peer pitch feedback

pitch 1 – The Future of Care Work – Digital Artefact Pitch – Alana Smith

Alana’s pitch is well-defined in it’s topic: the future of aged care. It is particularly intelligent as it draws upon previous knowledge obtained in non-BCM subjects, allowing her to build upon her other talents and integrate a variety of course content into a single, fully realised portfolio of work (therefore actually addressing a second future: her own). The structure of her DA was also intelligently conceived, with the three podcast episodes allowing her to address Bell’s model of future studies while also minimising the level of work required. This allowed Alana to lay out a clear timeline, while also providing her DA with an overall direction and momentum.

Where Alana’s pitch showed weakness was in it’s scope/focus and audience.

As I noted in my comments “the future of aged care” is an incredibly broad topic. The knowledge that Alana is drawing from background research in International Studies only compounds this problem as I know that data collected in subjects for that degree are incredibly localised in content as specific regions have specific issues to overcome. My question to her became how was she planning on making her scope more manageable. I suggested focusing on one specific area would allow for a more targeted DA and easier development of more accurate projections.

Alana also lacked a clear audience for her DA. Here I suggested that in honing her content she might also identify a clearer demographic she was trying to appeal to, as I mentioned before regional problems require region specific solutions. In tailoring her research to one area, the people who it was most likely to benefit would also become apparent. I left one article as an example, that focused on the lack of trained professionals resulting from lack of interest from University’s, as an example, citing this kind of focused research as a two-birds-one-stone approach to improving her DA.

pitch 2 – The Future of CGI – Jack Ridoutt

Jack’s DA was the easiest of the three for me to address, on account mostly of my being very familiar with cinema. Because of this familiarity I was able to provide specific information and sources which would help him in the creation of his DA.

Jack has done an excellent job of narrowing his field of research, wanting to focus on CGI in science-fiction and superhero cinema. This genre specific approach allows him to address elements of CGI frequently used in said genres (I suspect motion capture, digital landscapes, and post-production timelines will all be central elements of this DA). I was able to provide some resources that concerned genres outside of the one’s outlined by Jack’s, suggesting that while not directly in his sphere of research, they provided examples of successful CGI usage in cinema. The concepts these resources address could be useful to Jack as his DA is reliant upon him formulating a definition of “successful CGI” against which he can then analyse chosen examples.

The future utility of the DA was also immediately clear. The topic has immediate relevancy as CGI is only becoming a more popular for filmmakers to employ. While the audience was not entirely clear, the list of possible audiences is, again on account of CGI’s current relevancy. Both cinemagoers and filmmakers could be targeted, with the DA becoming an educational tool about processes involved for the uninformed, or a form of criticism for the latter.

What was unclear in Jack’s pitch was how he plans to present his findings. He mentions Reddit as a good open resource for research, and based on that may have also been implying that this is where he planned to present his DA. I suggested that he may want to look into the viability of this, especially considering the level of visual information he may be trying to present. Depending on how many iterations Jack developed Reddit again might be a poor platform, as information can easily get lost in the shuffle, making it more difficult for him to keep his DA cohesive.

I outlined some mediums he might wish to explore, providing some more generic resources in addition to the cinema-CGI specific ones I had already attached, with my ultimate recommendation being to consider how he was going to translate data into a cohesive presentable DA.

pitch 3 – Adonis- The future of Gaming #bcm325 – Emma Pazarkoski

Emma’s pitch was easily the most difficult for me to grapple with, mostly on account of my lacking the easy in that I had with Alana and Jacks pitches.

However, I do also attribute part of my difficulty to a lack of clarity about the form of Emma’s DA. While she was easily the most focused concept, and clear in content she wanted to address, she failed to clearly outline how she would present her DA. Considering that Emma’s DA is intended to be a purely hypothetical exercise, with no tangible prototype, nor much existing technology to draw upon for reference, as much clarity as possible is needed to help understand exactly what her DA will be. Again, part of my struggle her could be attributed to a lack of familiarity with Emma’s topic area, but I do maintain that a clearer outline of how she wishes to present her data is key here.

I also suggested that Emma should try and find comparative technologies that she could use for her projections. Emma stated frequently that her idea is somewhat analogous to Netflix and from this I was able to identify a helpful resource that outlined some of the issues she might face. Key among them is the issue of rights and distribution, which could directly impede the hypothetical functionality of this project. As Emma’s DA won’t have an operational model, the ability to show that she has addressed as many roadblocks as possible is essential, especially when trying to engage an audience– an idea that seems non-functional will not generate interest!!

Thus Emma’s project presented a strange situation, it was both the most focused on being a novum, while being the most lacking in precedent from which to project. Emma’s plan was to rely on crowd engagement for her project, however I believe that finding comparable existing technologies is also key as it will provide her with foundation from which she can more adequately project.

reflection time

A consistent (and fair) criticism that had been levelled at my pitch was the lack of easily identified audience. In the process of providing feedback on Alana, Jack, and Emma’s pitches I can see the level of detail required when identifying an audience. In all three cases a lack of specificity about audience was present, and these were all inevitably related to a second issue.

For Alana, the breadth of her topic meant that a specific audience was difficult to identify, and by narrowing her focus she would be able to locate an audience more easily.

For Jack, the lack of clarity about form made murky what should have been an obvious audience. The internet is very fond of cinema, especially analysis of new technologies. By selecting a format to present his DA he would be able to more clearly identify his audience.

For Emma, audience will come with clarity and research. As her project is purely hypothetical, the ability to demonstrate understanding will draw an audience, thus making research paramount.

My ability to provide feedback for these pitches was dictated in no small part by my familiarity with the topic they concerned. With Alana and Jack I had more familiarity, having studied International Studies and being a cinema fan respectively. With Emma, however, the depth and breadth of my feedback was more limited as I did not feel as capable of marrying critical insights to the content in question.

In all cases I found publications with a deep database to be especially useful resources. Wired.com was invaluable, as a multimedia platform that covers a range of topics it was a good place to find fills for gaps in my knowledge. A general engagement with cultural writing and criticism aided my ability to analyse the pitches. Longform publications like The New Yorker focus specifically on deep engagement, and while they do not often cover topics that fit perfectly, I was able to reuse many of the concepts they employ in their criticism.

This process was also instructive for my own project. In criticising audience and production timelines, I reflected on the shortcomings of my own pitch, specifically that I too needed to hone my audience and consider how I was to produce the content I had proposed I would. In this way the entire process of giving feedback was a reflective activity. The act of seeking a new perspective through which I could understand these projects also gave me a new tools to understand my own, as if I were developing micro-schools of critical DA thought with each response.

I plan to apply much of the feedback I gave to Alana, Jack, and Emma to my own DA, in an effort to create a more airtight final product.

One thought on “peer pitch feedback

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s