The target audience of my products are from the B, C1+C2 social class categories, majority White British, male, with some female and some of African descent. My target audience are aged 16-25 and interested in clubbing, hip-hop and independent music. They prefer to listen to their music on physical formats such as Vinyl or CD and enjoy listening to a wide variety of musical genres. They are students or young professionals and live in urban areas, so have a varied range of incomes. They shop at a mix of high street stores like Topshop/Topman and Urban Outfitters, mid-level brand stores like Levi's and Ben Sherman and charity shops. Due to the independent and instrumental nature of the tracks, the audience are middle class educated. Similar acts they like include Lone, J Dilla and Tokimonsta, as they like music that intersects between electronica and hip-hop.
[Print Productions](click here to view)
Throughout the process of making the print productions I regularly received and used feedback, both from my peers, those in my target audience and my tutor. When designing my print productions, I regularly utilised peer feedback when making creative decisions, which I feel helped to inform the direction with which I took my Digipak and Magazine advert.
For example, when comparing two different design styles for my advert, I completed rough sketches of my ideas and asked ten people which design they preferred. I interviewed ten people, mainly from my target market, and asked them which of 3 designs they preferred, of those ten, 9 chose the same design, so it was decided.
Evaluated Audience
For my evaluation, I asked 6 people between the ages of 17-18, all white British, what they thought of my print Productions using this template. 4 of them were fellow A-level Media-Studies students, but 2 did not study Media-Studies. 4 were male and 2 were female.
Feedback for the print productions were generally positive, though there were some aspects of the print production that resulted in mixed feedback.
The purpose of the print production, like the music video, is to help promote, build interest in and build an audience for the product, so my audience were asked to give feedback both on the quality of each element of the print production, but also whether it would convince them to buy the Digipak or attend a show by the band.
The audience reaction to the Print Production as a whole was generally very positive, with 4 ratings of 4/5 and 2 ratings of 5/5 and this was an even spread across the age, gender and education levels. I learnt from these ratings, as well as general audience feedback both vocally and through comments that it was positively received in general.
Most of the individual components (such as quality of graphics, how successfully it promoted the artist etc.) were well received by the majority, scoring 4 or 5, but all of these components had some feedback that was less positive, scoring 2 or 3. There was no particular pattern that informed whether an audience member was likely to receive any aspect of the product well, but was more random. Most who did give low scores, only gave low scores for a few of the components, and scored the rest of the productions well. This shows how particular and and unpredictable the response to my product was, and that my product did not necessarily alienate any particular social group I interviewed. This also showed how polarised reception could be, as I sometimes received unanimous ratings of 5/5 for a particular component only to receive a 2/5 from a single interviewee.
I also learnt that many in my audience found the use of multiple fonts on the back cover to be confusing. I had intended to use multiple fonts in order to distinguish between tracks and interludes and bring a bit of visual flair to the track-listing, but the most common feedback was that this was simply confusing and overcrowded the image.
Another common line of feedback was the lack of British identity or artist identity in the print production, but this was difficult. The artist I was an anonymous producer whose main base of support came from the international forum of soundcloud. This made it difficult to imbue the production with a strong sense of nationality without sacrificing design quality, as I could not use the artist's appearance. However, I feel this appeal is becoming less and less relevant as the information age progresses, and the music industry becomes increasingly globalised. Postman argues that 'we live in an unprecedented age' of technological progress and that we can no longer rely on many traditional markers of success to evaluate the success of such a product, due to the changing habits of the audience.
This feedback was mostly completed blind (without me in the room) and anonymously, which allowed my interviewees to give more honest feedback, though 2 of the interviewees were interviewed with me in the same room, skewing the result slightly positively, as they would have been pressured into increased politeness by my presence. In addition, many of those who completed the questionnaires were also A2 media-students, and this would have made them more self conscious about the comments they were making.
[MUSIC VIDEO] (click here to view)
much like with the print productions, regular audience feedback played a big part in the production, and particularly the editing, process of my music video. I made sure that peer and tutor feedback informed my every creative decision, from the very concept of the music video to the difference in cuts during the final edit.
As an important stage in the evaluation of my product, I posted it for my tutors to see in public and post final feedback. This was important because it was the last chance for me to make those adjustments. The first cut I submitted was received well by my tutors, and I did not have to make any adjustments to it in order to post it as my final cut.
