Q1) Tally of main preferences
Slasher - iii
Psychological - v iiii
Road Trip - ii
Body - iii
Q2) Tally of main preferences
Slow Building tension - v iiii
Gorey action - ii
intense sound - ii
character interaction - iiii
Q3) Mean of graphic horror importance
Absolutely pivotal
1 ii
2 ii
3 v
4 v i
5 ii
Totally unnecessary
Q4) Preferred pace
Slow building
1 iii
2 vii
3 iii
4 i
5 iii
Intense immediate action
Q5) Preferred characteristics
Overall, our research shows that our target audiences preferred characteristics are slightly psychopathic, whist calm and meticulous and overly attentive, rather than frantic and unorganised.
Q6) Effective sound
Produced an average of 4.2, showing our target audience feels soundtrack is more important than dialogue in an opening sequence.
Q7) Open question in vulnerable protagonist
DIRECT SPLIT - one half of the audience believe that a vulnerable protagonist is key in an opening sequence, whilst on the other hand, they felt like the opening sequence is more important for establishing the antagonist's character.
Evaluating the utility of our results –
Semantic differentials were most effective, we used them throughout our questionnaire to gauge the answers more specifically; this also allowed us to collate a mean average of each semantic question and therefore assimilate a statistic. Semantic differentials strengthened our concept as they found that, on average, slow building tension, a soundtrack, and a recognition of the unnecessary usage of gory violence in an opening sequence were more important than their binaries.
Quantitative and qualitative questions – Both types of these questions were also used. We believe using a range of both open and definitive questions keeps the individual alert, as it avoided boredom and therefore ensured that the questionnaire was being answered attentively.
Scaled question –
We found this particularly useful, it was the one with three variables concerning antagonist characteristics – as the mean from all three revealed, slightly psychopathic, whist calm and meticulous and overly attentive, rather than frantic and unorganised should be our idealistic character. These characteristics completely reinforce our concept, and the fact that a range of characteristics could have been chosen further strengthens our concept, and therefore the utility of our questionnaire.
Avoiding bias –
The best way to assess any potential bias is by evaluating the social conditions the questionnaires were answered in – as the majority of respondents were of our age group at the same school; this means our questionnaire was answered by our core audience; a successful aspect. Moreover, a large number of respondents and an almost gender split increases the utility of results.
Constructing our questionnaire –
When we wrote it, we were determined to avoid using leading questions; as this could potentially cause bias. The only potential bias arose from the fact that our media class knew our concept – and respondents from our class would therefore perhaps alter their answers to fit or go against our concept. We would improve this next time by handing the questionnaire to other media classes as well. Furthermore our presence could reinforce that idea of our respondents giving us 'what we want to hear' to a certain extent, another factor that could easily be changed in the future for a more representative result.
Semantic differentials were most effective, we used them throughout our questionnaire to gauge the answers more specifically; this also allowed us to collate a mean average of each semantic question and therefore assimilate a statistic. Semantic differentials strengthened our concept as they found that, on average, slow building tension, a soundtrack, and a recognition of the unnecessary usage of gory violence in an opening sequence were more important than their binaries.
Quantitative and qualitative questions – Both types of these questions were also used. We believe using a range of both open and definitive questions keeps the individual alert, as it avoided boredom and therefore ensured that the questionnaire was being answered attentively.
Scaled question –
We found this particularly useful, it was the one with three variables concerning antagonist characteristics – as the mean from all three revealed, slightly psychopathic, whist calm and meticulous and overly attentive, rather than frantic and unorganised should be our idealistic character. These characteristics completely reinforce our concept, and the fact that a range of characteristics could have been chosen further strengthens our concept, and therefore the utility of our questionnaire.
Avoiding bias –
The best way to assess any potential bias is by evaluating the social conditions the questionnaires were answered in – as the majority of respondents were of our age group at the same school; this means our questionnaire was answered by our core audience; a successful aspect. Moreover, a large number of respondents and an almost gender split increases the utility of results.
Constructing our questionnaire –
When we wrote it, we were determined to avoid using leading questions; as this could potentially cause bias. The only potential bias arose from the fact that our media class knew our concept – and respondents from our class would therefore perhaps alter their answers to fit or go against our concept. We would improve this next time by handing the questionnaire to other media classes as well. Furthermore our presence could reinforce that idea of our respondents giving us 'what we want to hear' to a certain extent, another factor that could easily be changed in the future for a more representative result.
Excellent work Jack, this post needs to be titled Audience research - results - to differentiate it from the other two posts which are Purpose and methodology and Evaluation - although you appear to have done that in this post?
ReplyDelete