BCM 325 Peer Digital Artefact Pitch Commentary

In BCM 325, we were required to comment and provide constructive feedback on three of our peers’ digital artefact pitches, after which we had to then to critically evaluate the feedback we provided. In doing so, it led me to critically evaluate my own digital artefact pitch and identify areas I did not address as well as I had originally thought, which will ultimately aid the construction of my eventual beta presentation towards the semester’s end. In particular, I identified a need to incorporate the subject lecture content in my digital artefact, which is something I overlooked during the initial pitch stage. I believe these peer comments have also enhanced my constructive feedback writing, which will hopefully improve the overall quality of my comments during the second round of peer evaluations following the beta presentation.


Blog 1: The Future of Alternative Subcultures

Paige’s digital artefact utilises a video essay to explore the way in which the broad alternative subculture is likely to change over the short, medium, and long-term, specifically in terms of the aesthetics and roots of the culture.

My main critiques on Paige’s pitch presentation were:

  • Her focus on alternative culture is extremely broad, so a specific subculture within the alternative scene should be selected instead (e.g., emo, cyberpunk, gothic lolita). In targeting a specific niche as opposed to the entire overarching culture, she will have a clearer focus when conducting research and will be able to produce and communicate more meaningful results to her target audience.
  • She mentions using Reddit to engage with members of the alternative community, but has not identified specific subreddits she will utilise to reach her audience. I agree that Reddit is an appropriate platform for her particular artefact, though her justification could have been improved by further elaborating on her intended use and the platform’s benefits.
  • She claimed her insights are important to both members within and external to the subculture, but does not explain how or why this is the case. The social utility of her digital artefact is not clear.
  • In addressing the challenge of linking her digital artefact to the future, she explains she will consider the short, medium and long-term future of the subculture, but does not specify what she considers to be short, medium or long-term in terms of the number of years – 5, 10, 25, 50?

While writing my comment on Paige’s blog post, I felt confident in the feedback I had given and my overall response to her pitch. However, only after going back to it did I realise I probably did not reflect enough on the insights gained from the subject’s lectures, but rather, put all of my energy into comparing the pitch content and structure to the assessment template and marketing criteria. It was also a very long comment as I was trying to cover everything I had picked up on in detail, which I appreciate may be overwhelming to read as the recipient.

I also think the resources I provided were not as relevant as they would have been had she elected a specific alternative subculture to focus her digital artefact on, but had tried to offer a range of options for different relevant subcultures so she could find value in at least one of my suggestions. While there is definitely room for improvement within my critical evaluation, I am happy with my comment overall being the first one I had written.


Blog 2: Empowering the Future

Misha’s digital artefact consists of a sole Instagram page intended to promote and spark discussions around issues in women’s health by presenting facts, information and statistics on important yet significantly overlooked conditions experienced by women in contemporary society.

My main critiques on Misha’s pitch presentation were:

  • Regarding her choice of platform, her justification was sound yet she hadn’t actually referenced any background research sources to support her decision. She also didn’t specify the types of content she was planning to produce on the platform (e.g., photos, videos, gifs, stories, reels, IGVT videos).
  • She had not included a production timeline for her digital artefact or a schedule of when and how frequently she planned to post on her Instagram page.
  • Similarly, she did not acknowledge any sources she could consider for future research, nor how she planned on obtaining the facts and statistics she wanted to share on her platform.
  • There was no integration of lecture content within her pitch presentation.

As my second peer evaluation comment, I feel as though my analysis was a step up from my last, especially in terms of the resources provided and my linking to specific lecture content. My The Guardian resource in particular was extremely relevant to Misha’s digital artefact, and I believe I summarised the key findings concisely while expressing its relevance to her project. The length of my feedback, while still very long, was also shorter than that of Paige’s comment, despite having more issues to address. Overall, I’m really happy with this comment and think I covered everything required while offering a valuable insight.


Blog 3: The Future of Music Streaming

Jett’s digital artefact is a TikTok series focused on the sustainable future of music streaming over the next ten years, specifically addressing how streaming services will become even more convenient and cost-effective for users while decreasing music piracy.

My main critiques on Jett’s pitch presentation were:

  • He explains his video content will feature his nominated song of the week, yet doesn’t explain what the video will actually consist of visually or informationally. Due to the nature of the platform, it’s important to consider how easily digestible, educational and entertaining your content is for TikTok’s specific audience.
  • He mentions he wants to address the decline of music piracy in response to an increase in the use of music streaming services, though my own research found this is actually not the case.

While I felt most comfortable critically evaluating my peers’ pitch presentations after the last two, Jett’s presentation covered each of the elements of the marking criteria clearly and often in great detail, leaving me struggling to identify areas to suggest potential improvements on. I feel as though the lack of discussion around his video content was ultimately a great angle from which to evaluate his initial concept and methodology, and believe the sources I provided were both relevant and insightful to his particular digital artefact topic.

The main critique of my own comment I later identified was my lack of addressing the lecture content. While Jett did a great job at integrating the subject material into his presentation, I did not elaborate or provide further information other than my acknowledgement of his discussion. In my second round of peer comments, I’ll definitely be more aware of bringing my discussion back to the subject focus of the lecture content.

2 thoughts on “BCM 325 Peer Digital Artefact Pitch Commentary

Leave a Reply to Taylor Sumelj Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s