Evaluated Audience
Another common line of feedback was the lack of British identity or artist identity in the print production, but this was difficult. The artist I was an anonymous producer whose main base of support came from the international forum of soundcloud. This made it difficult to imbue the production with a strong sense of nationality without sacrificing design quality, as I could not use the artist's appearance. However, I feel this appeal is becoming less and less relevant as the information age progresses, and the music industry becomes increasingly globalised. Postman argues that 'we live in an unprecedented age' of technological progress and that we can no longer rely on many traditional markers of success to evaluate the success of such a product, due to the changing habits of the audience.
This feedback was mostly completed blind (without me in the room) and anonymously, which allowed my interviewees to give more honest feedback, though 2 of the interviewees were interviewed with me in the same room, skewing the result slightly positively, as they would have been pressured into increased politeness by my presence. In addition, many of those who completed the questionnaires were also A2 media-students, and this would have made them more self conscious about the comments they were making.
[MUSIC VIDEO] (click here to view)
much like with the print productions, regular audience feedback played a big part in the production, and particularly the editing, process of my music video. I made sure that peer and tutor feedback informed my every creative decision, from the very concept of the music video to the difference in cuts during the final edit.
As an important stage in the evaluation of my product, I posted it for my tutors to see in public and post final feedback. This was important because it was the last chance for me to make those adjustments. The first cut I submitted was received well by my tutors, and I did not have to make any adjustments to it in order to post it as my final cut.
Evaluated Audience
To assess the effectiveness of my music video , I also gave a feedback questionnaire to members of my target audience. I interviewed 7 people within the age range of 17-18, all white British. 5 of the people I queried were media students, where as 2 were not, and the male:female ratio was 4:3. Feedback for the music video was unanimously positive, with only several minor improvements and issues suggested. All said that they would watch the music video again, all gave ratings of no less than 4/5 for all.
33% of all females gave the video a 5/5 rating, where as 50% of all males gave it the same, showing it was slightly more successful with males. This is most likely due to the fact that the main character is male, and the video is therefore more likely to appeal to a male audience.
Like in the print production, artist identity was difficult to create, with 100% of all interviewed stating they were undecided as to whether the video successfully promoted the band/artist. As mentioned earlier, the artist was anonymous, so would not be able to appear in the video either way. It would, however, be difficult to establish a firm identity within the space of a single video, and I learn that my video did not successfully establish this.
I learnt that the main strength of my video was the humorous element, as that was the reason most commonly cited for the positive reviews. This was an intentional element of the video, and I'm very glad that it came across. This shows how effectively my video provides audience pleasures and can affect my target audience, as well as some of this outside my target audience.
However, none commented on the irony, satire or commentary I was also trying to create in the video, which is unintentional. Though this does not necessarily mean that everyone who was interviewed took a abhorrent reading of my text, it does show me that I needed to either reduce the subtlety of the satire, which was admittedly hidden under a sheen of comedy and positivity, or pitch the product at a different audience.
A few interviewees picked up on minor continuity and sound errors, with 29% of interviewees reporting minor production errors, such as mis-synchronised audio during the intro. Another 28% commented that the use of the female iPad character was not initially clear, and the same amount commented that some of the titles were slightly jarring. Though these are minor faults of the video, the fact that audience members found them noticeable does render the music video a less effective promotional tool, as these small mistakes can bring the audience out of their involvement with the narrative of the video.
Evaluation
Gathering audience feedback is an incredibly important stage in the production of an effective text, as it allows the creator(s) to ensure that their product is actually appealing to the target market. Sometimes the narcissism of the creator and the strength of personal vision do not translate to an immediately clear or appealing text, and early product testing is vital to ensure that the product is effective. By using feedback throughout the production, I was able to create a much stronger and effective product, as well as able to simplify otherwise difficult creative decisions. This also meant I did not lose sight of the final aim of the product. In addition, gathering feedback following the completion of the texts allowed me to learn from any mistakes or issues so that I may avoid them in the future. It also helps you to understand the concept of audience better so that in the future you may fine-tune your initial ideas with much more efficiency and precision.
I learnt that my products were successful in many ways. My music video successfully entertained, intrigued and made my audience laugh. Though I intended for the video to take a more satirical angle and made several mistakes along the way, the feedback I have received since its completion have re-assured me in its quality. I also received a lot of positive, but also constructive feedback concerning my print productions. Having gathered feedback in such a way I now feel more confident in my ability to create effective and entertaining products and art, and how to better tailor it both towards my own desires and the audience's.
No comments:
Post a Comment