2017 Pitch Competition Judge Feedback

FOR OUR GENERAL KNOWLEDGE

1 = Very Poor 2 = Poor 3 = Good 4 = Very Good 5 = Exceeded Expectations

The variety of pitches in the competition was:

The preparedness of the contestants was:

The stage format and room layout was:

The competition schedule for the mentor sessions and first round was:

The final round scoring format was:

The attendance for the final round of the competition was:

Pre-conference communication with SXSW Gaming staff was:

On-site service by SXSW Gaming staff/volunteers was:

GENERAL EVENT FEEDBACK

What, if anything, do you feel we could have communicated better before the event?

THE FUTURE OF SXSW GAMING

Any suggestions for 2018 programming (music performances, panel topics, etc.):

Any suggestions for additional areas you’d like to see happen or get bigger during the SXSW Gaming (ex. bigger Student Showcase, art gallery, etc.):

Were you satisfied with the structure of the Pitch Competition overall? Did you feel it was useful for contestants to have a mentor and stage session?

YESNO

If not, why?

Do you think it would’ve been more useful to have a “mentor session” via email or skype with the contestants pre-event (whether or not you mentored this year)?

YESNO

If not, why?

Did you feel prepared to judge the pitches in the competition?

YESNO

If not, why?

Do you feel the rating card was missing an important pitch element?

YESNO

If yes, what else could have been added to the rate card for the judges?

Do you think you would return as a judge or mentor for the 2018 competition?

YESNO

If not, why?

Did you find the Gaming Pitch contestant info webpage (tinyurl.com/GamingPitch2017) useful?

YESNO

If not, why?

Do you think you would recommend any of the titles you saw to an investor/publisher?

YESNO

If not, why?

Additional comments:

Please provide a positive testimonial below, either on the event or the staff, which we may use for future promotional material.

E-mail*

2017 PITCH COMPETITION JUDGE FEEDBACK