include: hardware, dis­tribution, labor, and overhead.

These cost variables are interrelated.For example, production-distribution­reception costs of hardware and the sub­sequent servicing costs of alignment andtesting equipment depend on degree ofsophistication or the desired programquality, location of the audience, size ofcreative and technical support staff, andthe allocation of space for providingmedia services. In turn, these costs arerelated to time factors built onto eachvariable (e.g., amortization schedule forhardware).

Production-distribution-receptionThe hardware cost vari;:;ble [or pro­

duction-distribution-reception has threedimensions: (1) selection of medium;(2) technology specifications for achiev­ing purpose(s); and (3) time factor. Notonly may costs vary from one alterna-

tive medium to another, but within aselected medium. For example, 35mmfilm equipment is considerably more ex­pensive than 16mm film equipment,which in turn is considerably more ex­pensive than the Super-B or 8mmformat. Similarly, broadcast-qualitycolor cameras are considerably more ex­pensive than light-weight black & whiteporta-paks; audio consoles equippedfor sound mixing cost considerablymore than playback-only audio equip­ment; and so on. The medium selectedshould represent a balance betweentechnology specifications necessary forachieving purpose(s) and available fund­ing. Moreover, costs should include ex­penses for maintenance and repair andthe manufacturers' amortization sched­ule for hardware. Any tax effects of pur­chasing equipment (e.g., investment taxcredit) should be deducted from produc­tion-distribution-reception costs.

Software costs should represent total,average, or specified annual costs of thecompleted program(s) for one or morereceiver(s). The software cost variablehas two dimensions: (1) product; and(2) time factor. The completed programor product may require certain expensesin preproduction, production, and post­production other than hardware, distri­bution, labor, and overh~ad. These in­c1ude: materials (e.g., costumes, props,set pieces), talent (e.g., "on-camera"performers, models), outside services(e.g., photographic laboratory process­ing and printing, film-to-tape or tape­to-film transfers, time-base correcting,video dubbing), and the like. The timefactor, which should be consistent withthat of other cost variables and figuredon an annual basis, includes the number

of completed programs, the length oftime the product is expected to last(physically), the length of time the mes­sage is expected to last (before it is out­dated), the number of times the productis expected to be used (access), the aver­age size of the audience each time theproduct will be used, and the necessarylength of time required to produce andupdate the product.

Distribution costs vary with themedium selected and location of the in­tended audience. Video can be wired,microwaved, or sent by satellite (some

organizations "network" their programsto a variety of locations) provided thereare reception capabilities at designatedlocations, Film can be projected at acentral location, which would requirethe intended audience to travel, ~r it canbe projected at multiple locations,provided there are at least as manyprojectors and program duplicates aslocations. Regardless, the costs for view­ing/listening (e.g., projectors, screens,video receivers/monitors) and programduplicates (e.g., film prints, videocas­sette dubs) should be figured into thiscost variable. Travel requirements dur­ing the specified time period also shouldbe figured into the cost of distribution.This includes the cost of distributingpresenters to multiple locations of theintended audience, the cost of bringingthe intended audience to a centralloca­tion for viewing/listening, and cost oftrainees' time or loss of productivitywhile attending the program. Suchoverhead as running costs (e.g., elec­tricity, telephone charges, videotape,and film stock) should not be figuredinto distribution costs.

The costs of labor include: full-timemedia staff (e.g., producers, directors,camera operators, production assist­ants), part-time devoted to media serv­ices by other corporate staff (e.g., art­ists, managers, supervisors), and free­lance personnel (e.g., "on-camera" tal­ent, artists, graphic designers, writers,outside producers). Normal employeebenefits should be included in the costsfor all full-time media staff.

Overhead costs include space alloca­tionand development, in addition tothe various running costs of produc­tion-distribution-reception (e.g., tape

stock-audio and video, film stock­still prints and slides and motion pic­tures, headphones, electricity, telephonecharges, materials).

Service. The hardware cost variablefor engineering service has two di­mensions: (1) technology specificationsand (2) time factor. The technologyspecifications for service are dictatedby the technology specificationsfor production-distribution-reception.Costs should include expenses for main­tenance and repair (or "back-up" servic­ing equipment) and the manufacturers'

4 ,JOURNAL OF INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

"Video, in particular, represents a major investment of dollars and mustbe a 'managed' function within an organization."

amortization schedule for hardware.Any tax effects of purchasing equipmentshould be deducted from service costs.Service alignment and test equipmentnecessary for AV/video operationsmight include: time-base correctors(TBes), oscilloscopes, digital circuitry.

Like distribution costs for produc­tion-distribution-reception, distributioncosts for engineering service vary withthe medium selected and location of theintended audience. Regardless, the costsfor maintenance of viewing/listeningequipment (other than hardware, labor,and overhead) should be figured intothis cost variable. If engineers (or othertechnical staff hired for the purpose ofservicing production-distribution-recep­tion hardware) are required to travelduring the specified period under study,these costs also should be figured intodistribution costs.

