Q1. Have all the magazine conventions been used? How successful are these compared to the real thing?
(Masthead/Pugs/Puffs/Dateline/Main image/Cover lines/Left third rule/Bar code/Selling Line)
A. Out of the eight questionnaires completed, the majority of people agreed that most of the conventions have been used effectively and look professional. However, I missed off the web address of the online edition of the magazine which would have made my magazine look more like the real thing.
Q2. Has original photography been used? Does the photograph match the ethos of the magazine? Would you expect to see this photograph with this magazine?
A. Most people realised that the photograph used was indeed original photography and thought that the image was very effective as the two people are using direct mode of address. They also agreed that image linked in with the 'Halloween Special' so was therefore realistic. One person however said that they would not expect to see this image on 'Q' magazine but would perhaps be more relevant on a pop magazine. I slightly agree with this however I tried to justify my use of the image by the main cover line.
Q3. Have they analysed their own magazine in depth?
A. Everyone identified in their questionnaire that I explained why I did certain things on my magazine in depth and justified it on my blog.
Q4. Finally, give an honest opinion of the look of the magazine. Is it a good representation of the magazine it is replicating?
A. The majority of people said the overall look of my magazine was good and looked realistic. They also said that the layout of my magazine was effective and made it look professional. Final improvements some people gave were to make the stars name bigger and that the 'Halloween Special' may not be featured in 'Q' magazine.
No comments:
Post a Comment