As a group what problem did you identify and why?
The problem that we, as a group, identified was that students are lazy, unhealthy and do very little to maintain a healthy lifestyle. This lack of enthusiasm to do anything about it could be caused by a number of different reasons; students are lazy, work, university/college work, Etc.
What methods did you use to gather your evidence to prove this was a problem and what forms did it take?
The methods we used to gather research were questioning students about their lifestyles. As we are students, gathering this information was easily accessible. This gave us various statistics and supported our initial thoughts that students don’t do a lot of exercise unless they really want to and that students rarely eat healthy meals regularly. Secondary research again cemented the fact that getting student to do exercise is a near impossible task if they do not want to do it.
What methods of research did you find useful and why?
The most useful research was into shock advertising and what creates the most impact so we could create our own posters. Another important and useful method of research was observation and experience. This gave us the most insight into what people actually did and what was required .
What research could you have carried out that would have proved more useful?
We should have done a more research into the rules and regulations of putting up posters in college, as this was the cause of several set-backs though out the project. More research should have also been done into that actual lifestyle and fitness element, providing more fact, as – although the concept was very good – the evidence and supporting facts were not as strong.
How did you manage the workload as part of a group?
Over the whole three weeks of the brief, I think the time could have been managed much better. Although we all did separate tasks and produced different work, it was not always coherent and did not always work together. Initially we all designed logo and poster ideas which, although it gave us a wide variety of ideas it meant we wasted a few days doing the same thing. Due to the problems we found it meant everything was either rushed or there was nothing to do. Had we planned the work load out evenly and done more research in the given time – with our concept – I believe we could have taken it much further so that it potentially could have gone viral. Over all I think we worked well as a group, however, there were points of confusion and miscommunication where people did not understand what they were meant to do or were not there to contribute.
The brief title, to us, suggested that what was produced had to stir attention, get people talking and raise awareness. And although very few people got to see our initial campaign, I believe what we produced and specifically the concept, epitomized how communication can be a virus. Had we had more time and if our posters had stayed up I think there would be more evidence to prove how successful it could have been.
To make it more successful, if we were to do it again, more thorough research would be needed. The research would give us more statistics and information about who uses the lift and why. Another element that could have been improved was our planning, had we been more organized and executed our phases and plans better the whole project would be more thorough and the outcome would be improved. The final element that we possibly may have reconsidered, although we were very happy with it and so were most of the people we spoke to, would be the tone of voice and the language. Looking more into whether an simple yet boring instruction would prove more effective that the forceful profanity.