The costs of labor include that of alltechnical staff hired for the purpose ofservicing production-distribution-recep­tion hardware, whether employment isfull-time for the media operations, part­time, or on a free-lance or consultingbasis. Normal employee benefits shouldbe included in the costs for all full-timetechnical staff for the media operations.

Overhead costs include space alloca­tion and development, in addition to avariety of running costs k.g., spareparts, audio and video cables, extensioncords, workbench tools).

Incremental CostsIncremental costs are those costs

directly related to the particular alterna­tive. Costs that remain constant regard­less of alternative are not relevant to thedecision. Thus, for example, the depre­ciation cost of the office building thatserves as corporate headquarters orexecutive salaries that remain the sameregardless of the medium selected arenot relevant costs.

Incremental costs can ·be readily as­certained after all cost variables for eachalternative have been determined andcomputed. In doing so, however, theseannual incremental costs should becompared during a specified time periodor finite number of years (i.e., based oneither the predicted life of the mediatedprogram, the manufacturers' amortiza­tion schedule for production-distribu­tion-reception hardware, or' some ar­bitrary number of years for study).Then, discount these annual incre­mental costs back to the present at the

SPRING 1979, VOL. 2, NO.3

cost of capit,11 or jnlt'fl'st ralt', soth.lt allincremental costs .ue at the presentvalue,

Benefit VariablesThe bent:fit of media selection wCluld

be cost-effective message(s) that the re­ceiver(s) can undc'rslMld .1Otl .:lct uponas desired by ttl(' orl:.lnil.ltion (mini­mum standarus of pcrlNmance need tobe determined). There arc' a number ofimportant benefit voHi.lhlc's in determin­ing whether or not the Im'ssage(s) wouldbe cost-effective. These include: typesof messages/ohjl~cliv(... : the henefit ordollar value of the incre,)se in produc­tivity for one receiver pertorming a taskor series of tasks at some minimumstandard of perform.lnce, or realizingobjectives in some llther predeterminedway; audience Sill' (t he number ofreceivers of the messages); the per­centage of those receivers performingthe tasks or realizing objectives; and thepercentage of tasks performed or objec­tives realized.

The type of message component in­eludes objectives so that systematicevaluation of performance can be made.Messages may have anyone or more ofa variety of purposes (see Figure 1) andmay deal with such elements as tech­nical information, abstract concepts,emotions (e.g., conflict management),rote memorization, or any combinationof these element's. Different messagetypes and elements may require differ­ent methods of evaluating performance.

The benefit of one receiver perform­ing a task or series of tasks at someminimum standard of performance, orrealizing objectives in some other pre­determined way, is the dollar value ofthe increase in productivity. For somelarger corporations, this data is alreadyavailable.

The audience size involves the knownor estimated number of receivers of themessages during a specified time period.

The percentage of those receivers per­forming the task(s) or realiling objec­tives is equal to the number of thosereceivers performing the task(s) dividedby the number of receivers of fhe mes­sage(s).

The percentage of tasks performed isequal to the number of tasks performed

divided by the number of tasks that theorganization would like the intended re­ceivers to perform after viewing/listen­ing to the messages,

BenefitsMeasuring the benefits of erich alter­

native is perhaps the most difficult partof this and any cost-benefit analysis.Benefits may have to be determined exante or ex post. depending on whetherthe organization is considering the pur­chase of a media package for future useor evaluating an existing package forcost-effectiveness. Ex a/lte determina­tion of benefits would be appropriatefor the former, ex post evaluation forthe latter.

Ex ante, measure benefits by deter­mining the worth or dollar value of theincrease in productivity(or one receiverperforming a task or series of tasks atminimum standards of performance andmultiply that figure by the number ofreceivers who have viewed/listened to

the same or similar messages usinganother medium (i.e., dollar value, 1employee trained X audience size).Then multiply that figure by the per­centage of those receivers who per­formed the task and again, by the per­centage of the task(s) performed (Le.,dollar value, 1 employee trained Xaudience size X % of employees trainedX % of task(s) performed).

Compare this result with that of mul­tiplying the worth of one receiver per­forming a task or series of tasks atminimum standards of performance bythe number of receivers who will view/listen to the same or similar message(s)using the media package being con­sidered for purchase; then, furthermultiplying that figure by the estimatedpercentage of those receivers who willbe able to perform the task(s), andagain, by the estimated percentage ofthe task to be performed.

Because the percentage of receiversperforming tasks at minimum standardsof performance and percentage of thetask performed are based on estimates,these percentages should be presented asranges (e.g., 75 percent - 85 percent).The resulting benefit also should be pre­sented as a range.

