2. What is the purpose of audience feedback?
I had conducted audience feedback to discover whether my target audience acknowledges that my
productions suit their purpose. In which, the music video production is based upon their most mentioned
ideals of a music video; these ideals were gathered within my audience research tasks. Furthermore,
audience feedback was also considered as a source of information which would determine the interest of my
target audience, in relation to my music video production. This would provide an indication of the production's
success, via suggesting an audience size.
Audience is significant to the success of a media text. Whereby, audiences have many responses and
interactions in relation to a media text. This is discussed within Blumler and Katz uses and gratifications
theory, which proposes that audiences of media texts are not passive. And instead, actively interpret and
integrate media texts into their own lives. Moreover, the theory mentions that people have different uses and
gratifications of media texts. In relation to the theory’s model, my ancillary tasks were primarily aimed to be
recognised as promotional products of the same music video production; which relates to the ‘identity’ tier of
the model. This was inevitably questioned within my audience feedback survey, to understand whether the
products achieved their purpose as advertisements. Furthermore, my primary intention of the music video
production was to ‘educate’ yet ‘entertain’ my audience; by highlighting the social issues which youth
generations interact with. As social issues are generic themes of the genre, I questioned whether there were
enough generic conventions within the music video production. This was required to gain an understanding, of
my music video production; whether it can be identified as a hip hop production.
3. How did I conduct my audience feedback?
To conduct my audience feedback, I had issued an online questionnaire to a niche market; being my target
audience(aged between sixteen and eighteen). I had chosen the same sample demographic as within my
research stages, to discover the development and impact of my products on my target audience. In which, I
had systematically emailed the questionnaire to all my colleagues within my Sixth Form; allowing only a
sample frame of fifty people to answer my questionnaire. I believed that fifty people was a moderately sized
sample frame to obtain accurate results, whereby fifty samples enabled me to construct data trends within the
results and draw conclusions. Furthermore, I believed that such sample demographic is most appropriate for
my feedback, as the products are targeted to the same demographic(bands D and E); meaning that the
feedback is most relevant.
In consideration of David Gauntlett’s theory of Web 2.0, I had become a ‘prosumer’. Which, as a consumer of
surveys, I have become a producer of them also. Whereby, I had utilised online tools such as SurveyMonkey
to create a survey, and had distributed it via email protocol in order to obtain results. Notably, online issued
questionnaires allowed me to obtain and present data quicker, in comparison to my physical methodology of
audience research previously. Moreover, issuing online questionnaires provided the convenience of allowing
all my products to be integrated into the questionnaire, further providing an ease-of-access to my sample
frame.
5. “How well does the music video relate to existing hip hop
productions?”. From this question I intended to obtain
results focusing upon the music videos recognisability,
as being a hip hop production.
In relation to the data, the results have clearly reflected
that the production is very generic; being similar to
existing hip hop productions. Over the sample frame of
fifty people, the average rating was eight. The figure
eight, indicates that the production is well-identified, by
the means of showing similarities between existing hip
hop productions. This is what I intended of the music
video; being generic, so that the production can be
identified as a hip hop music video. This ideal was
adopted from Steve Neale’s theory of “genres are
instances of repetition and difference”. Which, suggests
that productions should be repetitive, so that they can be
identified as a certain production. Through which I had
chosen to adopt generic props, camerawork, transitions
and artist iconography to achieve this.
Q1
6. “Does the music video differentiate from existing
productions?”. From this question I intended to obtain
results focusing upon the music videos uniqueness, in
comparison to other hip hop productions.
In relation to the data, the results have clearly reflected
that the production is mostly regarded as being a unique
production; being somewhat different to existing hip hop
productions. Over the sample frame of fifty people, the
percentage of people regarding the production as unique
is accountable for nearly three-quarters of the
sample(68%). Thirty-two percent of the sample regard
the production as being more identical to existing hip-hop
music video productions. This indicates that the
production conforms to and yet is different to existing hip
hop productions. This is what I intended of music video,
to be unique. This ideal of my production become
apparent after discovering Steve Neale’s theory of
repetition and difference; which concludes that repetition
will not attract an audience. With this in consideration, I
proposed to create a unique production that is also
identified as a hip hop music video production; through
the inclusion of high-key lit environments, a vast amount
of abstract shots and uncommonly used editing effects.
