Project 6

1. FMP Evaluation
Samuel-Johnson

2. Production Process Evaluation
The-World-Roundup

3. Research
Looking back over my finished project and assets, I can clearly see that most of my
research differed from my actual piece entirely. It just appears to me that a lot of my
research takes a far more serious route when divulging and or reporting on gathered
information, whereas my ”radio show” is more like a comedy skit, as nothing is taken
seriously (as was intended). Even dark humour in no way fazes me as the host, such
as when both of my news correspondents are viciously attacked, or even worse
destroyed (to quote Ben Lawrenson). However my research reported on serious
goings on, whilst my project was completely staged, proving just how much they
differed once more. I just happened to stray away from all the seriousness, as people
want to be entertained, not gloomy after a tragically, depressing news story.
Furthermore the Friday night comedy on BBC radio 4 I had also gathered for my
research, is far more enjoyable to listen to over the evening news.
However despite there obvious differences, I did take ideas away from my research,
such as the sports report which was a big reason to why I created my final segment
”irritating infuriated football fans”; because as most people know football is the
worlds most popular sport and adding to that there is nothing funnier than an
enraged adult man, crying due to the fact that his team lost a game.

4. Planning
For my planning I created a short audio recording appropriately named, “my Saturday morning
routine”. For “my Saturday Morning Routine”, I solely used an audio recorder and adobe premier to
create the piece, whilst using other sources such as word to create my script and natural reader to
actually read out said script. I started by writing a short script on a word document, which explained
the process of an average working, Saturday morning for me. Explaining the ins and outs of what I do,
during the horrifically miserable process between trying to get out of bed and walking out the door in
time for work. Once I had completed my script and gone over it looking for any minor errors and or
mistakes, I took the script over to a site called natural reader where you can convert any amount of
text into a voice recording, with a plethora of voices and accents to choose from. After exploring the
site for a short while and “experimenting” with a few voices and phrases, I decided on a posh British
voice called Charles, to read out the script for “my Saturday Morning Routine”. I chose this voice in
particular because I thought it was reminiscent to that of a news readers voice, which I believed
would make the experiment more formal overall; and arguably make it a more fun listening
experience. Next I had to record that audio, using an audio recorder, as I was unable to convert the
audio into an mp3 without paying for a premium membership. So I tried my best to completely
encapsulate the audio recorder using headphones, from which the audio was being played from. I
tried this twice and chose the better of the two, to include in my experiment; the first attempt let a
few surrounding sounds in, whereas the latter attempt let far fewer sounds in, therefore it was an
easy pick; not the greatest outcome ever, however one I had to work with.
If I were to do it again however, I would most likely use my own voice instead as to save me the hassle
of recording audio through a pair of headphones, whilst struggling immensely to restrict any
surrounding sound to bleed in.

5. Time Management
I managed to complete everything up to a decent standard in the allocated
time that we were given. However as with most things, more time means I
would have likely improved my work to that of a better standard and
possibly achieved a better mark in the process, but as I did manage to finish
everything it wasn’t a big issue to me. Although in comparison, more time
doesn’t always necessarily mean a better standard of work, it may even put
more pressure on top of our shoulders, as with more time they expect larger
quantities of work to be handed in by the due date. So in the end, I believe
the 4 weeks we were given was neither too long or too short a time frame
to complete our project, but a sufficient enough time. Near the end
everything was slightly rushed, however I don’t think that affected the
quality drastically and if anything it may have come out funnier the way it is,
rather than something spent too much time thinking about.

6. Aural Qualities
I think my work was creative, everything was done from scratch including
most of the audio, bar a few sound effects of course. Most of our recordings
were crisp and clear, listeners including myself and other class mates stated
that they could thoroughly understand what was being said, even with
sound bites, music and effects over the top of it. I also believe that the
scenarios and segments involved throughout the show, were unique and
creative with some thought up from nowhere and others inspired from
gathered research; in the end I thought they all integrated well with one
another, with all being related to the news in some way. However the only
real problem I have with my finished piece, is that it didn’t fit the 3-5 minute
time scale that was recommended to us, with it being closer to the 6 minute
mark. This isn’t a monstrous issue, but one which may possibly effect my
grade in the end; that’s only if the 3-5 minute time scale was a mandatory
requirement.
My personal favourite segment throughout the finished piece is when
Rodger (Danny Kaye) reads out the strange and confusing headlines, whilst
“The hall of the mountain king” plays in the background, famously growing
in intensity whilst the headlines get more and more outrageous as the
seconds clock by; that being an intentional implementation of mine,
because of the obvious comedic aspect.

