The document summarizes audience feedback from a survey about a documentary. Question 1 found the average rating for mise-en-scene was 7.44 out of 10, indicating it was appropriate. Question 2 found 90% felt cutaways were relevant. Question 3 found quality and music were liked most, while voiceover scored lowest. Question 4 found most felt it was moderately or very similar to a Channel 4 documentary. Question 5 found the average rating for whether the target audience would watch was a high 4.2. Question 6 found 66% felt elements/footage could be improved.

1. Audience feedback

2. Question 1:
Question 1 is ‘how well do you think the mise-en-scene is done on a scale of 1-10?’
From the report made up of the responses, I can see that the average score between 1 and 10 is
7.44. This would imply to me that the mise-en-scene is appropriate and contextual to the
documentary’s interviews and so this made sense to my audience. The maximum answer, as
evidenced by the bar chart, is 10 and so this means that to some of my audience this made
more sense to

3. Question 2:
Question 2 regards the cut aways and their relevance to the documentary. 90% of the answers
are ‘yes’ which implies that I chose appropriate cut aways for my documentary, and therefore
it’s going to appeal to my target audience. Though because there was 10% that said no, it
means there’s slight room for improvement.

4. Question 3:
Question 3 is regarding the audience’s opinion of the documentary. It gives the participants 6
choices to choose the rating for when rating the documentary and the highest answer was a tie
between quality and music which implies those two were what my target audience liked the
most. The lowest scoring option was the voice over with 3.67 though it did at some point get a
‘5’.

5. Question 4:
This question focuses on how similar my documentary is to one that would be found on Channel
4, it gave the audience 5 choices to choose between as a multiple choice question. The majority
of the participants chose either ‘moderately similar’ or
‘very similar’ at 4 each while nobody chose ‘moderately
different’ or ‘not at all’. This shows me that my
documentary conformed to conventions to the extent that
professionalism was achieved.

6. Question 5:
This is a question regarding whether or not my desired audience
would watch the documentary if they saw it on the TV schedule.
It was on a scale which went up to 5 and the average answer was
4.2, which is a high result and shows me that I appealed to the
correct audience which I decided on due to my audience analysis
from the pre-production work.

7. Question 6:
This question is about what, in the participant’s opinion, was the biggest downfall of the
documentary out of the self-reflected options provided. The majority – 66% - of the votes were
cast towards the elements included, which would be the interviews and general choice of
footage. This suggests that perhaps I did not focus on whether the audience I chose would
appreciate the footage and it resulted in using inappropriate
footage.

8. Question 7:
This question asks what their favourite part of the productions was and offers the options of the
print advert, the radio advert or the actual documentary itself. A majority – 70% - of the
participants chose the documentary though no production was shunned with the radio advert
getting a 10% of votes and the print advert getting 20%, which shows me that all 3 products
were appealing to my ideal audience.

9. Question 8:
This question – whether the audience feels they’ve learnt something – achieved great results
with 100% of the participants voting ‘yes’. This suggests that the balance of statistics and
entertaining features was balanced enough as the audience still learnt something on the topic.

10. Question 9:
This question is about whether it’d be an acceptable expectation to see this aired on Channel 4.
This was my initial aim when making the documentary, to have it look professional and realistic.
80% of the audience participators voted yes, which suggests to me that I have both achieved my
target audience but also that I’ve created a professional-looking documentary in at least some
aspects rather than all due to the 20% that voted no.

11. Question 10:
This question asks the audience how the documentary affected them and their ability to
empathize with the interviewees in order to assess how
realistic my documentary was and how anchored the
meaning was. The majority – 60% - of the participants
have answered ‘yes’ to this question which implies that I
have achieved the meaning intended. Once again, nobody
answered ‘no’ or ‘not at all’ which suggests that to me that
the meaning was clear.

12. Question 11:
This question is about whether or not the print advert conforms to
the conventions followed by channel 4 adverts of this style. It was
rated out of 10 and the average score is 7.44, which is a high score
and suggests to me that the print advert was professional and that
I had followed the conventions to a T, ensuring universal
understanding of the advert’s aim.

13. Question 12:
This question allowed the audience to give me feedback and their own opinion, about what
interview topics they would have been interested to see. The one that reoccurs most often is
‘N/A’ or ‘None’ which was answered 3 times. This suggests to me that my documentary’s choice
of interview topics was universal enough to appeal every aspect of my target audience and that
there were no real additions that would have benefitted the majority of my audience.

14. Question 13:
This question is about the radio advert in conjunction with
the documentary and how, if at all, it encouraged the
audience members to watch it. The most common of the
answers are ‘yes’ and ‘very much’ which have 80% of the
votes shared between them 50/50. Once again, nobody
answered ‘no’ or ‘not at all’ which implies a happy and
satisfied audience, though 20% did vote that they were
neutral.