The document provides feedback on student responses to a question about the significance of increasing hardware and content proliferation for media institutions and audiences. It notes several common errors made by students, including a lack of specific examples and outdated statistics. It also lists several key points that should have been considered in the response, such as how increasing hardware has positively and negatively impacted institutions and audiences. It emphasizes the need for case study examples that demonstrate how increasing content in terms of platforms, user-generated content, and multi-platform strategies have impacted both media companies and consumer behavior.

1. Section B Mock Feedback What is the significance of proliferation in hardware and content for institutions and audiences within the media area in which you have studied?

2. Unit Weightings A B C D E U 100-80 79-70 69-60 59-50 49-40 39-0

3. Section B: Common Errors Lack of Terminology (up to 10 marks!) Using examples that are from the OLD exemplar responses – this is very lazy and these stats are now out-dated Referencing examples Focus on both AUDIENCE AND INSTITUTION Hardware AND CONTENT Own opinion By far the biggest error was the lack of specific case study examples; evidence to support claims/ arguments!!! These need to be specific examples about content, statistics, figures (audience circulation) Generally very disappointing and majority of students had not prepared!!!

4. Section B AS Results

5. What is the significance of proliferation in hardware and content for institutions and audiences within the media area in which you have studied? Points that should have been considered: Hardware Positive and negative Advances in technology – can do more, smartphones, iphones, tablets, technology is more accessible/easily available ( audiences can access it on the move, 24/7), web 2.0, synergies and convergence Software: Apps – specific examples from each institution Fanzines : exist now due to proliferation in hardware and software and their accessibility - examples Audience more demanding; they can prosume through sites such as YouTube so they expect more from institutions, impatient How have institutions responded to these constant changing consumer/consumption habits? Rise in competition due to proliferation of hardware (Twitter, fanzines etc) and how institutions have overcome this? Production & distribution; advancements in printing process – has the internet meant a decrease in sales of institutions print products? Evidence Internet – institutions now have much more knowledge about their audience because of the hardware/software used – so institutions and advertisers can now target their audience much more precisely thus satisfying their needs – evidence of what they know Globalisation – impact of this on audiences and institutions Quote exponential times (wesch)

6. Points that should have been considered: Content Specific examples from your case study about content that is offered: Convergence – evidence Prosumers – UGC – specific evidence of Multi-platform approach Synergy – specific evidence – driving audiences to their main product – vertical integration Updated quickly Who is their audience ? – stats, how do institutions content and use of hardware and synergies meet their expectations; these are highly media savvy audiences - evidence Awards won by institutions for their content- what awards and when? Institutions in constant race to make their products unique with UPB’s – how have MH and NME done this? Difference between niche and mass/mainstream targeting – support with evidence to show comparisons Music creates communities – online communities provided allowing audiences to create strong relationships with audiences with similar interests and taste’s – globalisation – thus creating stronger more loyal relationships with the brand Powerful audience – Murdoch quote Your own personal experience and opinion The future?