Q3.

To collect feedback on my music video, I made a questionnaire on Google Forms. I chose this method because it enabled me to ask a range of questions in various formats (for example, some questions had multiple choice options, checkboxes, or space for a longer written answer). I also chose to use this online method because it made it quick and easy for me to share the questionnaire and receive responses.

I collected feedback from teenagers so that I could see how people in the age group of my target audience (for more information about my target audience, please refer to this post) responded to my music video. Most of the people who I collected feedback from were female because this was also a key demographic of our target audience, but I also collected some feedback from other genders so that I can also see how they may respond differently and I can consider my video’s wider appeal.

I began my questionnaire with some questions about the demographic of the respondent, so that I could see how this affected individual feedback. This is important as Stuart Hall suggests that, because audiences are not homogenous, an individual's reading of a text is highly dependent on their own personal experiences. Knowing the demographics of the respondents also meant that I could be especially considerate of how respondents who fit my target audience responded to the text.

As well as identifying basic demographics such as age and gender (results shown on slide 1), I asked two questions about the respondents' music tastes. This could affect their answers because they might have different expectations from music videos, conforming to the conventions of their favourite genres or the styles of their favourite artists. Most of the respondents selected rock and pop as their favourite genres of music (70% selected rock and 50% selected pop) and my music video was for a song which was a hybrid of these genres, so this suggests increased value to the feedback because it is more representative of my target audience. However, there was a range of results regarding who their favourite artists were, so I could expect some variety in the feedback that would help me to consider different responses to my music video.

The second section of my questionnaire asked more specific questions about my music video. I embedded the video into the form so that the respondents could easily access it and watch it as many times as they needed before answering the questions.

My first question about my music video asked to what extent the audience member agreed with certain statements. The first statement was designed to see whether they thought that the music video suited the genre of the music. All of the responses were in agreement that it did (with 50% of respondents in strong agreement), suggesting that I was successful in creating a product which convincingly fit the conventions of its genre. The second statement also had completely positive results, with most respondents strongly agreeing that they could easily follow the storyline of the music video – this suggests that my narrative was conveyed clearly. Results were slightly more varied in regards to relatability, which is to be expected because it is more dependent on the audience member’s personal experiences and outlook. However, the majority of respondents did agree that they could relate to the character in the music video and its themes, which is a positive result because this was one of the ways that I wanted the video to appeal to the target audience.

Next, I asked which words they thought would be the most appropriate to describe the music video. I listed a range of options and they could tick as many as they believed fit, plus there was the option to add their own, so that I could consider a range of responses.

I asked what age group the respondents thought would be the target audience of the music video so that I could see whether they thought that it successfully appealed to the intended target audience. All of the respondents answered that they thought that it was targeted towards a teenage target audience, which was my intention.

David Gauntlett’s ‘pick and mix’ theory suggests that audiences identify the parts of a media text which feel the most relevant to themselves personally, whilst ignoring other parts. This would suggest that there would be variety in the responses to my question about which part of the video was the most memorable, depending on the individual’s interests. Henry Jenkins described fans as ‘textual poachers’, similarly presenting audiences as active in their consumption and interpretation of texts.

There was some variety in the parts of the music video which were chosen, which is advantageous because it would suggest that there are elements throughout the video which are appealing to different audiences. However, many respondents referred to the ending of the music video, possibly suggesting that I was successful in creating a satisfying resolution.

My final question was about the ideology conveyed in my music video. In his reception model, Stuart Hall argued that audiences (decoders) have the most power in creating meaning from texts, more so than the encoders who produce the texts. Audiences can decode various meaning in media texts – the preferred reading (the dominant meaning intended by the producer), a negotiated reading (a slightly modified interpretation of the text), or an oppositional reading (a rejection of the ideology of the text).

I listed four main messages that I thought could be interpreted in my video, plus gave the option for the respondent to write their own individual interpretation so that I could consider a broader range of interpretations that the audience might decode. The most popular reading was that the video conveyed messages about claiming independence, which was a preferred reading. However, the other meanings that I offered on the form were selected by equal numbers and one respondent wrote their own interpretation; this variety supports Hall’s argument that audiences are active in making their own interpretations.