Shared Screening Room report

Calibration - Nosferatu (1922)

Screen this public-domain film excerpt with the standardized 12-agent calibration panel. Focus on immediate viewer response to the visual and audio material in the attached clip.

Study Overview
Research questions: We screened a public‑domain silent‑era film excerpt with the 12‑agent Calibration – HotHH panel to assess immediate response to visuals/audio across three areas-overall appeal, likelihood to watch more, and perceived host/source credibility.
Research group: US‑based, ages 29–62, mostly rural, with mixed occupations (retail, driver, designer, HR), including younger adult females, visual creatives, and analytical/technical older adults.
What they said: Most found the piece dated and effortful (silent format, title cards, pacing, theatrical acting), the eerie mood was polarizing, continuation intent was generally low, a small visually oriented minority would keep watching, and credibility split between “archival/genuine” and “staged/fictional” given the absence of a visible host.

Main insights: Format friction-not subject matter-is the primary drag on appeal and watch‑on; credibility hinges on whether viewers foreground archival provenance or theatricality.
Older rural and younger female clusters skewed negative; visual creatives and some cultural‑minority viewers were more receptive; analytical/technical participants were credibility‑skeptical.
Takeaways: Package with a brief provenance frame and modern English subtitles to cut friction and raise credibility; consider an optional light score and a tight 60–90s teaser to lift watch‑on; target creative/horror‑affinity segments first, include a simple comfort cue, and retain a clearly labeled purist mode to protect historical fidelity.
Stimulus Upload
Emotional response Provisional preset
Overall appeal
2.2 stars
Synthetic, directional, n=12
Synthetic Directional n=12
Watch intent
0%
Synthetic, directional, n=12
Host credibility
52%
Synthetic, directional, n=12
Metric verbatim traces response_raw trace

Overall appeal

n=12
Sam Norstrom, 62, Rural, NE:
"I wasn’t much for it. The old silent style, the creepy look of it, and having to read the title cards made it feel like work more than something I’d want to watch."
Peace Evangelista, 31, Somerville, MA:
"What I watched felt visually interesting in an old, historical way, but overall it was not very appealing to me. The silent-era presentation and unsettling mood made it feel high-friction and a little draining rather tha..."
Sandra Falcinelli, 61, Rural, PA:
"I liked it more than I expected. It is old and a little stiff, but the shadow work and those tinted visuals still land, and from a design standpoint it feels intentional instead of gimmicky."
Kaila Smith, 29, Ann Arbor, MI:
"I really did not enjoy this. The silent, old-time style and creepy mood felt harsh and uncomfortable, and it is not the kind of simple, easy content I would choose to watch."

Watch intent

n=12
Sam Norstrom, 62, Rural, NE:
"I probably would not watch much more. It’s an old silent picture, and that style loses me pretty fast. The creepy monster stuff is fine for what it is, but with no real dialogue, it feels like work to stay with it."
Peace Evangelista, 31, Somerville, MA:
"What I watched felt unsettling in a very intrusive way, and the silent film style added distance instead of pulling me in. I can appreciate the atmosphere, but for me it created more discomfort than interest, so I would..."
Sandra Falcinelli, 61, Rural, PA:
"I can appreciate the stark old-school visuals and there’s real mood to it, but for me it still feels more interesting to admire than to keep watching. It has weight, yes, just not quite enough pull for me personally."
Kaila Smith, 29, Ann Arbor, MI:
"I probably would not keep watching. It felt creepy and heavy right away, and an old silent horror clip is just not how I want to spend my limited viewing time."

Host credibility

n=12
Sam Norstrom, 62, Rural, NE:
"No real host in it that I could see. It was just the old silent film playing, so I can't say the source felt credible or not from the clip alone."
Peace Evangelista, 31, Somerville, MA:
"What I watched felt credible to me because it was presented very plainly, as a direct film excerpt without extra manipulation or pushy framing. The historical, archival feeling made it seem trustworthy, although it also..."
Sandra Falcinelli, 61, Rural, PA:
"It came across as credible to me. What I watched felt plainly of its time - old, stylized, a little stiff, but visually consistent in a way that reads genuine rather than dressed up or fake."
Kaila Smith, 29, Ann Arbor, MI:
"It felt credible to me. What I watched came across as a straightforward excerpt from an old film, and nothing about it seemed misleading or off."
Participant Snapshots
12 profiles
Sam Norstrom
Sam Norstrom

