LO5 Evaluation - Brian Insua
Aug 12, 2015
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
- 1. Brian Insua Unit 30: UK Media Publishing LO5 Candidate Number 6055 Centre Number 64135
- 2. Evaluation
- 3. Be able to evaluate feedback gained from a pitch or presentation This could take the form of a written or verbally recorded report with supporting images and diagrams including a summary of feasibility of the plan for the print product which reflects the feedback gained from the publisher or teacher in the role of the publisher. Learners should seek to evidence the grading criteria through a variety of mediums (i.e. written format, written presentations, verbal presentations, audio content, audiovisual content) which highlight their particular strengths, however learners should be encouraged to stretch their skills and knowledge by using a range of mediums to evidence their work.
- 4. Survey Monkey Following my pitch of Charm music magazine to the publishers, I sent out a survey in order to collect feedback and gain a better understanding on the overall effectiveness of the pitch, as well as the strengths and areas for improvement. The following slides analyse the results of the six question survey.
- 5. Question 1The first question asked how well the pitch communicated the idea of Charm magazine to the publishers. This question investigated the effectiveness of the pitch in regards to giving those present a clear idea of what the magazine is, what it is about, the genre and content of the magazine, the budget and predicted profit/loss breakdown, the sample pre-production materials produced and production plan of the magazine. Overall, out of the 12 in attendance, two-thirds felt that, following the pitch, they understood the idea of Charm magazine completely whilst a-third felt that they understood most of the idea - which tells me that there were details about the magazine that were not covered during the pitch which left some without a completely clear idea of what Charm magazine is. After collecting feedback from the publishers through interviews and surveys, it is determined that these details are primarily the image plan, which demonstrates a walkthrough of planning, taking and manipulating the images for the magazine; the flat plan (which was included but couldve been improved with more coverage) and the mood board, which was a collection of images, logos and strapless which inspired Charm music magazine. The publishers also commented that they would have liked to have seen a little bit more coverage of the target consumers spending power. Understo od Complet ely 67% Mostly Understo od 33%
- 6. Question 2 The second question focused on the information communicated during the pitch. Similar to the first question, this question investigated the information conveyed during the pitch in regards to giving the publishers a clear idea of what the magazine is, what it is about, the genre and content of the magazine, the budget and predicted profit/loss breakdown, the sample pre-production materials produced and production plan of the magazine. However, the first question focused on the effectiveness of the pitch in conveying the idea of Charm magazine whilst this question focuses on whether all the information required by the publishers in order to gain a crystal clear understanding of Charm magazine was conveyed in the pitch. Exactly like the first question, out of the 12 in attendance, two-thirds felt that, following the pitch, all the information was conveyed within the pitch whilst a-third felt that not all the information was in the pitch - which reinforces the feedback from the first question: that there were details about the magazine that were not covered during the pitch which left some without a completely clear idea of what Charm magazine is. All Informatio n Communic ated 67% Most Informatio n Communic ated 33%
- 7. Question 3 The third question focused on the particular details and pieces of information that was not included in the pitch. This question aims to delve deeper in to the responses of the previous two questions and find out why the pitch did not leave all with a crystal clear idea of Charm magazine following the pitch. Out of the 8 who left responses, exactly half of them felt that everything was good and that there were no details left out of the pitch whereas the other half of respondents pointed out that there were some key elements missing, most notably the mood board and the spending power of the target audience. One response commented that the planning that went into taking and manipulating the images in post was also lacking.
- 8. Question 4 The fourth question attempts to summarise the previous three questions by investigating the quality of the pitch overall, taking into account the effectiveness of the pitch and the details/pieces of information that the pitch did not convey to the publisher. Out of the 12 respondents, 42% felt that the pitch was faultless and gave a rating of 10/10 and another 42% felt that the pitch was excellent and gave a rating of 9/10 whilst 17% felt that the pitch was a solid 8/10. 10/10 42% 9/10 42% 8/10 17%
- 9. Question 5 The penultimate question, question five, focused on whether the pitch was effective enough to have convinced the publishers to invest in Charm magazine. Again, this question builds on the previous questions and investigates whether the pitch met the success criteria: which was to sell the idea of Charm magazine to the publishers. Out of 12 responses 17% felt that, following the pitch, are extremely likely to invest in Charm whilst 25% felt that they are very likely to invest in Charm and finally the majority (58%) felt that they were likely to invest in charm following the pitch. Extrem ely Likely 17% Very Likely 25% Likely 58%
- 10. Question 6 The final question, question six, gave respondents an opportunity to provide any other feedback in regards to the pitch. Entirely optional, 9 respondents left a comment. The majority of the comments (7/9) didnt have any other questions or concerns, a few of which left comments praising the presentation. One respondent felt that more eye contact with the publishers would have improved the pitch whilst another felt that the target consumer was mentioned in detail the pitch did not sufficiently reference the audience characterisation of Hartleys 7 Subjectivities.
Related Documents
