P6

1. FMP Evaluation
Your name

2. Production Process Evaluation

3. Research
• What were the strengths of your research?
• I had a lot to say and think about in my research. It helped me 100% decide that I was
doing a podcast. I had a look at different types of podcast that helped me a lot.
• How did your research help your product?
• They made me think about some sfx I could add into my podcast to make it more funny.
Also it made me think about some of the things I could ask. It made me realise that it
would be better to be chilled out than serious and have more of a casual conversation
than a podcast.
• What were the weaknesses of your research?
• One weakness was that I only chose podcasts in my existing products. I would have
liked to choose a different genre so I would have an idea how they do things.
• What could you have done better/improve?
• I would have chose a different genre so I could have a look how they do things. It would
be good to see so I know if I could apply it to my podcast or not to make it original.
• What effect would this have had on your product?
• It made my podcast not as thought out. I could have made it really original.

4. Planning
• What were the strengths of your planning?
One strength of my planning was that I got the chance to pick the style of the product. For this
one I chose to do SFX and music. This helped in my audio a lot as I got a chance to see which one
would work and wouldn’t. another strength would be that I got the chance to plan out my
podcast and to see where all my SFX and music will go. Also I got the chance to plan for all the
contingencies in my planning
• How did your planning help your product?
• It helped it a lot because I had the chance to plan potential things before they actually
happened. It was good because it lifted a lot of weight off my shoulders. It helped me think
off things before I actually put them in my final product and it also helped me plan the
contingencies.
• What were the weaknesses of your planning?
• One weakness was that I felt that it was a waste of time and this made me not actually think
thourerly through all of it.
• What could you have done better/improve?
• I could have concentrated more throughout the work and thought of more things to say
before I tackled it in the actual product
• What effect would this have had on your product?
• It made my final planning not as thought through as I didn’t think of good enough things to
plan out.

5. Time Management
• Did you manage your time well?
• I managed my time well until the final product. I had to rush through it o
meet my dead line.
• Did you complete your project on time or would your products have
improved with additional time?
• I needed to have some extra time to finalize my podcast.
• What would you have done if you had more time to produce your work?
• If I had extra time I would have edited the audio abit and added some
audio effects to make the listeners more entertained.

6. Technical Qualities
https://youtu.be/mPKiE9-y4_U
My pod cat is more of
an interview. It sounds
more serious. This
works well as it sounds
professional and more
scripted so there will
be less slip ups.
This works well as it is
more of a casual
conversation, you can see
this when the man says
hows your day and that he
just got back from the gym
Both podcasts
have music to
lighten the
mood. Mine is
all the way
through
however theirs
is just at the
start
My podcast has low
audio quality as it was
on a hand held audio
device.
Their audio is really
good. They use actual
micro phones. They
don’t get any crackling
either.

7. Aural Qualities
I think that it sound pretty
bad as the audio quality is
really poor. This is because
it was recorded on a
handheld device. Also I
think I made it a bit too
loud as well.
I think that it was really
creative how I used a
serious interview and
added comedy into it, by
using movie quotes and
duck quacks.
I really like the way
how the music went
all the way through
the podcast. It took
away the fact that
the audio was poor.
If I was to improve I
would make the
audio just the right
volume so it
doesn’t crackle as
much.
I would also improve the
actual commentary. I
would have made it a lot
more casual. I would have
done this by just making a
brief script and not always
sticking to it if its not the
right time.

8. Audience Appeal
I have appealed to
my target age range
12-25 by adding
censorships when
people swear. The 12
year olds would not
like to hear the bad
words but the 25
year olds don’t mind
its censored.
My target gender
was any gender.
Even though it is
male heavy in the
interview the
music can be
aimed at
girl/other.
It is aimed at students
because that’s the
main audience for
YouTube. My audio
has a YouTube
employee in.
All of my sfx could
appeal to my age
range as it is comedy
that is made for that
age range. Such as
the ‘oooo your hard’
quote I put it.
The pycogrsphic is
1st world and that is
who listens to the
podcast.

9. Peer
Feedback

10. Feedback 1
• What did you like about the product?
– It was a good layout with good planning as it was
very structured
• What improvements could have been made to
the product?
– Every voice is monotone and it’s a bit dull.

11. Feedback 2
What did you like about the product?
• If this was well produced it work very well as radio/podcast/webcast/blog/vlog etc etc. because the dynamic and ‘vibe ‘
between the two characters is good and overall the conversational flow is good. The odd sound effects that have been
dropped in support the overall flow of the show and if this was a live spin in it would work.
• However production values are critical to producing a listenable product.
What improvements could have been made to the product?
• English country (Elgar esque intro)
• This is sadly at odds with the following style.
• The interviewer audio is distorted - this could be due to the mic/level balance at the point of recording.
• The interviewee is too far from the mic and too much ambience is audible. However it is less distorted than the host.
• The background Muzak playing has moments of distortion and breakup - suggesting poor editing / level balance.
• At 2.40 seconds the Muzak background stops and restarts - this is poor. It should either be a loop - or a different piece - OR a
sound effect etc to bridge the gap.
• The level balance between the interviewer/host and interviewee is poor however understandable given the difference in
ambience between them.
• The odd moments of distortion such as 4.19 are unacceptable.

12. Feedback 3
• What did you like about the product?
– The background music keeps the audio engaging
– The dialogue (from what is audible) seems to be engaging and on
topic.
• What improvements could have been made to the product?
– The intro cuts out quite abruptly
– The audio is very crackled and distorted and the levels change
frequently so the volume is very inconsistent
– There is very little change in scripting and is quite lengthy in topic.
– The ending is distorted and abrupt.

13. Peer Feedback Summary
• What do you agree with from your peer feedback?
• I agree that:
– Every voice is monotone and a bit dull
– The intro cuts out quite abruptly
– The audio is very crackled and distorted and the levels change
frequently so the volume is very inconsistent
– There is very little change in scripting and is quite lengthy in topic.
– The ending is distorted and abrupt.
• What do you disagree with from your peer feedback?
– I disagree that:
– ‘At 2.40 seconds the Muzak background stops and restarts - this is
poor. It should either be a loop - or a different piece - OR a sound
effect etc to bridge the gap’. This is because you can barley tell that it
restarts.

14. Peer Feedback Summary
I would make my own backing track.
I would fix the audio to make it sound good.
I would be about more lively in the talking.
I would cut out the talking sound when an explicit word comes along.