Audience feedback

1. After completing my documentary, my audience feedback has told me that the
choice of sound bed was interesting and representative. Including, the
background footage as they believed it was amazingly filmed. I agree with this
because of the range of angles, focuses and zooms featured in the documentary
caught their eye as well as mine while editing. A main strength in filming the
background footage is that I had a variety of footage to choose from and
manipulate to link to quotes people may have said and to feature behind the
text.
From the audience feedback, the confirmed the colour scheme I aimed to have
run through the documentary. Therefore, showing the brand identity was clear
and effective in the audience recognising and remembering the documentary.
The majority of people that chose the red, noticed it as and occurrence from the
beginning to the end of the documentary. This is because at the very start of the
documentary with the phone shop sign, then with the ‘Mobile World’ title and
the text, the experts lanyard then finally ending with the title again.

2. The majority of the audience feedback had no complaints about the sound quality of
the vox-pops and saw nothing wrong with most of the clips. The rest of the audience
feedback noticed the different sound levels in the documentary, which I agree with
because the footage filmed outside on a windy day was hard to film over and indoor
where it may have been too quiet. During filming the vox-pops, it was important to
follow codes and conventions of vox-pops interviews, when researched into existing
products, that the mic shouldn’t be in shot. In order to not get it in shot, it had to
further from the subject which, potentially made it harder for the person to be heard
properly. Audio gain in Adobe Premiere helped the footage become a little louder and
level with the footage around it, although the others we more louder as they were
filmed outdoors, so it was difficult to get the levels perfectly even. Although the
louder/ more crackly footage was shortened and slowed down to not draw too much
attention to it, it was still noticeable, which was a weakness.

3. No one from the audience feedback thought that the on-screen narrator was unclear
and hard to understand. This was one thing that had to be monitored and it was going
to cover the majority of the documentary. This is because, with having a male
presenter, stereotypically they may be harder to understand through the deep voices
they might have. So I wasn’t surprised with the audience feedback as this was one of
the strengths in the documentary.
Coming from a younger target audience, I was surprised some people would’ve found
the SKY News clip interesting. Although, they would’ve found it interesting it was
relevant and the shocking aspect to it would have intrigued them to know more about
what happened as everyone cares about their safety. The others that didn’t find it
interesting is because the clip was a little longer than expected in order to achieve the
time limit expected to reach, which would explain why some people may have lost
interest at some point.

4. 100% of people that found the text clear and readable is because of the short
sentences used and big, bold text. This was important because it engaged my
target audience and made it easier for them to read whilst the narrator talks
over the footage and explains it in more depth. I expected them to respond in
this way, as the text is in a plain white colour and doesn’t blend into the
background footage, which would have made it harder for them to read.