7. Audience Appeal
I think my work should appeal to my target audience of 30-50 year olds, mainly
due to the adult themes and vocabulary used throughout, which will likely restrict
far younger audiences from listening to it. Although, the news aspect, however
ridiculous most of it may be, appeals to older audiences naturally as younger
audiences are too engrossed in their own wellbeing and don’t tend to be very
interested in the world around them (this is stereotypical behaviour of the
younger generation, not all teenagers are like this); however if you were to picture
someone sitting beside a radio, listening to a comedy skit, myself and many others
would picture someone 30 and older not a youthful teen or child. Therefore I think
I've managed to appeal to my target audience almost perfectly as I can’t envisage,
younger audiences tuning into my ”radio show” on a regular basis (if it were a
series of shows of course), whereas I can with my primary target audience.
Mainly my class mates have critiqued my work and have thoroughly enjoyed it,
however I personally believe audio based content such as a radio or an audio
book, is appreciated more by older generations as they seem to have a far greater
attention span and with my show lasting a “massive” 6 minutes, they seem to be
the far likelier candidates to stay in tune throughout.

8. Technical Qualities
My product is similar to the BBC radio show “knowing me knowing You” (created by Steve Coogan) in the fact
that everything is staged, including the outrageous interviews. Furthermore similar to mine, the show
happens to be recorded in front of a live studio audience, however my ”audience” is a collection of sound
effects, I just wanted to put the impression across that an audience was there. Also out of sheer coincidence,
my character as the radio host has the same first name as ”Alan Partridge” in “knowing me knowing you”; a
simple comparison, but a comparison all the same. Although compared to the similarities, the major
differences appear to be more obvious for both productions, for example the budget and equipment used to
create “knowing me knowing you” are far superior compared to mine, with an audio recorder and a few class
mates to hand; however that’s not exactly a fair comparison. On top of that my production only has one guest
segment lasting only a short couple of minutes, whereas “knowing me knowing you” has a plethora of
different guests on the show (played by professional actors), all with their own strange and comedic traits,
with all of them making up a 30+ minute long show. Finally I made sure that my show censored out any
serious profanity, as to not offend a mass of people and not get punished in the process, whereas “knowing
me knowing you” has decidedly not done so, as they are not held down by a certain rules.
Let me be clear, I had only heard about ”knowing me knowing you” until after I had finished my production.
My Mum just happened to point out the similarities between the two, whilst listening to it on the radio and
therefore that’s why I’m comparing them now. That’s why I hadn’t included it in my research, otherwise I
would have done so in the first place.
Similar Existing
Product
My Own Produ

9. Peer
Feedback

10. Feedback 1 (Harry)
• What did you like about the product?
• I think the audio is very good. The quality of the
script is well thought out and feels very realistic.
• The censored profanity is very comedic and I
laughed hysterically.
• What improvements could have been made to
the product?
• It went on for a bit too long and could have been
shortened.

11. Feedback 2 (Danny)
• What did you like about the product?
• The quality of the audio was great. It sounded like a professional
radio. There was many comedy sketches which were all really
funny. You used many different voices which was appealing and
funny. The sound effects and background music were great and
matched the theme and tone of the radio.
• What improvements could have been made to the product?
• I would make the audio shorter and change the voices of the
football host, because the voices were to similar to the other
presenters.

12. Feedback 3 (Ben)
• What did you like about the product?
• I thought the audio was both clear and hysterical.
• The many segments kept me engrossed throughout
the show, with all the different scenarios involved.
• What improvements could have been made to
the product?
• Possibly cut down on the length of the audio, as it
was recommended that 5 minutes should be the
maximum length. However other than that, there
are not many things to seriously critique on.

13. Peer Feedback Summary
• What do you agree with from your peer
feedback?
• I agree that my radio show was comedic, as that was an obvious
intention of mine. Furthermore, I agree the audio was clear and
audible for the listener.
• I also agree with the criticism stating that I should have shortened
my audio, to the maximum 5 minute mark; possibly by removing
certain unnecessarily dragged out scenes.
• What do you disagree with from your peer
feedback?
• I think I did my best to differentiate the voices of the news
correspondent (Chris) and the main reporter (Alan). Of course there are
similarities between the two (as I am obviously acting as both), but
listeners should be able to separate the two characters.

14. Peer Feedback Summary
If I were to start all over again, I would rid of any
unnecessarily long skits or segments and or just simply
speed up the audio, to a still audible yet shorter show. I
would do this to achieve the recommended run time of 5
minutes, (whereas mine is closer to the 6 minute mark).