THE DOCUMENTARY? Our audience feedback results showed that 100% (that being 8 out of 8) of our audience felt an urge to continue watching our documentary following our title sequence. These results were desirable but not altogether surprising in relation to the care and consideration put into piecing together our documentary title sequence, and serve as a validation of the effort put into our opening.
DOCUMENTARY IN THIS STYLE? 6 of our audience feedback group told us they would continue watching a full documentary in the style we adopted, whereas 2 regrettably noted they would not. Our documentary style was relatively unusual, taking a relaxed, entertaining stance rather than being one that naturally incites debate or opinion – and as such we understand that we’ve alienated those within the audience who would want to engage with the media they consume on a deeper level.
our audience feedback group felt that the voice-over suited the documentary, there reason for choosing as such was generally listed as “the sex of the voice-over suits the sex most represented within the documentary”. Conversely 3 of the same group found the voice-over to not be suitable for the documentary, listing their reasons as why for “the voice-over is too lively for the relaxed atmosphere.” From these comments we’ve learned that the issue with our voice-over is not the sex being represented, but the tenor of the voice – which is an issue that can be more easily rectified in future. Our chief worry was that the voice-over would be seen as distracting and jarring to the rest of the documentary in its actual content, but with the research showing the main gripe to be with the volume of the voice-over, this was not what the audience thought.
majority of our audience feedback group found our cutaways working as complimentary to our interviews – one of the various reasons listed why was “They’re all relevant and illustrative of the interview content”. For the outlier who saw the cutaways as non-complimentary, their criticism was “They’re too frequent and become a distraction.” In this instance we can learn from this dissatisfaction and aim to incorporate less cutaways in future productions, to accomodate to all tastes.
(POOR) – 5 (EXCELLENT)? 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Rating Number of votes 3 4 5 Our documentary’s narrative structure received overall positive results, with half of the audience feedback grading it as ‘Excellent’, these were the results we were hoping for through the meticulous planning of our documentary structure and appeasing the audience through the motion of our product.
– 5 (EXCELLENT)? 0 1 2 3 4 5 Rating Number of votes 2 3 4 Conclusively the area in which our documentary faltered the most was in our representation. The primary reason given by the majority who scored us a ‘2’ was that “There is no equal representation of women throughout the documentary” this claim is substantiated by the fact that our documentary voice-over, and interviews, are all male – as well as the only two instances of women being shown in the documentary are pieces of recorded and archive footage showing women as waitresses (a stereotypically feminine role within the media). In this case during future productions we will take greater care in representing as much of the general audience as we can, our failure to represent the opposite sex in a non-stereotypical light at all serves as a glaring oversight for our production.
– 5 (EXCELLENT)? 3 4 5 Our documentary’s camerawork received favourable acclaim from the audience, the two members who gave it an ‘Excellent’ rating listed their reasoning for why as “Different shot types are employed throughout that ensure the documentary does not become visually boring”, the variety of camera movement used was given the same response as well. Our results on the lower end of the spectrum entailed “The camera’s variety of movement makes the documentary difficult to follow” In this case it is difficult to appease those who prefer a more static camera, and those who prefer experimentation. However, learning from our results we will continue to experiment with shot types and camera movement, as the majority of responses were enthusiastically positive about us doing so.
– 5 (EXCELLENT)? 3 4 5 Our documentary’s sound received generally positive reviews from the audience. The majority of our feedback group gave us a generous 4/5 rating, with one vote each for 3/5 and 5/5. The overwhelming majority of votes for 4/5 included comments such as “The sound design sets a comfortable atmosphere, but more archive material would support the documentary further.” We found this comment to be fair, and in future we will work harder at finding suitable archive songs to match content within our products.
– 5 (EXCELLENT)? Sales 3 4 5 In regards to our Mise-En-Scene, we received one outlier vote of 3/5, four votes for 4/5, and three very generous votes of 5/5. The outlier’s reasoning why was given as “Bland and plain”, when comparing this comment to the majority of those that rated us 4/5 and 5/5 – those being ones that praised “Variety of locations and interesting setpiecies” we decided to treat the “Bland” comment as what it was; an outlier, a sign of the inherent inability of creator’s to appeal to all tastes. The overwhelmingly supportive ratings we received for our mise-en-scene served to us as justification for the extensive RECCe work we had embarked on in the research and planning stage, and have inspired us to maintain the same rigorous level of research and planning into mise-en-scene for our future works.
