Evaluation 3:

What have you learned from your audience

feedback?

This evaluation sees our group understanding our audience’s views and opinions – both positive and negative – about our final media products: the music video, the magazine advertisement and the album cover.

We have done this through various methods:1. Questionnaires – with both open and closed questions.2. Screenings (for the music video) – one for rough cut, one

for final cut.3. Online usage – posting our music video on ‘Facebook’

and ‘YouTube’3. Focus groups – for all 3 media products.

Music Video

To evaluate our music video, we have used a number of methods. Firstly, we conducted a questionnaire based on our final product. We intended to find out specific positive/negative points, alongside an overall opinion from our audience. We also asked our participants to cast a critical judgement so that our personal evaluation was controlled and un-bias.

The questionnaire consisted of 8 questions: 5 closed, 1 open and 2 mixtures (of both open and closed elements). Closed questions will hep us to evaluate preference and construct a numerate conclusion of audience views. Open question elements allow us to gain specific, descriptive opinions on questions asked.

The next page shows screenshots of the questionnaire that was handed out to an audience representative of our target audience. 15 people completed it.

Questionnaire FindingsQuestion One

0

2

4

6

8

10

Yes No

Choices

Am

ou

nt

of

Peo

ple

Question 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Yes No Possibly

Choices

Nu

mb

er o

f P

eop

le

Questionnaire FindingsQuestion 3

02468

10

Enter

taini

ng'

Simple'

Colourfu

l'

Light-h

earte

d'Fun

'

Relaxing

'

Engag

ing'

Profe

ssion

al'

Realisti

c'

Stylish

/Unique

'

Choices

Am

ou

nt

of

Vo

tes

Question 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

Complex' Amateur' Boring' Repetitive' Dark' Normal' Unrealistic'

Choices

Am

ou

nt

of

Vo

tes

Questionnaire FindingsQuestion 5

012345678

Very Good Good Poor Very Poor

Choices

Nu

mb

er

of

Vo

tes

Transitions

Cutting

Effects

Question 6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Very Good Good Poor Very Poor

Choices

Nu

mb

er

of

Vo

tes

Movement

Distances

Angles

Questionnaire FindingsQuestion 7

012345678

Gender Relationships Age Real Life

Representations

Nu

mb

er o

f P

eop

le

Question 8

38/150

Questionnaire Evaluation

Question 1: As found in question 1: 9 out of 15 people believed that the video could be shown to a mainstream audience, whereas 6 out of 15 people didn’t. We are happy that the majority believed it could be shown to a bigger, wider population – however, we were slightly disappointed that this number wasn’t greater. This might suggest that there was something we missed or did not do right; this is unclear. Moreover, qualitative answers suggested that this was because ‘the equipment we used was fairly amateur and unprofessional’, which on one hand is great because 9 people oversaw this and believed it had a professional vibe and genre-related conventions.

Question 2: Question 2 feedback a positive response, the joint typical answers being ‘yes’ or possibly’. It can implied that our music video was a partial success on the basis that there is interest from our audience to watch the product again.

Question 3: The top answers given for this question were ‘light-hearted’ (8 votes), ‘realistic’ (4 votes) and ‘entertaining’ (4 votes). We were glad all these positive traits were voted for by the audience; they link to the song, the video we created and the genre – so we were pleased that these were the case.

Question 4: On the other hand of the critical spectrum, ‘amateur’ (4 votes) ‘boring’ (3 votes) and ‘repetitive’ (4 votes). Now negative criticism is obvious in most media products; so this was shown as a descriptive way of observing the flaws in our music video.

Questionnaire Evaluation

Questions 5 and 6: For both questions, the quality and standard of both our camera work and editing was generally rate ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’; there was the odd ‘poor’ vote, but no ‘very poors’. Overall, this feedback has suggested that our music video is liked, and various media techniques are evident. More than this, the quality of the techniques we used has been a success.

Question 7: Our narrative was based on ‘relationships’, and this is the representation that our audience believed was portray well. We had done this through our character’s ‘gender’ and ‘age’ (two other characteristics which have gained votes). Evaluating this aspect, we have done well to input social representations and we know they are recognised from our film-based work.

Question 8: On our overall ratings – from the audience – we scored 38 out of 150. This suggests that we was in the top third of the audience, viewing our product based on quality and professionalism. This is a good statistic to show for evidence of our audiences’ general perception of our video.

Screening #1 (Rough Cut)

After we had finished around half of our overall editing, our group saved a copy of the music video (separately). This was our ‘rough cut’.

We then asked 3 people to view what we had produced so far, and give feedback to the questions we asked i.e. a focus group.

We organised a time and a place, collected the Apple Mac with our video on and showed it to our 3 participants. We gave them one viewing of the rough cut: around 1:46 minutes of edited film, and then asked them questions based on the footage/version they had seen.

The next slide contains screenshots and links from the focus group.