Q2
7. Does the music video differentiate from existing
productions? “If so, in what way does the production
differentiate ‘mostly’?”. From this question I intended to
obtain results focusing upon, the elements of the
production which created the ideal of uniqueness, in
comparison to other hip hop productions.
In relation to the data, the results have clearly reflected
that the production is mostly regarded as being unique via
the use of lighting; this ideal was intended due to lyrical
reference. Moreover the application of editing in terms of
transitions and effects(25.64%), is voted as being the
second most differentiation; throughout the post-
production stages of the music video, editing was only
intended to account for a subtle difference. Over the
sample frame of fifty people, the highest differentiating
element of the product is the lighting. This percentage of
people that voted lighting, is accountable for nearly one-
third of the sample(30.77%). This is what I intended of the
music video; to illustrate uniqueness, yet maintains the
identification as a hip hop production. The lighting subverts
genre expectancies as the lyrics referred to a daytime
setting, high-key lighting was implemented to visually
present the lyrics; which reinforces the production as being
performance based. Moreover, Andrew Goodwin explores
the visual and lyrical match within productions; which was
a concept I had wanted to apply.
Q3
8. “Does the music video utilise enough generic conventions
to be identified as a hip hop music video?”. From this
question I intended to obtain results focusing upon the
music videos recognisability, as being a hip hop
production; through the application of generic
conventions.
In relation to the data, the results have clearly reflected
that the production contains plentiful amounts of generic
conventions; enough to be identified as a hip hop
production. Over the sample frame of fifty people, the
percentage of people that identified the production as a
hip hop music video; is nearly accountable for the whole
sample frame(96%). This indicates that the production is
easily identifiable as a hip hop music video.
Recognisability is what I wanted to achieve as of the
music video, the numerous amount of generic conventions
achieves this. Whereby, the production can be identified
as a hip hop music video production. Notably, this ideal
was adopted from Steve Neale’s theory of “genres are
instances of repetition and difference”. Whereby suggests
that productions should be repetitive, so that they can be
identified as a certain production. To achieve this, my
production incorporates a typical hip hop artist
iconography - casual wear, fast transitioning, generic
props - drugs, alcohol and money, environments and
camera techniques - mid and close up shots.
Q4
9. “How ‘successful’ are the ancillary tasks, in terms of
advertising the main production?”. From this question I
intended to obtain results focusing upon the success of
advertising, in regards to my music video production;
through the advertising mediums of a digipak and magazine
poster.
In relation to the data, the results have clearly reflected that
the ancillary tasks are generally successful; no
‘unsuccessful’ votes were accounted for. Evidently over the
sample frame of fifty people, both tasks were at minimum
‘successful’ with advertising the music video production.
Successful advertisement is what I wanted to achieve as of
the ancillary tasks. Which, suits their purpose of ‘informing’
audiences of the album's release, and more so my music
video productions release. In relation to Blumler and Katz
uses and gratifications model, the ancillary tasks fulfill the
audience's gratification of being able to ‘identify’ the
production. To convey this ideology, I have recreated similar
design formats, imagery and artist iconography as seen
within the music video across both texts - which are generic
techniques of ancillary products. To ensure that such
formality was achieved, I had adopted a shot from within my
music video, as the focus; from my research into existing hip
hop products, I had observed that this was a recurring
technique also - this determined its appropriateness for my
own ancillary products.
Q5
10. “Are the ancillary tasks ‘recognised’ as being
advertisements of the same production?” From this
question I intended to obtain results focusing upon the
whether both ancillary tasks were recognised, as being
two separate mediums that were advertising the same
production.