– 5 (EXCELLENT)? 0 1 2 3 4 5 Rating Number of votes 3 4 5 En masse our documentary’s content received ‘Excellent’ grades form the feedback group. Their reasons listed as why included “Accessible topic presented in an interesting way.” Due to the fact that our targeted demographic was a general audience, pertaining to our intended channel being BBC 1, the generally favourable public opinion and the description of the content as “Accessible” shows to us that we have fulfilled the purpose of appeasing a general audience.
– 5 (EXCELLENT)? 0 1 2 3 4 5 Rating Number of votes 5 4 3 The sound design of our documentary received, as did most aspects, generally favourable results. Those that praised the sound design had comments such as “The use of sound worked brilliantly in capturing a relaxed tone.” Whereas the vote that criticised the sound design represented the same disgruntlement found within the use of voice-over, in that “The voice- over could be more relaxed to increase the overall quality of sound within the documentary.” For this aspect of the documentary we will apply the same remedy as covered during the voice-over question feedback, in so much that we will consider the tone of our voice-over more carefully in future productions.
3 2 1 Despite the close nature of the votes, it was seen that the content of our documentary (principally meaning the interviews) was seen as the strongest feature of the documentary. Following this it was seen that the editing, sound, and camerawork were all strong features of the documentary too – which was unsurprising to us as editing, sound, and camerawork are used to mould documentary interviews into their finished form. From this feedback we’ve found justification for the decisions we made when planning our interviews – locations, questions, and subjects – and became more so confident in our editorial skills (of which we previously had none before starting this project), and will continue to explore and experiment with the resources available to us for future products,
PROPER? Five of our audience feedback group responded positively to the documentary radio trailer, admitting that they would be interested in watching the documentary proper after having seen the radio trailer. However, three members declined interest to keep watching the documentary proper. Those that were interested had generally similar comments “Leaves intrigue, serves as a good introduction to the topic matter” – facets of radio trailers that we were aiming to achieve. Those that were not interested criticised the trailer for “Including too much interview content” feeling that it “Spoiled what was to come” In our thoughts, we were complimenting the documentary proper by showcasing the strongest points of our interviews – and so this criticism came as a surprise. However we will take it on board in creating future teasers and trailers, and keep in mind that some audience members want more surprises than others.
Six of our feedback felt that the music bed suited the documentary radio trailer, their principal compliments coming in the form of “The music was the same used in the documentary proper title sequence, and suits the tone of the documentary.” The two who did not agree with the music bed working well said that “The music bed distracted from the trailer’s content.” In this instance perhaps lowering the volume of our music bed would have worked to appease all members of the feedback group.
(POOR) – 5 (EXCELLENT)? The majority consensus found that our radio trailer’s editing was to a professional standard, their praises included comments such as “There Is a clear sense of motion given to the radio trailer” whereas the outlier who voted it a 3 said that “The editing was satisfactory, but became lulling towards the end” We were again surprised because a lulling effect was intended, our documentary’s tone was characterised by relaxation and calmness – and did not expect this to be an issue. However from this criticism we have learned our products will never appeal to every consumer, and as we appealed to the general feedback we are satisfied with the quality of editing in our radio trailer.
(POOR) – 5 (EXCELLENT)? V IV III V V V V III The majority of the feedback group found our radio trailer to be up to that of a professional standard, praising its “Use of sound design and guiding voice-over”, whereas the one vote for 4/5 felt it lacked “A certain edge to tip it over into the professional standard”. The two votes for 3/5 criticised the “Reliance on a guiding voice-over, giving away too much information to the audience”. In this instance we felt that perhaps the “edge” that was mentioned in the 4/5 was trying to articulate the same point expressed in the 3/5 – that too much information was disclosed. With these results we were pleased to find a majority voted our trailer to be up to a professional standard, and again had to digress that some audience members wouldn’t appreciate a guiding, informative voice-over; and perhaps in future we could scale it back a degree in the hopes of currying favour.
