What have you learnt from the audience feedback
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

What have you learnt from the audience feedback

on

  • 159 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
159
Views on SlideShare
157
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 2

http://ratcliffecollegemedia.wordpress.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

What have you learnt from the audience feedback What have you learnt from the audience feedback Presentation Transcript

  • HOW DO YOU THINK WE’VE TARGETED OUR AUDIENCE OFYOUNG PEOPLE? This question was designed to address if our audience would be able to see in what ways we have targeted our audience. From their feedback, we learned that through Eleanor, the documentary being predominantly footage of teenage girls (which is what we intended their purpose to be) the audience could identify our target audience of girls aged 13-18+.
  • HOW EFFECTIVE ARE THE FACTS ON THE BODY INSTOP MOTION?This question was asked to find out if the facts through Stop motion had more of an impact on the audience and were able to read it and take it in. From their responses of ‘yes’ this question has been a success.
  • DO YOU THINK MADDY’S INTERVIEW SHOWS THESTRUGGLE OF ANOREXIA?In this question we wanted to know if the emotions of Maddy could be seen by the audience and thus her words have more of an impact on them. This question was a success and their feedback showed they could clearly identify Maddy’s strong emotions.
  • DO THE FILLERS USEFULLY SHOW AND CONNECT WITHOUR MAIN PURPOSE (HOW NEW MEDIA AFFECTSANOREXIA) WHEN MADDY WAS TALKING ABOUT THEINTERNET?From this question we wanted to know if the audience could identify the fillers as internet/new media related during Maddy’s speech towards the end of the documentary. This question was successful as from their responses of ‘yes’ they could see the fillers of media/internet imagery relating to what was verbally being said.
  • HOW COULD WE HAVE IMPROVED OURDOCUMENTARY?This question was straightforward and for us just wanting to know if the audience had any suggestions on improving it that we could take forward on our next project. Such as in Miss Gregory’s interview she used media terms our audience would be unfamiliar with. The terms in our interview could of been given a basic explanation so the audience could understand and be educated at the same time.This question however also answered if the audience were focusing on the documentary’s context or the problems with it. There wasn’t too much feedback on this, so the question was a success as it showed people were focusing on the documentary.
  • OVERALL, DOES OUR DOCUMENTARY INFORM YOUABOUT THE DANGERS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING?This question what designed to let us know if we successfully raised the awareness of the audience about the power and dangers of the internet (social networking sites etc). The feedback told us that this was achieved through our use of facts and figures and showing how social networking sites such as Facebook have an impact that is not often recognised.
  • DOES THE SOUNDTRACK FIT IN WITH OURDOCUMENTARY?From this question we wanted to find out if the audience recognised the purpose of the P!nk song and that the lyrics had a significant relevance to our documentary. Their positive feedback confirmed this.
  • DOES IT FOCUS TOO MUCH ON NEW MEDIA?Through this question we wanted to know if there was a balance between our combined topic of new media and anorexia. The audience feedback told us that there was enough on anorexia however could have focuses a little more on Facebook as its a social networking site predominant in teenagers lives.
  • POSTER QUESTION FEEDBACK:•our audience could identify how the poster targeted teenagegirls as I had hoped (through the colour pink, using a model thesame age and through the use of the girly stick figures in the title)•the focal image as I’d hoped draws the most attention, howeverthe title I think have to fight for attention and could of been madebigger (which the last question, ‘can you suggest anyimprovements’, confirms)•our audience could identify one link between the documentaryand poster which was through using the same model.
  • REVIEW QUESTION FEEDBACK:•Their initial feedback showed that young adults would tend to read it, however in later questions they re-phrased and found they wouldn’t because it was more text, ‘maybe less text’ and agreed that they would rather hear it of through opinion leaders. This establishes that the review achieved its target of being more of an academic, text heavy review.•The review appealed to them through the stereotypically pink which Ellie expressed and the rating was agreed fair and could of been 5 out of 5.
  • FEEDBACK FROM INDIVIDUALS:The individual and group feedback was similar, however below and some differences in feedback:Confirmed that the documentary was very informative on anorexia and the topic was dealt with in a way that didn’t overwhelm the audience. This was our aim as we wanted to only inform and raise the awareness of the audience of the dangers of the internet on body image and hopefully spread this awareness.The documentary was a good length, short enough, but still enough context to keep the audience interested.Confirmed the documentary is suited for an art-house cinema as we had expected because of its niche topic.It was clear the documentary’s mood was becoming more positive towards the end of the documentary which we had intended through choosing particular footage.The individual footage confirmed that the review could be identified as for older more academic, intellectual audiences (with teenage daughters to hear about it from them).The dispersion effect link between the poster and review was identifiable.