In relation to the data, the results have clearly reflected
that the ancillary tasks were recognised as
advertisement devices of the same production. This is
proven as the whole sample frame of fifty people; voted
the ancillary tasks as being recognised as
advertisements of the same production(100%). The
recognisability of different advertisements promoting the
same production, is what was intended. Evidently, this
has been achieved, through the means of synergy; I
have incorporated similar design formalities, images and
colour coordination, and artist iconography as seen
within the music video across both texts. Inevitably using
similar techniques across the products is generic, and
enhances identification. In accordance to Blumler and
Katz uses and gratifications model, the ancillary tasks
fulfill the gratification of ‘identity’; where the products are
recognised as being advertisements of the same
production.
Q6
Yes
(100%)
11. Are the ancillary tasks ‘recognised’ as being
advertisements of the same production? “Does the music
video utilise enough generic conventions to be identified
as a hip hop music video?”. From this question I intended
to obtain results focusing upon which elements of the
ancillary tasks were most identifiable, in terms of
showing similarities between the products.
In relation to the data, the results have clearly reflected
that the most identified element between the tasks, over
the sample frame of fifty people is the colour
scheme(89.36%). Moreover, the data also shows the
artist's iconography as being the second most identified
element of the tasks(85.11%). In consideration of all the
elements, indicates that the tasks are similar; this is
gathered as most of the production elements mentioned,
were identified as similarities by half or more of the
sample frame. This proves that both tasks are
moderately recognised as being related to each other, to
say the least. Recognisability is what I wanted to achieve
between the ancillary tasks. Whereby, will allow my
music video production to be more identifiable; through
incorporating similar relations - a synergy. As mentioned
previously, I had recreated similar image concepts to
achieve this ideal; fulfilling the audience gratification of
‘identity’ in relation to Blumler and Katz uses and
gratifications model.
Q7
12. “Do the ancillary tasks provide ‘enough’ information that
is relevant to the music video production?”. From this
question I intended to obtain results focusing upon the
whether both ancillary tasks provide sufficient information
regarding the music video production.
In relation to the data, the results have clearly reflected
that the ancillary tasks provide sufficient amounts of
information about the music video production. This is
proven as the whole sample frame of fifty people; voted
the ancillary tasks as providing ‘enough’ information.
Whereby, no persons of the sample voted ‘no’(0%). It is
certain that the ancillary tasks suit their purpose, to
inform audiences about my music video production.
Recognisability of music video production is what I
intended to achieve - as stated previously; the ancillary
tasks evidently achieve this. In relation to Blumler and
Katz uses and gratifications theory, the ancillary tasks do
not fulfill the audience gratification of ‘education’. This is
supported by forty percent of the sample size, agreeing
that the tasks ‘somewhat’ provide enough information
about the music video production. ‘Somewhat’ is a term
that suggests minimal quantities, meaning that more
information can be included. Hence the gratification of
information is not fulfilled; in response to the data, my
products should include more information to suit
audience desires.
Q8
13. How was my audience feedback successful?
In relation to Stuart Hall’s reception theory, I intended my target audience to share the dominant reading of my media texts. Such
reading intended that my music video production could be recognised as being unique, yet can be identified as a production of
the hip hop genre. Moreover, in terms of my digipak and magazine poster products, I intended both products to be recognised as
effective advertising devices of the same production - a music video. Which would enable the music video production to be easily
identified, by viewers that have seen the promotional products. Conclusively this reading was mostly accepted, and is illustrated
from the questionnaire data trends.
