Evalutation

The Brief was to rebrand a product to either a different; gender, age or class. Our chosen product was LYNX; we decided it by eliminating the ideas that were almost impossible to create and focusing on the more accomplishing ideas which in the end turned out to be LYNX. The majority of the target audience is pubescent teenage boys or young adult men, although LYNX have targeted their product to women they don’t focus mainly on them; therefore; we decided to mainly focus on women in their mid-twenties to thirties that work – maybe in an office of some sort- this then allows the product to advertise to a large audience other than men. We decided to also open the idea of using LYNX as a perfume for women, therefore giving it more of a feminine sale and advertisement, like 'Impulse' or 'Charlie.'

 

We collected the feedback by using Survey monkey – an online website that creates free, customizable surveys- for our finished advert, we gathered feedback that was helpful and received comments that ‘the whole rebranding idea’ was good, that the ‘advertising style fits and sells the product well’ and that it ‘showed imagination.’ The majority of our responses knew what the advert was selling and who it was aimed to, we did receive some negative feedback; saying that ‘the idea/narrative could have been clearer and more detail and thought could have gone into the mise-en-scene’ also, ‘it was quite slow and dull’ some of the negative feedback was focused on the ‘lighting’, ‘editing’ or ‘how are time was used.’ All in all, the majority of the responses liked the advert. 

I believe that the advert did achieve the appropriateness to audience, we based it on targeting women in stressful jobs and I believe we achieved that. The advert’s impact is to provide a sense of freedom in your work and in yourself, hinting that if you smell good, you feel good; I believe we did provide this although, it was provided to the best standards, the message was still there.

As for the video itself, the mise-en-scene I believe worked fairly well, the whole Wizard of Oz theme was a good idea; turning from black and white into colour, however the camerawork was not the best and I didn’t quite enjoy the whole process of moving from scene to scene. The editing improved the advert, using the green screen was a great idea to ‘escape’ and I believe Will did a good job making it look effective; the black and white edit wasn’t what I expected and I had hoped it would have looked darker, the sound too wasn’t to perfection although are planning had changed and it was rushed – due to actor’s schedule and absences of crew.

The effectiveness of the advert does work I believe, it shows that a women can feel more relaxed in a stressful job if she had that little ‘freedom/escape’. We started out with the idea of rebranding it to women in their 20’s/30’s and I believe we completed that- even if our actor was teenager- to the best of our capability.

The message we were trying to sell to the target audience was that even when you’re stressed, the simple effect of a smell could provide you with ‘pleasure/freedom’. Hence the edit of the green screen – with a beach- although she didn’t transport to the beach, she felt as if she were there and relaxing when in reality she was still at her job.  The main techniques we used were the green screen and the scenery of the office.

No, our advert isn’t fit for purpose; it still needs time and work. If we had more time I would have hoped to use a better replacement for the packaging of the box instead of using a ‘tissue box’ and the editing would have been used more effectively, the acting too; although Alana is a great actor and a very expressive person, I thought the scenes were a bit rushed and not perfected to better standards. Our advert complies with advertising regulations I think, it complies with the rule ’04 Harm and Offence’ as it shouldn’t offend anybody – even are target audience- it doesn’t involve and ‘Pornography’, although people could argue that the scene of her on a beach could be misleading due to the edit which may collide with the ‘Misleading Advertising ‘however this is unlikely as we hadn’t implied that she would be transported there, it was simply an edit and I don’t believe it goes against  ‘Misleading Advertising’ or the ‘Appendix 3 – The CPRs and BPRs’ which enforces the rule of misleading advertisement, that could injure a competitor or deceive the audience.

In our original intentions the storyboard included another actor as a waiter – although due to the actors absence we couldn’t film it, so we improvised- also a couple of scenes were changed slightly, like bird’s eye view shot and the medium shots; they were mainly changed into shots where we could see the actors, although that wasn’t the original intention it still works. Also, the office scenery wasn’t as ‘busy’ or ‘stressful’ as we had planned and if I had a chance to re do it, I would make it look more stressful for the actor. The final advertisement is similar to our original idea, our feedback even mentioned how the audience ‘liked the idea’ and they found it ‘humorous’.

I’m dissatisfied with the final outcome and that probably due to the fact that I wasn’t part of much of it – which was my fault- but, If I could re film it I would change the scenery and the editing would reach the standards had set for it. I would also change the props, make them see more realistic. My involvement with the filming and editing could have been improved, although it was due to personal stuff that I didn’t do as much as I did however with no excuses I should have played a larger part in the helping of filming, editing and everything in between.