5

Hypothical Example of ex ante Approach

The resulting range of benefits then can be compared to the incremental costsof a live presentation with slides; the difference between the benefits and incre­mental costs is the net benefit or net loss.

Company A must then determine ex ante the net benefit of video. The deter­mination can be compared with the net benefit of a live presentation with slides;the alternative with the highest net benefit represents the better choice. However,determination of the best choice requires that all other media alternatives forachieving purposes be compared for benefits. It may be possible to obtain benefitdeterminations from other organizations in the same or related industry that usemedia alternatives (e.g., audiotape with slides).

Company A currently uses a live presentation with slides to train its em­ployees, but the company is considering the purchase of a video package toreplace this method of training. Company A must first determine the effective­ness of live presentation with slides.

There are 100 employees involved in Company A's training program. Com-pany A makes the following determinations regarding effectiveness:

20% of empioyees trained at effectiveness level of 90 100%50% of employees trained at effectiveness level of 70 80%20% of employees trained at effectiveness level of 40 60%10% of employees trained at effectiveness level of 10 35%Company A also determines that the value of an effectively trained employee

is $10,000 for each of the next five years. The cost of capital (interest rate) is10 %. Therefore, the range of benefits can be determined as follows:

20% X 90 100% X 100 employees X $10,000 = $180,000 $200,00050% X 70 80% X 100 employees X $10.000 = $350,000 $400,00020% X 40 60% X 100 employees X $10,000 = $ 80,000 $120,00010% X 10- 35% X 100 employees X $10,000 = $ 10,000 $ 35,000

Range of Benefits = $620,000 $755,000Company A must then determine the present value of the range of benefits

since benefits accrue to the company for the five years. Assuming that benefitsare received during the five-year period, the present value of the range of benefitsis determined as hllows:

$620,000 X 3.7908 (present value of annuity at cost of capitalfor five years) = $2,350,296

$755,000 X 3.7908 (present value of annuity at cost of capitalfor five years) = $2,862,054

Present Value of Range of Benefits

Ex post measure benefits in the sameway as ex ante and compare benefitsfor each media alternative, except thatdetermination of effectiveness is basedon actual past performance or observa­tion of present on-the-job performance.While estimates would not have to bemade regarding the percentage of thoseperforming the task(s) at minimumstandards of performance and the per­centage of the task(s) performed, ob­servation itself reflects an estimate (al­though c;uch an estimate stands lo bemore precise than that of ex antemethods). Therefore, ex post findingsalso should be presented as a range.

In ex ante and ex post measurementsof benefits, find the benefits for each

= $2,350,296 $2,862,054

year based on the dollar value of the in­crease in productivity (either estimatedbased on the probability assumptionthat the benefit is equal to increase inproductivity or based on past data).Determine the benefits for the samefinite number of years used in deter­mining incremental costs and discountbenefits using the same cost of capital orinterest rate.

Net BenefitsThe net benefit of media package is

determined by subtracting incrementalcosts from the benefits. However,because the benefits should be presentedas a range, the resulting net benefit alsoshould be expressed as a range.

The next step would be to compareincremental costs and benefits for eachmedia alternative; the medium with thelargest net benefit should be selected.The resulting ranges provide usefulcomparative, although not precise,measurement for users and potentialusers to analyze and select media pack­ages in the decision making process. Al­ternatives with small differentials, orany overlap, in net benefits would indi­cate more or less equal choices.

Discussion

The decision-model has been devel­oped in the format of a taxonomy sothat costs and benefits can be systemati­cally compared. However, the potentialand present video user should be awarethat each component of the decision­model contains varying degrees of un­certainty.

In the first component, for example,the varied purposes for using video pre­sent problems in the measurement ofbenefit variables (e.g., performance oftask, dollar value of the increase inproductivity for one receiver realizingobjectives in some predetermined way).The problems differ in magnitude foreach purpose. Thus, it would be easierto measure benefit variables for a train­ing program (measuring the perform­ance of specific tasks) than such othervideo messages as employee orientationand news, community and public rela­tions, and management communica­tions (measuring attitudes, image, andstyle).

Determining alternative ways ofachieving purposes is limited by the in­ability to pair media with messagetypes; that is, selecting the mediummost suitable for conveying the mes­sage. Previous research is inconclusive(e.g., Anderson, 1972) and intuition ofmedia specialists may not be accurate.

