AUDIENCE FEEDBACK

Questionnaire

We distributed ten questionnaires to ten members of the general public to get productive feedback on our finished documentary.

1) Do you feel that the first 20 seconds of opening sequence took your attention?
Yes - 8
No - 2

To summarise, the majority of our questionnaire participents found our documentary attention grabbing within the first 20 seconds, the opening sequence. I think that the opening title ruined the opening sequence slightly as they were altered and put into a poor font for the graphics. The voxpops could have caught attention as people were giving their opinion and make the audience think about what theirs is too. It was a qick paced opening sequence with a catchy opening music bed.

2) Do you think that the documentary was ordered well?
Yes - 10
No - 0

To summarise, all of the respondents thought that our documentary was well ordered in terms of how the footage was edited to create a story type documentary. Whenever a point was made in an interview or by the voiceover it was placed with a relevant cutaway. The cutaways were put together to link in with one another, creating a story or a process of something, reflecting the stages of food being made, purchased and consumed.

3) Does the documentary have good continuity?
Yes - 10
No - 0

To summarise, all of the footage was placed in chronological order to how it was filmed so none of the footage had any poor continuity were objects had moved or changed. We prevented this by having people where we wanted them and not having random people in the background. We also tried to film in order of events so things we not everywhere.

4) Are the graphics appropriately used for the documentary?
Yes - 10
No - 0

To summarise, the only graphics used were those to give the name and title of the interviewees and they 'weren't over used' and they 'weren't taking focus away from the interviewee.' This was because we used a plain white font and put the text in the opposite bottom corner to the interviewee. The font was not oversized and did not run over onto the interviewee.

5) On a scale of 1 to 5 with five being the most positive, how was the quality of the sound within the documentary?
1 - 0
2 - 0
3 - 4
4 - 5
5 - 1

To summarise, our sound was not perfect, however, no one rated it less than 3 so it was bareable. The sound was said to be 'alternating in volume' and there was 'too much background noise in places.' To improve this next time we could film in a different area and analysis the effects of this before filming, we could also listen to the audio through the headphones throughout the entire production as we will be aware that this needs to be done.

6) How would you compare the documentary to professional documentaries on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being not at all and 5 being impressively?
1 - 0
2 - 3
3 - 1
4 - 6
5 - 0

To summarise, the majority of respondents found our documentary very comparable to profressional documentaries. This will be down to the use of Adobe Premiere Pro and the rules of thirds composition. I think this is from the following of codes and conventions of documentaries, such as, the rules of thirds, the voxpops, the interviews and the narrative voiceover.

7) How informative would you rate the documentary as? Rate on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being not at all informative and 5 being highly informative.
1 - 0
2 - 0
3 - 1
4 - 4
5 - 5

To summarise, most participents found the documentary to be highly informative. This was most probably down to the factual information given in the interviews. It was the choice of questioning during the interviews and the images which supported this that gave it an effective presentation.

8) Would you say that the documentary was entertaining or not? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being not entertaining at all and 5 being extremely entertaining.
1 - 1
2 - 2
3 - 4
4 - 2
5 - 1

To summarise, our feedback was scattered as people have different opinions of what is entertaining. The majority of the respondents thought that our documentary was moderately entertaining, this could be down to the music bed choice and the images of food. The bring down from the entertainment may have been the factual interviews, showing negative factors in which many people may choose to ignore. The entertainment may have come down to the structure of the editing and how it presented the footage and information. Maybe because we spread our the discussion and didn't present every postive with a negative they found it more so interesting than not.

9) Do you think that the print advertisement is eye-catching?
Yes - 10
No - 0

To summarise, everyone who took part in the questionnaire thought that the print advertisement was eye-catching. It was 'bright, outstanding, to the point, centred, easy to see and has a good message' This was done on Photoshop and thge colour scheme was picked out by matching the colours within the burger and of the vegetables in the documentary. The burger was the central focus as it is a typical kind of takeout and is also used within the documentary.

10) Do you think that the print advertisement is relevant to the documentary?
Yes - 10
No - 0

To summarise, all of the respondents shared the opinion that our print advertisement was relevant to the documentary, meaning that it successfully presented what the documentary was about. As this presented the documentary well, it shows that the radio advert did the same too. The wording and colours we relevant and the burger was central which indicated the theme and topic of the documentary.

11) Does the radio advertisement sound relevant to the documentary and present it as interesting?
Yes - 10
No - 0

To summarise, one-hundred percent of participents thought that our radio advertisement was relevant to our documentary and shown it to be interesting. This was due to the voxpops and the interview about the negatives of takeouts that we used in the documentary being used in the radio advert. The same voiceover was also used which also gave a similarity; it also gave the correct information about the documentary in terms of scheduling and the slogan. 

12) Would you rate the camera work as effective or uneffective throughout the entire documentary? Rate on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being extremely uneffective and 5 being highly effective.
1 - 0
2 - 0
3 - 4
4 - 4
5 - 2

To summarise, none of the participents thought that the quality of our documentary was poor and uneffective. The majority of them, as results portray, thought that the quality was average and did give effect.

13) Do you think that the placement of the subjects within the interviews is of a high standard or not? Please rate your answer in terms of 1 to 5 with 1 being a poor quality layout and 5 being high standard.
1 - 0
2 - 0
3 - 0
4 - 5
5 - 5

To summarise, according to our questionnaire analysis, our documentary had correct placing, following the rules of thirds, when it came to cutaways, voxpops and interviews. Next time, to get all of our ratings as a 5 out of 5 we could take more shots of each thing to increase the chances of getting a better, more asthetic camera angle.

14) On the whole, do the documentary, print advert and the radio advert interlink with each other to appear relevant?
Yes - 10
No - 0

To summarise, our respondents thought that all three of our media products linked with each other and supported the main point and theme of takeaways. This could suggest that we do not need to make any adjustments in the future and clarafies that we know how to make multiple media products with the same key theme.

15) Do you think that the documentary fits the typical programme types of Channel 4 or does it belong on a different channel?
Yes - 10
No - 0

To summarise, all of the participents thought that the documentary fits the characteristics of Channel 4. This also suggests that our audience is correct aswell as the theme of our documentary.

We also put our documentary, radio advert and print advert onto Facebook and Youtube.