However, to achieve such reading I had to understand the audience requirements of a music video production. Whereby, I had
previously instigated an audience research task, which queried the concept of the production. This included conducting a
questionnaire and VOX POP to obtain information of the preferred genre of production, preferred visual structure(performance,
abstract and narrative) and genre expectancies(hip hop) of the video. To produce a media text that would appeal to my target
audience, I acknowledged that I had to focus my music video production upon the most popularised answers in accordance to
the questions. As they were the most demanded concepts of a music video production; meaning a larger audience can be
attracted if a production adopts viewer interests. Relating my production to the feedback has evidently enabled all of my
productions to be successful; this was achieved as the feedback acted as a criteria for the productions. Whereby, my ancillary
tasks had adopted similar concepts of imagery from the music video production; enabling the products to be recognised as
advertisements of the same production.
14. What improvements could I make in relation to my
audience feedback?
In relation to my audience feedback, question eight within my questionnaire investigates whether my “ancillary tasks provide
‘enough’ information that is relevant to the music video production”. In relation to the data, the results highlight that the ancillary
tasks provide a ‘sufficient’ amount of information; that is relevant to the music video production. Which is shown by the whole
sample frame of fifty people, voting the ancillary tasks as providing ‘enough’ information. Inevitably, no one within the sample
voted ‘no’. However, around forty percent of the sample size voted ‘somewhat’, as their answer to the question. Whereby, the
term ‘somewhat’ infers to a minimal amount, indicating that near half of the sample size believe that there could be additional
information to be included within the products. In relation to Blumler and Katz uses and gratifications model, my ancillary
products do not fulfill the gratification of ‘educating’ people; being that more information is required by my audience. In response
to the feedback, I could potentially include information regarding the record label that the artist is signed to, within the magazine
poster. Additionally, text formats of the album name and artist could be implemented, to enhance the clarity of information within
the digipak. Furthermore, the album's year of release could also be included within both ancillary tasks.
In terms of demographics, I chose to neglect the construction of representations of data, based upon identity(such as gender
and age). Reasons being that my production(s) focused upon the target audience of youthful demographics - targeting bands D
and E. In which, my productions do not relate to multiple stereotypes of identities; focusing only upon the rebellious stereotype of
the youth. Hence, comparing results would not be relevant to my findings.
15. Concluding my audience feedback...
Within my audience feedback, it is conclusive that my productions are successful. Whereby, my ancillary tasks ‘successfully’
advertise my music video production. This is achieved as my ancillary tasks are “recognised as being advertisements of the same
production”, whereby, the use of similarity within the product's “colour scheme” and “artist iconography” establishes their relation.
Meanwhile, my music video production is identified as a hip hop production, and is also seen as a unique production; rather than a
duplicate. This is gathered as my music video production incorporates “enough generic conventions to be identified as a hip hop
music video”. Moreover, through the use of media language, my music video “production differentiates from existing productions”
mostly by “lighting”; allowing it to be identified as a unique production of the genre. This ideal of uniqueness was adopted from
Steve Neale’s theory of repetition and difference; suggesting that difference encourages a larger audience, to a media text.
Furthermore, as the productions are recognised as being similar to each other and they educate audiences (regarding youth
interactions with social issues); they fulfill the audience's gratifications, of ‘identity’ and to ‘educate’. Which corresponds to Blumler
and Katz uses and gratifications model.
However, within my ancillary tasks the gratification to ‘educate’ an audience is “somewhat” fulfilled. Whereby, nearly half of my
sample size(40.43%) suggest that more information can be included within my ancillary tasks; no sample regarded my product as
not achieving this gratification. Evidently, my ancillary tasks provide a sufficient amount of information, that relates to my music
video production(according to 59.57% of the sample size), but fewer people differ. In response to this feedback, more information
and an increased clarity of the information can be implemented into these products, to completely fulfill the ‘educate’ gratification of
my audience.
In consideration of my results, I have generated an understanding that people have various readings of media texts. This is shown
within my results through data deviation, whereby not all sampling participants agreed with the same answers. Meaning that
people have pluralistic views; conforming to the dominant, oppositional and aberrant readings of the media texts - according to
Stuart Hall’s theory of reception. Notably, the majority of my sampling population shared my preferred reading of the media texts,
which demonstrates that the media texts suit their purpose of production; concluding that all of my productions were successful.
