A complete BU 439 Unit 2 channel selection rationale: criteria fixed first, every candidate tested against all of them, a short list funded, exclusions argued in full. Searches like "bu 439 unit 2 assignment example", "bu439 unit 2 sample" and "bu 439 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished BU 439 Unit 2 channel selection rationale looks like
The finished piece reads as a decision memo with a grid inside it. It opens on the criteria, four or five of them, each defined tightly enough that two readers would score the same platform alike: whether the evidence gathered earlier puts the audience there, whether the format the message needs is native to that surface, whether anybody on the team can sustain the output, and what the platform does with a post once it exists. Candidates follow in a grid with a short paragraph under each entry. The funded set is then named, and it is usually smaller than the draft began with. Excluded platforms get their own section afterward, a paragraph apiece, saying what each would have offered and what ruled it out. A final passage names the condition that would reopen the decision.
How a BU 439 Unit 2 example is structured
Criteria are written before candidates because a rationale assembled the other way around defends surfaces somebody had already chosen. Sustained output sits among the criteria rather than in a footnote, since a channel nobody can feed is a decision to publish badly where everyone can see it. Distribution behavior is scored in its own right, as two surfaces can hold the same people and do entirely different things with what is posted to them. The grid precedes the prose so the scoring stays visible, and the prose follows it because a grid on its own commits nobody to anything. Exclusions are given real paragraphs rather than a line each, as naming what the firm will not do is the harder half of this decision and the half a rubric can test. The reopening condition closes, since a choice with no expiry gets defended long after it stops being right.
Criteria defined before any platform
Four or five tests are written and bounded first, so two readers scoring the same candidate would land in roughly the same place.
Audience evidence carried from the audit
Where people actually are comes from what this audit observed, not from a broad assertion about who uses which surface.
Sustained output treated as a criterion
A surface nobody on the team can feed is filtered out here, because a starved account publishes badly in front of everyone.
What each surface does with a post
Distribution behavior is scored separately, since two platforms holding the same people can treat identical content in very different ways.
Exclusions argued in full paragraphs
Every platform left out gets its own reasoning, as the refusals are the half of this decision a marker can genuinely test.
A condition that reopens the choice
The close names what would have to change for a rejected surface to be reconsidered, which keeps the decision from hardening.
Where marks go in BU 439 Unit 2
Rationales lose credit by including everything. A memo funding six platforms because each holds some audience has made no selection at all, and the resourcing question it skipped will fail quietly in the calendar later. Criteria invented after the choice, so that every test happens to favor the surface named first, were built backward and read that way. Claims about which age group lives on which platform, asserted with no source and no date, are the standing honesty problem here, since these populations shift and last year's figure gets stated as though it were permanent. Descriptions of what an algorithm rewards, given as fact rather than as something verified against current platform documentation, repeat the same error. Exclusions listed as bare names explain nothing. Audience data pulled from an employer's own accounts cannot support the reasoning.
Get a BU 439 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Forward the Unit 2 instructions with the BU 439 rubric your classroom shows, and the brand or case the assignment fixes. We write a custom example that defines its criteria first, scores every candidate against all of them, argues each exclusion in full and names what would reopen the decision. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
BU 439 Unit 2 questions, answered
How many platforms should the plan fund?
Fewer than a first draft carries, and the number falls out of the resourcing criterion rather than being decided in advance. Two surfaces fed properly beat five updated whenever somebody remembers. If your instructions name a minimum, meet it and be explicit that the smallest of them runs on reduced output, so the calendar does not later promise something nobody could produce.
Where does evidence about who uses a platform come from?
Published research, a platform's own reported figures and trade coverage, each cited with the date it was published, because these numbers move quickly and a two year old figure quoted flat reads as current. Your own audit supplies the other half: what the firm's existing properties have actually attracted is direct evidence about this audience, even when the counts are small.
Does a rejected platform really need a full paragraph?
It earns one. A single line saying a surface was not chosen tells a marker nothing about your reasoning, whereas a paragraph naming what it would have offered and what ruled it out shows the criteria working against a real case. Rejections are also where a rationale is most easily challenged, since the strongest candidate you declined is the obvious question a reader will ask.