The cost variables component is sub­jected to uncertainty created by chang­ing prices and unavailable informationnecessary for production-distribution­reception and service decisions. For ex­ample, manufacturers' suggested pricesand specifications do not include someof the information necessary in decidingto purchase the products of one manu­facturer or the other (e.g., manufac­turers claim-life expectancy of videotapedepends partly on storage conditionsbut do not specify temperatures andhumidity, each manufacturer has its

6 JOURNAL-OF INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

own copyrighted formula of chemicalsused in the making of videotape butdoes not specify either chemicals used orsuch test results as the number of"passes" in playback before videotapedepreciates other hardware). Further~

more, most reports of business andindustry use of television suggests thatvideotape can be erased and re-used asoften as practical needs require (e.g.,Barwick & Kranz, 1975; Brush & Brush,1977). However, there are those whodisagree (e.g., Kelly, lTV engineer atUniversity of Illinois in a personal inter­view, 1978) because re-used videotapecan damage recorders and playbackmachines and therefore, this practiceshould be reflected in amortizationschedules and service costs.

The benefit variables component doesnot account for either media attributesor individual differences of receivers.Moreover, there may be relevant attri­butes of media that interact with in­dividual differences to effect learning(e.g., Salomon, 1970; Clark, 1975) andthis interaction is not considered in thedecision-model.

Receivers' access to messages also isno't considered in the decision-model.The ability of receivers to review andstudy messages may be a function of themedium selected; consequences ofaccess would be reflected in benefit vari­ables, benefits, and net benefits.

In the sixth component, inefficiencyin performance or test scores can bequantified and added to costs of laborand to either the costs of training newpersonnel or retraining those whoscored poorly, although it would be dif­ficult to determine whether the fault lieswith the media package, the message,the receiver, or some other variable inthe communication process.

Incremental costs and net benefits areaffected by the uncertainty of othercomponents discussed above.

Summary and Conclusions

Selecting media for cost-effective userequires systematic analysis of costs andbenefits in the decisionmaking process

SPRING 1979, VOL. 2, NO.3

Video, in particular, represents a majorinvestment of dollars and must be a"managed" function within the organi­zation. The decision-model has beendeveloped in the format of a taxonomyto provide guidance in the direction forpotential and present users of video, al­though it can be used in the selection ofvarious alternative media packages.

The starting point is setting well­defined goals. Other components of thedecision-model-cost variables, incre­mental costs, benefit variables, ex anteor ex post benefits, and net benefits­then can be determined. The net bene­fits represent benefits minus incrementalcosts and should be expressed as arange.

Because each component containsvarying degrees of uncertainty, the deci­sion-model should be viewed as nothingmore than a guide.

ReferencesAllen, W. H. Instructional media re­

search: Past, present and future. A VCommunication Review, 1971, 19,9 18.

Anderson, C. M. In search of visualrhetoric for instructional television.AV Commwlication Review, 1972,20,43 62.

Barwick, J. H. and Kranz, S. Whyvideo? A publication prepared forSony Corporation of America, 1975.

Bloom, B., KrathwohL D., & Masia, B.Taxonomy of educational objectives;the classification of educational goals.New York: David McKay Company,Inc., 1956.

Bretz, R. A taxonomy of communica­tiorr media. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Educational Technology Publica­tions, 1971.

Brush, J. & Brush, D. Private televisioncommunicatio/ls: a report to ma/lage­ment. White Plains, NY: KnowledgeIndustry Publications, Inc., 1973.

Brush, J. & Brush, D. Private televisioncommunications: an awakeninggia/lt. Boston: International Indus­trial Television Association (lTVA).1977.

Campeau, P. L. Selective review of theresults of research on the use ofaudiovisual media to teach adults.AV Communication Review, 1974,22,5 40.

Cathcart, W. L. Television and indus­try. how a new trend relates to stu­dents. Feedback (BEA), May 1976,13-15.

Clark, R. E. Constructing a taxonomyof media attributes for research pur­poses. A V Communication Review.1975,23,197,215.

Fleming, M. Classification and analysisof instructional illustrations. A VCommunication Review, 1967, 15,246 258.

Freedman, M. An analysis of industrialsocial costs: a taxonomic approach.Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Illinois, Urbana~Cham­paign, 1975.

Gropper, G. L. & Glasgow, ·Z. Criteriafor the selection and use of visuals ininstruction: A handbook. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Educational TechnologyPublications, 1971.

Gruebel. J. Use of televbibn by busiilessand industry for communication andtraining. Educational Technology,April 1979, 4851.

Kelly, Charles. Instructional television(lTV) engineer, University of Illinois,Urbana-Champaign. Personal inter­views and consultation, October1978.

Salomon, G. What does it do to Johnny?A cognitive-functionalistic view of re­search on media. In G. Salomon & R.E. Snow (Eds.l, Viewpoints (Bulletinof the School of Education, IndianaUniversity), 1970,46,3362.

Simpson, G. G. Principles of a/limaltaxonomy. NY: Columbia UniversityPress, 1961.

Tosti, D. T. & Ball, J. R. A behavioralapproach to instructional design andmedia selection. A V Com/rlunica(io/lReview, 1969,17,525.

7