The document discusses feedback received on an academic product. It analyzes the feedback through various communication and media theories. Key points discussed include: - The style of language in the product suited its academic audience. - Feedback could be evaluated through the two-step flow theory, with some users acting as opinion leaders for others. - Images and text in promotional materials were designed based on reception theory to communicate hidden messages to the educated audience. - Higher ratings came from users in the product's target age range of 25-26, satisfying their needs and uses of the product. - Synergy across promotional campaigns was important but responses cannot always be taken at face value if based on regional familiarity

2. QUESTION 1
• The general feedback which we received
was that the style of language used suited
the academic audience which our product
is aimed at.
• However the Hypodermic Syringe theory
suggests that people are seen as passive
and are seen as having a lot media material
"shot" at them. People end up thinking
what they are told because there is no
other source of information. For example
we have asked our audience is the house
style is suitable, they may assume it is due
to us presenting them with the content
which they then believe; this is due to
having a passive audience.
• We were glad that Becka compared our
style to another genre of magazine as it
shows the identifiable style which we were
aiming to create.

3. QUESTION 2
• The general review of the product was very
positive from the audience, in addition the
comments which accompanied the review
were striking, such as ‘very formal and well
presented’
• These comments could be evaluated via the
two step flow process. Matt who responded
first may act as the opinion leader and
therefore lead the others to respond in a
similar way. On the other had, we informed
the audience of the main product being
marketed via Leicester TV, this may have
gave them the perception that the product is
worthy of a high rating due to a media
cooperation thinking so.

4. QUESTION 3
• This question was directed at
the audience to try and gasp
whether the age range which we
targeted was correct.
• The answers given were rather
passive, which indicates the
nature of those we were
questioning, furthering this it
gives us a view on the audience
which we targeted. These would
perhaps be better if they were
creatives who wanted to explore
and interact with content.

5. QUESTION 4
• This question focuses on
layout and presentation of the
dps
• We hoped to be able to apply
the reception theory to the
audience. We hoped that the
images selected combined
with text will allow the
audience to take on-board
hidden messages.
• It seems that the audience took
the preferred reading of our
ancillary product. Due to the
educated nature of the
audience we hoped that they
would question why we used
certain imagery etc., however
they didn’t want an
oppositional reading.

6. QUESTION 5
• We took these reviews as being
honest opinions and not led by an
opinion leader, this was due to
other feedback we have received
regarding the dps ancillary
product.
• Reading further into the ratings,
the higher overall ones came from
Jamal and Matt, this may be due to
those coming specifically from our
target audience, 25 and 26 years of
age. Therefore the product may
have further satisfied Maslow's
hierarchy of needs along with their
uses and gratifications of a B
bracket income educated
audience.

7. QUESTION 6
• Synergy was of extreme
importance when creating this
ancillary product, this was due
to wanting to create products
which would form a
conventional and marketable
campaign within the real world.
• However, we cannot take all
responses at face value e.g. the
target audience were familiar
with the Shed logo but this
suggests that part of the appeal
of the poster is regional which
would not translate to the
national distribution of our
product.