Pitch Boards Volume 2

        I took some time to consider the feedback I was given, and consider how I might incorporate the suggested improvements into my pitch boards. The most common comments , not just from my peer review group, but also tutors and other classmates, were regarding the volume of text on my boards, and the discrepancy between page formats. Consequently, my first step was to change the Character & Environment board to the same landscape format as the other 3 boards. I also chose to make this the second, rather than the fourth board in the sequence, as I felt that the designs should take precedence over the posters and online banners. After all, without the designs, there would be no posters.

        I also took note of the suggestion to add colour to the posters, as really the lack of colour has little relevance outside the context of the animation. It also corresponds better to the 'brighter future' theme if the images are bright and colourful.

        Despite removing a large amount of text from the character & environment board, and attempting to make the text on the poster board more concise, there still appears to be a lot of type. Yet I feel that everything I have included is necessary to helping people understand my proposal, particularly if the boards are being viewed without any written or spoke accompaniment. 

        This issue of whether the boards are clear and easy to interpret became more apparent as we switched groups, viewing pitch boards without the respective artists there to explain or describe their projects. Many of the boards which I viewed had no text, making it hard (and sometimes near impossible) to decipher what the product or intention was, let alone the audience. I therefore feel that text is vital, although in future I will need to make a concerted effort to be less wordy, and communicate as much as possible through imagery rather than prose. 

        This is the last opportunity for us to receive peer feedback in a formal session, as after this Progress Critque we will be expected to take in to account the responses to our proposals and pith boards and begin work on the final resolutions. The feedback I received was as follows:

Effectiveness of the proposed concept/response in relation to the brief.

Strengths:

• Retro style fits in well with the childhood characters of the fathers' era. Very nostalgic in presentation.
• Very well thought out concept.
• Attention to style, very consistent.
• Audience well considered.

Suggestions:

• More examples of context, where it is going to be used.

Extent to which the proposed response solves the identified problem.

Strengths:

• Delivers message simply on the importance of reading through text and image.
• Connection with both parent and child.
• All elements well thought out.
• Delivery is really good.
• Answers the brief very accurately.

Suggestions:

• Edit the poster to fit more comfortably in the underground image.
• Other means of reaching out to the audience?

Appropriateness of the response to the identified audience/context.

Strengths:

• Connects well with parents, the father in particular by using a male figure in animation.
• The 'no face' choice smartly makes it an everyman figure.
• Very appropriate to the audience.
• Style appeals to both - not too adult, not too child friendly.

Suggestions:

• Perhaps include a scene from the parents' POV, currently only from the child's perspective.
• A few more examples/ideas of how it reaches to the children.

Visual quality/content in relation to the proposed response.

Strengths:

• Clever use of black & white and colour to show contrast between life with reading and without.
• A lot of effort is evident through character design and story.
• Colour scheme is interpreted very well/appropriately

Suggestions:

• Perhaps use Photoshop to keep texture but keep within the colour restrictions to fit in with the font, to reduce contrast.
• Make the logo (ugly one provided by the company) less overpowering. A bit smaller maybe, to avoid stealing focus.

Presentation of the work with regards to the quality, quantity and appropriateness of text based and visual information.

Strengths:

• All styles are very well presented.
• Audience is well considered and presented well. 
• Arranged well, nice flow, easy to follow.
• Shows effectively the ideas and concepts.
• The appropriate retro style choice and reference.
• It's possible places of use as a campaign.

Suggestions:

• Possibly add clear borders/frames to the storyboard images.
• Improve alignment of image and text.
• A little too much text.
• Consider including titles e.g. for the storyboard, to make it easier to show what element we are looking at quicker. 

         I am fairly happy with this feedback, as the strengths and areas for improvement are fairly consistent across both reviews. I will further look into reducing the amount of text, as well as better integrating Save the Children's bold logo with my softer, hand drawn aesthetic, and making said logo less obtrusive on the supporting contextual material. Another common suggestion seems to be further considering how the proposed animation will be viewed by children, so I could include mock ups of the film being viewed either on TV or digital devices, or examples of the posters being displayed in schools.

        My main task however, now that I am satisfied my concept is fit for purpose, is to complete the full 2 minute storyboard.