62 · Rural, NE, USA · Driver

Peace Evangelista
Peace Evangelista

31 · Somerville, MA, USA · Human Resources Specialist

Sandra Falcinelli
Sandra Falcinelli

61 · Rural, PA, USA · Designer

Kaila Smith
Kaila Smith

29 · Ann Arbor, MI, USA · Business Operations Specialist

Daniel Sassaman
Daniel Sassaman

55 · Rural, LA, USA · Engineer

Precious Rai
Precious Rai

40 · Rural, IL, USA · Medical Records Specialist

Brent Guevara
Brent Guevara

52 · Fort Myers, FL, USA · Personal Care Aide

Gregory Cumbo
Gregory Cumbo

60 · Rural, OH, USA · Brokerage Clerk

Brianna Chapman
Brianna Chapman

32 · Rural, WV, USA · Hairdresser and Cosmetologist

Maribel Miller
Maribel Miller

35 · Rural, NH, USA · Retail Sales Supervisor

John Grimm
John Grimm

62 · Rural, IA, USA · Civil Engineer

Mario Bockus
Mario Bockus

58 · Rural, VA, USA · Retail Sales Supervisor

Participant demographics 12 profiles
Participant Profile 0 participants
Demographic Overview No agents selected
Age bucket Male count Female count
Participant locations No agents selected
Participant Incomes US benchmark scaled to group size
Income bucket Participants US households
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 ACS 1-year (Table B19001; >$200k evenly distributed for comparison)
Emotional cadence 1440/1440 checkpoints
By participant
12 participants

Brent Guevara

52 - Fort Myers, FL

4.0 / 5
Tension Dread Curiosity
Engagement
Excitement / Interest / Boredom
Emotion mix
Brent Guevara: - 1:45-1:46
"<i>Dios mío</i>, he's still right there, right over her, just waiting."

Sandra Falcinelli

61 - Rural, PA

4.0 / 5
Tension Curiosity Dread
Engagement
Excitement / Interest / Boredom
Emotion mix
Sandra Falcinelli: - 0:26-0:27
"She still looks like she's absolutely terrified, poor thing."

Brianna Chapman

32 - Rural, WV

2.0 / 5
Tension Dread Curiosity
Engagement
Excitement / Interest / Boredom
Emotion mix
Brianna Chapman: - 1:11-1:12
"This is just <b>terrifying</b>, I mean, it's <i>right there</i> staring."

Daniel Sassaman

55 - Rural, LA

2.0 / 5
Curiosity Tension Dread
Engagement
Excitement / Interest / Boredom
Emotion mix
Daniel Sassaman: - 0:08-0:09
"That shadow's shape looks quite... <i>unsettling</i>. It's definitely headed somewhere."

Gregory Cumbo

60 - Rural, OH

2.0 / 5
Tension Dread Boredom
Engagement
Excitement / Interest / Boredom
Emotion mix
Gregory Cumbo: - 0:28-0:29
"I don't even know what's happening now, but it sure isn't good."

John Grimm

62 - Rural, IA

2.0 / 5
Tension Curiosity Boredom
Engagement
Excitement / Interest / Boredom
Emotion mix
John Grimm: - 1:47-1:48
"Well, that's what happens when you don't lock your windows."

Maribel Miller

35 - Rural, NH

2.0 / 5
Tension Curiosity Dread
Engagement
Excitement / Interest / Boredom
Emotion mix
Maribel Miller: - 0:13-0:14
"Okay, that's not good; those fingers look like they could scratch up a whole wall."

Mario Bockus

58 - Rural, VA

2.0 / 5
Tension Curiosity Dread
Engagement
Excitement / Interest / Boredom
Emotion mix
Mario Bockus: - 1:13-1:14
"Well, there it is. Figures that thing was just waiting to pop out."

Peace Evangelista

31 - Somerville, MA

2.0 / 5
Tension Curiosity Dread
Engagement
Excitement / Interest / Boredom
Emotion mix
Peace Evangelista: - 1:40-1:41
"The figure's direct interaction at such close range indicates an immediate and critical security incident requiring intervention."

Precious Rai

40 - Rural, IL

2.0 / 5
Tension Curiosity Dread
Engagement
Excitement / Interest / Boredom
Emotion mix
Precious Rai: - 1:44-1:45
"Now, that creature is just <b>right there</b> in the bed, looking like it's ready to do something awful."

Sam Norstrom

62 - Rural, NE

2.0 / 5
Tension Curiosity Boredom
Engagement
Excitement / Interest / Boredom
Emotion mix
Sam Norstrom: - 1:56-1:57
"He looks like he's about to jump right out of his skin in that room."

