For the audience feedback we created a questionnaire consisting of 20 questions with mostly a yes or no response however we asked a couple that went into more detail.
Question 1 was did you think the opening title sequence was effective
14 out of 15 people surveyed thought that it was effective however one of our target audience disagreed. When asked why he thought it was ineffective, he mentioned the pace being too slow.
Q3 asked whether the title related to the topic.
Again the majority of people thought that face the fear was relevant to the theme of our documentary – phobias.
Q4 was about the print and radio advertisement as it asked
Do you find our slogan memorable
More than halve of our viewers thought it was however a good few people disagreed. This concerned us a little as we want people to be able to hear the slogan and automatically think of our product.
On a better note, Q5 got a very good response. 100 % believed that all the interviews in our documentary were relevant to the topic and informative.
For Q6 we had the answer boxes as so:
Yes, no or most of them.
We asked if they thought all the cutaways were relevant. Fortunately no one said no. However just under a quarter of people said most of them, therefore leaving the majority of people thinking that the cutaways were very relevant. It goes to show that what we as the editors and producers think could be relevant, the target audience don’t always agree.
Thanks to the cutaways, all of our audience members in q7 agreed that all the transitions from each shot were smooth and consistent.
To follow the codes and conventions of a documentary we used little and unnoticeable graphics, so q8 was all about them.
We asked whether the graphics detracted from what was happening on screen. Fortunately most people said no. Eventhough they could see the graphics, they never once took too much attention away from the main action in the interviews.
This was fantastic to hear as we now know that we had followed the codes and conventions correctly.
Q9 and 11 got a mixed response, eventhough more than half liked the soundbed and thought it relevant to phobias, an less than equal amount disagreed. Also the message of the documentary on had links to half of our audience. Meaning if this was shown on television, half of our viewers may be inclined to switch channels. However q10 clearly shows that the majority of people who it didn’t relate to would still like to continue watching the whole thing.
Questions 12 13 and 14 all got 100 percent positive results . The questions were:
was the use of archive footage effective?
was the voice over suitable? in forms of relating to the topic and target audience and did the main image on the print advertisement stand out and grab the audience's attention?
It was great to know that the image on the print ad stood out to the audience as that was what we were trying to achieve. Also the more people’s attention we grab, the more our ratings would increase. Meaning more viewers. Also after recording our voiceover script numerous times with different tones of voice, it was good to know that we picked one that our target audience could relate to. Without being too patronising, it also related to the topic.
Questions 15 -19 were about the print and radio ad.
The general view of the radio trailer was as so:
The product stood out as it was different and rather unique. Also the voiceover had given all the correct and relevant information out. The print ad got the main message of the documentary across to most of the audience and the graphics were readable.
Q20 confirmed that all three products had a strong link.
We had technical difficulties whilst filming this audience feedback, I had to quote an A2 Media Studie's student instead, as camera problems occured
"After watching the opening of face the fear, there were many things I enjoyed. The interviews were both informative and entertaining, the cutaways were relevant and the sound bed related to the topic.
There were only a few things I thought went against the conventions. The subtitles were very off putting at times. They were red, which in some ways have connotations of fear and danger but for a documentary, they were too much.
The radio ad, I liked the use of the heartbeats building into a stereo cardiac arrest as it portrayed the topic. However, I personally think the sound was very flat and one dimensional. It need to be layers and layers of sound otherwise it won’t grab the audience’s attention.
I loved the print ad. It was certainly very cleverly thought out. The way the snake came out of the person’s mouth was amazing. It shows how fears can take over someone’s body and as snakes are one of the most common fears, it was a good image. If I walked past it, it would certainly catch my attention."
Beth said that she thought all the cutaways were relevant. This was a relief as we didn’t know if we were thorough in making them all link to what was being said. She also thought that all the interviews were both informative and entertaining; we are pleased with that response as that was what we were aiming for. She did mention that the graphics never really obeyed the codes and conventions, as they were red. Even though, red connotes pain, danger and fear looking back I agree with her. They are slightly off putting. If we were to do this again, I would definitely reconsider the colouring options and maybe choose a less bold colour.
She liked the way our radio ad explored the side effects of a fear – the heart beat getting faster. She also understood why we choose this. She did think the sound was very one dimensional and to some extents, I agree with her. There could have been a bigger sound build up as this would have definitely grabbed the audience’s attention.
She loved the way we portrayed fear in our print ad. She understood the message of it and knew that it related to fear. She said it would catch her attention and this is fantastic as the more people who see it, the more viewers we get. She never had a negative comment about the print ad.
No comments:
Post a Comment