Evaluation question 3

In order to gain audience feedback on my digipak and advertisement designs I decided first to create a facebook group. This was most certainly a good idea of mine as I could control what group members I had and therefore only receive feedback from my target audience, 16-25 year old students. The feedback was therefore reliable, changes that I then made to my designs would still appeal to my target audience. Aside from this, Facebook was not only an easy means of displaying design ideas, videos and digipak/advertisement drafts, but it proved a remarkably easy way for discussion about my work to blossom and develop - revealing more and more truths about my works as it progressed. It was easy for more and more people to join in and access information, partly down to how easy the group page was to navigate ones-self around but also because every group member was of the 16-25 age range, and typically being of that generation, had a firm grasp of how to use most technologies - particularly Web 2.0 based.

Other than gaining feedback by face-to-face conversation and group comments/discussion, I also asked my group members head-on with an online poll, only accessible to group members, thus producing accurate results. I asked questions such as "Did you understand it?" - referring to the music video - and "Did it remind you of anything else?" - in terms of intertextual referencing.

Naturally, for questions such as "Did you sympathise for the onscreen character?" a simple yes or no answer is not sufficient feedback. For this I resorted back to a regular group post, to encourage more in-depth conversation between many people, not just one or two. I gained a deeper insight into what effects my work was having on the audience. If these effects were desired, I could leave my work as it was. If not, appropriate editing could easily be made.

Continuing on the idea of effects, I hoped that the collaboration of both my main product and ancillary products would effect the audience in specific ways. I wanted to provoke thought. The idea of mystery about the central character, I hoped, would engage with the audience. I hoped for the audience to make a connection with the character, and find similarities within themselves. The idea of the video was that creativity can be crushed easily by a routinic lifestyle that lacked spontaneity  - the kind of which many people, not just students, are faced with. I hoped for the audience to question themselves - "Am I really living my life to the fullest? Using my skills to their full potential?". Every person is creative and unique. I like the thought that everyone can contribute something of their own, whatever that may be, to society and the people around them.

Through audience feedback, it became increasingly apparent that my products contained elements of encoding, codes and decoding. I asked the group members of my Facebook feedback group the questions pictured. That is just one persons opinion on the main product, but not all comments by group members were the same. This is clearly an element of decoding shown through audience feedback - as this particular member of the target audience has derived different meaning from the codes of the products (codes being the culturaly agreed upon "signs" in a given creation) than that of other members of the target audience. Examples of encoding - placing meaning within specific objects - would be the artwork, symbolising creativity, and the burnt-out candle which symbolised the spark in the charcacters life having gone.

From audience feedback, I gathered quickly that on my ancillary products, my target audience doesn't stop to read the text. The only effective ways to draw their attention are through brand awareness and a visually interesting product - usually done through the use of a good colour scheme. The problem faced with my artist - George Barnett - was that he is an unknown artist. Advertisements by well-known artists/bands usually heavily feature the artist or their name. An example, being Rihanna - featured on the right of the screen. She is instantly recognisable to most and therefore people will be drawn into seeking more information - or, in terms of my target audience, they make the assumption that the artist is releasing another album or song. It was therefore not suitable to use the artists image to attract attention - as he is not recognisable. This is where my ancillary texts and other texts - such as Rihanna's advert on the right - differ in one key aspect - pleasure. The audience gain pleasure from the artist name and image, where as in my texts the audience pleasure comes from the use of branding and visual attractions such as the colour scheme.

Alterations to my work have been suggested by the facebook group members. These suggestions tend to focus around the narrative of the video. Some did not follow the storyline of the music video. And although this view was shared by a few people of the target audience, I am not sure I would change it. It was my original idea to have a complex, in-depth and mysterious/unusual narrative, and am apprehensive as any change to the narrative could alter the effect the video has on the audience - which I am satisfied with.
No changes to my ancillary products have been suggested by the target audience, they are highly impressed with the products and again, I am pleased with them in terms of pleasure and the effect they give to the audience. They seem to compliment the main product greatly. Personally, I see no need for change with the ancillary products.