Kaila Smith

29 - Ann Arbor, MI

1.0 / 5
Tension Boredom Curiosity
Engagement
Excitement / Interest / Boredom
Emotion mix
Kaila Smith: - 0:28-0:29
"It's clear something <b>bad</b> is happening out that window... I just want to know what it <i>is</i> already."
Open-question responses 0 questions
Open-question responses will appear here after the report completes.
Word Cloud
Persona Correlations
Analyzing correlations…

Overview

The 12-agent panel produced a moderately negative immediate response overall: the silent-era format and theatrical acting created viewing friction for most, suppressing appeal and intent to continue. A distinct minority-agents with visual-creative sensitivity or a stronger tolerance for mood-driven, atmospheric work-valued the film’s composition, shadow work and tinting and reported greater curiosity. Credibility judgments split: some framed the clip as archival/evocative (raising credibility), while others foregrounded stylization and judged it staged (lowering credibility). Demographics and occupation consistently mapped to these reactions: older, rural mid/late-career adults and younger adult females skewed toward low appeal, while visual creatives and some lower-income cultural-minority respondents were more receptive.

Key Segments

Segment Attributes Insight Supporting Agents
Older, rural, mid/late-career adults
gender
Mixed (mostly White)
locale
Rural
age range
55–62
education
Some college/Graduate
Tended to label the clip as dated and effortful to follow (title cards, silent format), producing low appeal and a low likelihood of continuing. Their reaction centers on format friction rather than subject matter. Sam Norstrom, John Grimm, Daniel Sassaman, Gregory Cumbo, Mario Bockus
Visual / creative occupations
locale
Rural/Small-town
age range
30s–60s
occupation examples
Designer, Hairdresser/beauty
More likely to interpret the clip as intentionally crafted and visually effective; they appreciated shadow composition, tinting and atmosphere and showed higher curiosity to continue for aesthetic reasons. Sandra Falcinelli, Brianna Chapman
Younger adult females (late 20s–mid 30s)
gender
Female
locale
Urban & Rural mix
age range
29–35
Frequently found the clip intrusive, draining or unsettling; the silent presentation amplified friction and lowered intent to continue. Emotional discomfort, rather than stylistic critique, drove disengagement for many. Peace Evangelista, Kaila Smith, Maribel Miller, Precious Rai
Analytical / technical occupations
age range
55+
occupation examples
Engineer, Civil Engineer
Tended to reject the clip’s credibility by emphasizing theatrical stylization; this analytic framing reduced perceived authenticity though it did not uniformly eliminate curiosity. Daniel Sassaman, John Grimm
Lower-income, non-white respondent(s)
age range
50s
ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
income bracket
$10–24k
language preference
Spanish (noted)
Displayed openness to mood-driven material and found the atmosphere direct and appealing despite format friction-indicating cultural/aesthetic preferences can override format-based disengagement. Brent Guevara

Shared Mindsets

Trait Signal Agents
Silent / dated film style increases cognitive friction Across ages and backgrounds many described title cards, pacing and silent conventions as ‘work’ to follow, lowering immediate appeal and continuity intent. Sam Norstrom, Peace Evangelista, Kaila Smith, Precious Rai, Daniel Sassaman, Gregory Cumbo, Maribel Miller, John Grimm, Mario Bockus
Unsettling / eerie mood is polarizing The clip’s atmosphere split viewers: for some it was draining and intrusive; for others it was the primary source of interest and kept attention despite format barriers. Peace Evangelista, Kaila Smith, Precious Rai, Daniel Sassaman, Brianna Chapman, Mario Bockus, Brent Guevara
Credibility framed by interpretive lens Agents who foregrounded provenance/archival framing saw higher credibility; those emphasizing acting/staging saw it as theatrical and less credible. Occupation and analytical inclination predicted which lens was used. Peace Evangelista, Sandra Falcinelli, Kaila Smith, Brent Guevara, Gregory Cumbo, Maribel Miller, Precious Rai, Daniel Sassaman, John Grimm, Brianna Chapman, Mario Bockus
Continuation intent concentrated in visually curious minority Most agents would not continue watching, but a minority-often with visual-creative backgrounds or strong tolerance for mood-driven pieces-reported curiosity and willingness to keep watching. Brianna Chapman, Mario Bockus, Daniel Sassaman

