2. THE FEEDBACK I RECEIVED: MUSIC VIDEO.
•As a whole much of the feedback I received about my music video was very positive from both my
peer feedback and my focus group feedback.
•I gained the feedback that my music video was both entertaining and easy to relate to circumstance
wise. This corresponds with Blumler and Katz gratification theory, as entertain and personal identity
are both in the ‘Basic Model’.
•My feedback shows that my audience was clearly entertained and intrigued by the music video and
furthermore understood and was able to relate to the narrative themselves, whilst still understanding
the meanings behind all of the signifiers and typical genre conventions I included.
3. FOCUS GROUP FEEDBACK- MUSIC VIDEO.
The main feedback I gained in terms of constructive criticism for my music was to
take out a short shot with a camera reflection within the video and make the
fragmentation transition from colour to black and white a little ‘smoother’.
I chose not to take out the camera reflection shot as it was only a very, very short
shot and almost unnoticeable. This was only noticed by one member of the focus
group. I also decided to not edit the black and white transition as time was running
out and I myself believe that the faded transition was already very smooth.
4. PEER FEEDBACK- MUSIC VIDEO.
The feedback from my peers did not mention the same improvements as the focus
group but however did suggest I ‘dim’ down slightly the pink tones of the video. I
again chose not to do this as I purposely added the pink in order to translate a
romantic and gender representative feel and aesthetically pleasing setting.
It was also suggested that there were ‘random’ shots of the lifebuoy within the music
video however I do not agree with this feedback either, as the video is shot in a
beach surrounding mise-en-scene the life buoy shots to me seem perfectly in fitting
with the location and narrative.
5. ANCILLARY PRODUCT FEEDBACK- FOCUS GROUP
•Again as a whole the feedback I received to my ancillary products was positive, the
intertextuality of pink and feminine details was easily inferred and evident but the
improvements suggested were as follows;
• Add more pink colours- I did not add anymore pink to either the digipak or the music
advert as I felt the colour scheme was already very pink orientated enough to represent
the intertextuality of all products yet adding more would over power the package.
•Make the QR code opaque- I very much agreed with this feedback and therefore did go
back and edit the QR code on my advert so that is was opaque. I believe this added a
more polished and dainty feel to the advert, more in-fitting with the rest of the package.
•Match all the fonts on my digipak- Again I feel the focus group made a good point of
improvement here so I did go and match the fonts on the front cover of my digipak and
tracklist, again I believe this gives a stronger intertextuality within the product and a more
professional, polished outcome.
6. PEER FEEDBACK EVALUATION:
•My peer feedback was done anonymously therefore I think the information was
reliable to a certain extent however as I know the peers personally, being members
of my class I believe this form of feedback is not always the most reliable and does
have the potential to be bias.
•That being said I got some valued feedback and insight as to what other thought of
my video from this ‘hot desking’ technique and therefore believe this was a successful
format of feedback gain for me initially. Whilst a positive to this technique is all my
peers are also media students and therefore familiar with codes and conventions
allowing them to be extra constructively critical.
7. FOCUS GROUP EVALUATION:
• The focus group I held consisted of 5 people (2 boys and 3 girls) all being media students
and familiar with media technique and conventions I believe this allowed them to be extra
observant and constructively critical.
•I believe this was a more reliable form of feedback for me as I did not know any of the
people taking part in the focus group they would have felt no real need to be extra
complementary towards my promotional package and more honest, reliable.
•All members were fans of my genre and able to identify my narrative and intentions almost
instantly after being shown the package.
•At first reasonably quite and reserved once in discussion seemed to be constructively critical
and informative on areas of my package they felt I needed to improve on.
•On the whole the feedback I received from the focus group I agreed with and was able to
make improvements on which signified to me the group was in no way bias and fully reliable
in the feedback they gave me on my promotional package.