(POOR) – 5 (EXCELLENT)? Our feedback group reacted generally positively to our slogan, which was “We’ll be brewing up business with Bean Counters” , half of the group rated it ‘Excellent’ – noting “It’s catchy, memorable, and works as a pun relating to the subject”. However of the one outlier vote for 3/5, it was noted that “It works as a pun but it’s too wordy to remember”. In this case we again have had to digress that there are certain aspects of products that some members will relate to more than others – although we could have experimented with having a shorter catchphrase in order to appeal to all demographics.
All of our feedback group responded positively to this question, with the unequivocal answer finding our print ad to be evocative of the theme of the documentary. The comments all had the same general impression of “Topic of coffee is represented, variety of coffee shows how there will be a variety of points discussed” We were elated with this result, because we believed the fundamental purpose of documentary print ads to be a digestible visual representation of the documentary’s theme and topic. This result showed to us that our efforts in creating the print ad were well spent.
feedback group found our print ad to be visually interesting, they noted the “Use of subdued colours creates a comfortable atmosphere, and the design of coffee beans strewn around makes an interesting display” – two of the central features of our print ad we had in mind since its inception. The outlier vote that found it not to be interesting noted the opposite opinion of “Brown and blue are boring colours, not enough colour” In this case, as we’ve found throughout analysis of the results, we again have to digress that some audiences will have an inherent distaste for our products due to their own preferences and these distastes are inordinately difficult to appeal to. However, we could have worked on implementing brighter colours in some way, without spoiling the enjoyment of those who appreciated the subdued colour set.
4 6 8 Result Number of Results Yes No The results for this question received complete approval from our feedback group, everyone noted that a definite link between all three of our products could be easily discerned. This ranged from the obvious, general comments of “The radio trailer uses the same music and interviews as the documentary.” and “The print ad clearly shows coffee is the focus”, to the more nuanced perceptions of “The radio trailer’s slow sense of motion and the subdued colours of the print ad work to maintain the same relaxed atmosphere of the documentary” With these results we were, again, delighted as the key features of all three products that we wished to translate to the audience were conveyed effectively and the overall strength of our products is bolstered.
we received, at 20 questions each meaning we’ve processed 160 different opinions on our products, we have obtained a relatively thorough assessment on our documentary, radio trailer, and print ad. In regards to our documentary, the sound design and interviews were praised the most. We have been delighted with these results as since having planned the documentary, we’ve had the worry that such a general topic would be difficult to present in an entertaining way to our audience. However with these results its apparent that this worry was unfounded. The most controversial aspect of our documentary however was our representation, or lack thereof, with this question being the only one to illicit a rating below 3/5. We cannot fault these assessments however, and must confess that our lack of female representation in the documentary is amateur at best and problematic at worst. In future we will concentrate harder on representing our audience. Our radio trailer received generally favourable results, scoring a high amount of 4/5 and 5/5 turnouts on the questions that allowed for a rating. The same can be said for our print ad, which received almost unanimous acclaim. These results served as justification for the many editorial and creative decisions taken throughout the construction process of our documentary, satisfying us greatly. However during the radio trailer and print ad section of our questionnaire, several outlier votes soon became apparent. Although the majority votes would veer towards the 4/5, 5/5, rating, there would often be a single 3/5 vote, or a ‘No’ vote on questions that answer pertains to. When we were reviewing the data we had collated, it was apparent that most of these outlier votes came from the same questionnaire, rather than being spread out across the feedback group. From this knowledge we have digressed and accepted that some features of our products will not be as agreeable with some audience members as with others, and although we can tweak our products in some manner to appeal to all demographics – we should take care in not changing them so overtly that we lose the interest of the inital enjoyers.
matleenalaakso
signer
nonxxxizm
nandenjin
yannickbaron
martine
nagisa53
akiraasano
iamctodd
hursman
robhawkes
zenorocha
mza
mraible
lemiorhan
chrisshort
eileencodes
brad_frost
andyhume
mojombo
