The student learned several things from gathering audience feedback on their work. For the music video, early drafts lacked variety in shots and acting was weak, but later drafts improved on this. Some found the use of different actors in the narrative confusing. Feedback on the magazine advert was mostly positive but some disliked the font used for white text. Feedback on the digipak was also mostly positive but suggested including more photo panels and variety in shots. The student aims to apply this feedback to improve future projects.

1. Evaluation - Question 3
What have you learned from your audience feedback?

2. The first lot of audience feedback that I gathered was
from Survey Monkey and this was on all aspects of
my work and was more of a general evaluation and
then there were others which went into more detail
on each task. I also used the feedback that was
gathered from YouTube comment sections, which is
where the video has been uploaded to. I tried to use
a similar target audience that listen to U2 and asked
some of the teachers at my college and other people
that I know to evaluate the work because they fit
more into the target audience than my classmates.
These two methods of gathering audience feedback
may not be very good, because I cannot be sure how
credible the evaluation is and the person that
evaluated it may have no idea what makes a good
music video.
Also there is a short interview that gives some
overall evaluation from someone else who is in my
media class. I asked some questions on all
aspects of the 3 tasks that were created. This
includes things they would change and other things
like general questions on all 3 of the tasks. Also in
the interview there is a discussion about the
synergy and the favourite shots from the music
video. The interview may have been slightly
biased, because I knew the interviewee and he
may not have been as critical as somebody else
would be. This means that they interview may not
be as reliable as the Youtube comments and the
survey monkey.

3. If the video doesn’t work use this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Np8UixbJRw

5. From the Digipak I got some feedback that was
mostly positive with the average of the results rating
the Digipak a 4/5. This shows that they do really like
it and that I don’t need to make any massive
amendments to it. It was more of a split on whether
there was a need for more panels and different
pictures. I feel like I have done enough on my own
Digipak, however if I was doing it again I would
definitely add more panels with more variety of
shots. This supports the two step flow theory that if
people who are well respected or are called opinion
leaders. When people discuss media products such
as the Digipak from people of who was questioned
for the survey they will pass on their opinion.

6. Other feedback from the survey for the Digipak
was that people found that it did adhere to the
correct conventions, this is how the different
aspects made it look and feel like a Digipak. The
barcode was placed on the back of the Digipak
along with the album soundtrack and all the other
songs to help with the promotion of the album. A
lot of the feedback for the picture quality was
positive, however someone didn’t think the same.
Personally I feel like I should’ve added more
diverse shots so that they didn’t all look the same
and maybe perhaps got some better pictures and
taken more time to plan out locations for the
pictures, rather than being random and
spontaneous.

8. The music video generally received good feedback, especially from the YouTube
comments that were left on the video. However we did have a lot of different
drafts so it really did take some perfecting and there is lots of variety in the
videos. As we created each draft we picked different holes in each of the videos,
for example the first draft didn’t have enough variety of shots in and was all a bit
of the same. Also the acting wasn’t great at the start which did slightly develop
over the course of the task. Then when we got to the third draft we had added in
more variety of camera angles, however we thought to achieve greater variety we
should have more performance with the band in so for the fourth and final draft
we added more performance in. Something else that we picked up was that we
could quite easily add in a narrative to go along with the song. With the song
being a love song we thought that we would portray the break up aspect to it.
However we used a different actor from the music performance in the narrative
and some people found that slightly confusing. Perhaps if we did it again we
would’ve used the same person to help with the continuity and the flow.

10. The magazine advert was personally my favourite out of all the tasks
and I also really enjoyed making it. The actual picture is one of great
quality with the person in focus and the background out of focus, this
wasn’t done by accident and was a desired effect that was set out to
gather. Once we saw the location we knew that was how the magazine
advert was going to go. However from the feedback gathered some of
the people didn’t like the font of the white text. So perhaps that could’ve
done with changing because I was also dubious about the text there. It
is also hard to see that bit because it is in white text. However the more
important text containing the artist and song is in big bold text that the
audience did actually like.
This was another question that came from
the survey that I put online. As you can
see this was the highest scoring of the
ancillary tasks with most people rating it at
a 4. However I feel like some of the scores
could be upgraded with some small
tweaks.
The uses and gratification model suggests that people view media out of
different needs, we tried to satisfy the need for entertainment by
creating an eye catching advert. If you can draw them in then they will
then take a second look if they do like what they are seeing. This puts
the power in the viewer's hand because they don’t have to look, but you
have to make them by drawing them in.