From FMMC0104
Revision as of 13:27, 24 November 2010 by Jason Mittell (talk | contribs) (Report #2 and 3)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Report #1

This report features good details and solid research, with a clear structure. However the writing is too much like a "PR pitch" and less like academic analysis - you overuse quotes, and many of the sections seem to function primarily to promote the channel rather than examine it. The discussion of the key programs does not seem relevant to the industry subject - instead, consider branding in more depth, look at how the channel works within Viacom's structure, and analyze the target audiences more. Proofread more fully, and be sure to italicize the titles of TV programs throughout. Your presentation was poorly structured, with details and ideas that were hard to follow - use notes and an outline to more fully organize your time. --Jason Mittell 23:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Report #2 and 3

These reports offer some good material, but the analysis is underdeveloped and not sufficiently in-depth. Be careful of making claims without substantiation, like that The Daily Show's core audience is 18-35 year-old males. You don't talk enough about the way that the channel's online videos work to increase revenue and why they've chosen to make so much video available online for free. Be sure to proofread for typos and clarity more fully. Your presentations were clear and well-organized, but could have offered more analysis. --Jason Mittell 17:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)