What have you learned from your audience feedback?

–
My audience research consisted of asking set questions to people
in an interview style about my product, and also a questionnaire.
In this questionnaire I asked a group of 50 people online to
answer the questionnaire and got 18 responses. I asked these
people a set of closed questions regarding my final product. The
first question was “what gender are you?”. I received a relatively
good mix of males and females (10 males/8 females), which
means that my results can more easily and accurately be justified
for a larger audience, and also the general public
The next question I asked them was concerning the participant’s
age. I received two replies from 16 year olds, five from 17 year
olds and 11 from 18 year olds. I feel that this question was quite
weak, and this is something that I would have asked differently. In
fact, I got a few replies from people who were well over 18 years
old, so this question wouldn’t have been truly correct for them,
and they had to put that they were 18. Although I know that I got
replies from a wide age range, there is no proof of this for anyone
else, because the question would lead you to believe I only asked
16-18 year olds. But using the fact that I know I did actually ask a
large age range of people, I can conclusively say that the results
can be generalised to the general public, not just 16-18 year
olds.
Question three asked “did the narrative make sense to you?”.
100% of the candidates responded by saying yes. This was very
encouraging, as the topic of my video is actually somewhat
unrealistic and super-natural, but despite this, people were still
able to fully understand what the video was attempting to convey.
This means that I have a strong and successful storyline to my
product, which is probably the utmost important aspect of the
project (from the audience’s point of view).
“Did you find the video entertaining?” was question four. 17 of the
18 candidates answered yes, and the remaining one candidate
said it was “quite entertaining”. Even though it was only one vote,
I still deem it important to consider that one person did not find it
as entertaining as they could have done. I think, maybe, if I had
originally used a more professional camera, then the video would
have looked much better, and maybe this person would have just
found it that slight bit more entertaining to watch. Or maybe it
was the storyline I could have changed. I will never know who the
person who voted it was, so I cannot ask them for feedback on
their answer, but I can assume then that every aspect of the video
should have been slightly improved. Or maybe they just can’t
stand metal…
In question five I asked “How was the performance of the actors,
in terms of both comedic value and how convincing they were?
Bear in mind that the video is satirical.” 7 candidates replied with
excellent, and the remaining 11 candidates said they were good. I
would love to have had excellent actors on my video, but the
more I thought about it, the more I liked the idea of having
people who aren’t actors, just to make it look more cheesy. Some
of the videos that I looked at prior to making my own video
(which also followed the satirical perspective) also had people
who could not act (just members of the public, or fans of the
band). Maybe I could have used actual actors for my video, but I
feel that high quality acting would have actually received less
positive response, as it would take away from the satire of the
product. And anyway, having 7 participants vote excellent, and 11
vote good is still a very positive response, so really, there isn’t
too much to be concerned about here.
For question six I asked “did the locations in the video work well
in relation to the content of the video?”. 14 answered yes, and the
other 4 answered “sort of, but they seemed a bit random.” I think
the only way I could have made these locations more obvious is if
I had done some extreme long shots outside of the respective
buildings, so that people instantly could recognise when Alex was
at home or at school. But using the slow initial shots would have
slowed down the pace of the video and made it feel relatively
disjointed, so I decided to not include them. But again, only a
small percentage of the group replied by saying they thought the
areas in the video seemed random, with the majority saying that
they did make sense, so on the whole, another positive result
there.
“How successful was the link between the music and the storyline”
was question seven, and I was a bit nervous about the response I
would get for this question. I thought that people wouldn’t really
see the relevance between an extreme type of music and a
humourous video, but, despite my initial thoughts, 100% of the
candidates thought that the link was successful and clearly
showed the way in which I aimed to extend beyond the
conventions of a typical death metal video.
The final question was “were the costumes appropriate for the
video?”. 17 of the candidates felt that the costumes worked well,
and the remaining one candidate said that “they were okay”. I
always wanted Alex to look like a stereotypical nerd and a
stereotypical metal head. I never wanted him to look truly
convincing. I think for videos which are in the same vein as mine,
a lack of initial quality is sometimes what actually brings a higher
form of quality which cannot be attained from using expensive
props and actors. Films like “Airplane” make use of terrible effects
and corny acting, and it is renowned as an incredibly funny and
entertaining film. I somewhat tried to embrace this same
technique in my video, and I (and 17 other candidates) believe
that it worked well, which is another very positive response.
I included one of my interviews further down in my blog. In this
interview I asked a list of set questions, which the participant
answered to in a direct verbal response. I think one of the positive
aspects of getting my audience feedback in the style of an
interview is that the feedback is direct, and does not give the
participant very much time to think about the content and
wording of their answer. This means that the response is very
direct to what they are actually thinking, and gives very honest
answers. If i gained my feedback in the style of a questionnaire,
or a poll, then the participants would have more time to think
about their answer, which could leave to dishonesty (not wanting
to hurt my feelings) and not answering in full english. If the
participants had to answer a questionnaire, then a lot of the
questions would probably have been closed, which would only
require a “yes” or “no” answer, but having the responses in full
means that my feedback is strong.
I learned from my audience feedback that the risks I took to make
my product challenge the conventions of metal really paid off.
Everyone that I interviewed thought that the stylistic themes of
death metal crossed with humour was refreshing and creative,
without being too kooky and without lacking any relevance. I also
interviewed one of my band mates who understands death metal
very well, so his feedback was very relevant to me. He was very
impressed with my product, and felt that the barriers that I had
crossed in terms of typical conventions was very clever, and he
very much liked the way in which I covered the serious topic of
bullying in a humorous way (not taking the subject lightly as
such, but making it more accessible).