Screenshots from Focus Group #1

Links for evidence:

1.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxsPoUeH7BE&list=ULZkQEkrNhvTE&playnext=1

2.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcEU9bPVcQA&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Screening #1 (Rough Cut) EvaluationQuestion 1: Has the narrative been represented well within the music video?

From this question, we heard a few vague-minded answers. Our participants did not fully understand the narrative of the footage we had edited so far; this led us to believe that we had to edit and cut all footage (and finalise the product) before the narrative was made clear. We made a brief timeline of what order our shots should be in to keep the narrative prevalent. This was a good group choice as it kept us organised and gave us a clear spectrum for future editing.

However one participant did understand the narrative we had created, and believed that our capture of “realistic everyday emotions” were useful in determining a relationship between the male and female. We kept this in mind, and did not change our representation of emotions throughout – we believed that this would ensure that narrative was clear in the final cut.

Question 2: From watching the video, has any aspect been represented in a particular way?

Generally, feedback suggested that all representations were positive – which we originally intended to do, so we knew we was on target from our planning and research. Representations commonly suggested were ‘gender’ and ‘relationships’. We had not considered these portrayals to be a success until this feedback – we had considered them, but the answers given to us confirmed that we was doing the right thing for our acknowledged representations to be obvious to the audience.

Question 3: Is there a good use of camera angles/shots. If yes, please give an example?

A shared answer for this question was ‘camera distances’. The participants in our focus group enjoyed (and more importantly noticed) that there are many camera distances used in our footage. Whilst filming, we intended to capture all scenes from various ways e.g. close ups, wide shots, over the shoulder shots. Knowing that these had stood out to our audience was great news, and suggests that our constant changing and improvisation of camera work was a reassuring group decision.

Alternatively, ‘camera angles’ was not mentioned – we hadn’t used many, but it seemed one or two more should be added to show consistency. Camera movement was mentioned once; but as a personal decision we decided to film more shots involving movement – specifically, the female walking to the meeting point.

Screening #1 (Rough Cut) Evaluation

Question 4: In general, what did you most enjoy while watching? Are there any improvements that should be made?

A frequent, typical answer for this question was ‘the camera work’ and ‘characters’ (male singer and female actor). Our participants in the focus group enjoyed the entertainment from the rough cut shots; although they exclaimed it was fairly ‘cheesy’, they also said that it was ‘fun’, ‘amusing’ and ‘entertaining. On the spot, we also asked them if this was for a good or bad reason – all participants said it was a ‘good’ cause.

Also, many improvements were suggested, including:

- Actor’s singing in time with the song lyrics

- Effects need to be added; necessary and not random. Effects that add to the genre, and overall implication of the video we have created.

We adopted this feedback and used it whilst editing towards the final cut.

Question 5: Do the lyrics of the song relate to the music video. If yes, please state why?

The rough cut contained footage of the female getting ready to go. We had already tried to edit the shots we had filmed in time with the lyrics. When the question was asked, all participants could immediately recognise and recall shots they had seen that had a connection to the lyrics, quote: ‘her eyes’, ‘her hair’. This reassured us that our ‘specific-intended’ editing set a positive impression to the audience.

Screening #2 (Final Cut)

On the same day as the viewing for the rough cut, our group showed a copy of the final music video to the same 3 participants in the same location.

We then asked our participants to give feedback on our final product, and to the give answers to the same questions we asked for the rough cut. This helped us to see the difference we had made; our changes, improvements and so on. The focus group allowed us to gain strong opinions to evaluate our product.

The final cut was saved on the same Apple Mac. We again gave them one viewing of the final edited product (view time around 3:45 minutes), and then asked them questions

The next slide contains a screenshot from the focus group, and a link as evidence.

Screening #2 (Final Cut)

Link for evidence: 1.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRgMhlCUgk4&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Screening #2 (Final Cut) EvaluationQuestion 1: Has the narrative been represented well within the music video?When this question was asked again, our participants believed that the adjustments (editing and cutting

all footage) made the narrative more clearer. It was also clear in the final cut that emotions were still displayed.

Question 2: From watching the video, has any aspect been represented in a particular way?Generally, in the final cut, feedback suggested that all representations were positive still and that not

changing much from the rough cut edit was a good decision.

Question 3: Is there a good use of camera angles/shots. If yes, please give an example?We kept and filmed more camera distances as this was our strong point; we also added a few more

‘camera angles’ and ‘camera movement’ – all these changes were significant in the second viewing.

Question 4: In general, what did you most enjoy while watching? Are there any improvements that should be made?

The audience still enjoyed the video; with its fun and entertaining elements. Also, the improvements that were suggested i.e. miming and effects were added and the participants said this made a drastic improvement of the emotions and ‘bubbliness’ in the video. We made sure everything was in order, in time, and we saw an improvement ourselves.

Question 5: Do the lyrics of the song relate to the music video. If yes, please state why?We continued with the technique of matching shots wiith lyrics; this was an element we did not have to

change, but develop on.

This is more evidence of audience feedback, through the social networking site ‘Facebook’