Divergences

Segment Contrast Agents
Younger female cluster vs. creative-service younger females Most younger females found the clip draining and would stop, yet Brianna Chapman (a beauty/creative-service worker) found the creepy imagery engaging and would continue-showing occupation-driven exceptions within the same age/gender bracket. Peace Evangelista, Kaila Smith, Maribel Miller, Brianna Chapman
Skeptical older rural viewers who still continue Mario Bockus combined a dated/staged credibility judgment with willingness to continue watching-indicating skepticism about authenticity does not always predict disengagement. Mario Bockus
Analytical/technical skepticism vs. affective receptivity of lower-income cultural-minority Engineers/analytical agents emphasized theatrical stylization and reduced credibility, while Brent Guevara (lower-income Hispanic male) found the atmosphere authentic and appealing-highlighting cultural and occupational axes producing opposite credibility/readability outcomes. Daniel Sassaman, John Grimm, Brent Guevara
Recommendations & Next Steps
Preparing recommendations…

Overview

Panel reaction indicates low immediate appeal and weak continuation intent driven by silent-era format friction (title cards, pacing, exaggerated acting) and a polarizing eerie mood. Credibility split along interpretive lenses: those primed for archival authenticity rated it higher; those focused on staging/theatricality rated it lower. Minority segments with visual/creative affinity showed curiosity despite format barriers. For A+E Global’s trend-mapping, this suggests modern U.S. viewers prefer low-friction packaging and contextual framing when engaging archival content. Near-term ROI will come from packaging variants that reduce cognitive load and boost credibility without altering core footage.

Quick Wins (next 2–4 weeks)

# Action Why Owner Effort Impact
1 Add 8–12s archival framing card or VO up front Boosts perceived credibility by clarifying provenance and prepares viewers for the style, reducing drop-off from surprise/friction. Editorial/Archive Producer Low High
2 Replace/augment intertitles with modern English subtitles Lowers cognitive friction from reading old title cards and non-English text; improves accessibility. Localization PM Low High
3 Offer optional light modern sound bed (toggle) A minimal, tasteful score can reduce perceived ‘silence’ fatigue while preserving original via a purist mode. Music Supervisor Med Med
4 Create a 60–90s tight-cut teaser Addresses ‘slow/dated’ complaints; lets mood/visuals shine with less effort, increasing watch-on likelihood. Content Packaging Producer Low Med
5 Target test to creative/horror-affinity micro-panels Validates segment lift seen among visual creatives and horror-tolerant viewers before broader rollouts. Research Ops Lead Low Med
6 On-screen comfort cue A brief note about ‘unsettling imagery’ reduces negative surprise for viewers sensitive to eerie content. Editorial/Standards Low Low

Initiatives (30–90 days)

# Initiative Description Owner Timeline Dependencies
1 Packaging A/Bs for Archival Clips Run multi-cell tests: Control (raw), +Framing Card, +VO Host, +Modern Subs, +Light Score, and combinations. Measure appeal, continuation intent, credibility, and friction. Research Ops Lead 4–6 weeks Cleared public-domain master, Localization for subtitles, Light VO/scriptwriting, Music bed licensing/creation, Panel recruitment with segment quotas
2 Cognitive Friction Index (CFI) Development Operationalize a CFI using self-reported effort, reading load, pace tolerance, and drop-off telemetry to predict continuation intent for archival/dated content. Data Science Lead 6–8 weeks Survey instrument updates, Player telemetry capture, Historical panel data, Analytics pipeline
3 Classic-to-Contemporary Editorial Template Codify a repeatable template for archival pieces: context card, modern subs, pacing trims, optional score, and a ‘purist’ toggle. Pilot across 10 clips. Editorial/Archive Producer 6 weeks Template design, QC guidelines (historical fidelity), Localization toolkit, Music/SFX library
4 Segment Calibration and Recruitment Playbook Refine quotas and screeners to isolate visual creatives, horror-tolerant, younger-female sensitivity cluster, and analytical/technical skeptics for consistent comparative reads. Research Ops Lead 5 weeks Panel provider alignment, Screener updates, Compliance/IRB checks (if needed)
5 Short-Form Discovery Funnel Distribute 30–60s teasers on social/FAST endpoints to test discovery-to-longform conversion for archival horror; optimize thumbnails, titles, and comfort cues. Audience Development Lead 8–10 weeks Creative assets, Channel access (social/FAST), Attribution tagging, Moderation/brand safety review

KPIs to Track

# KPI Definition Target Frequency
1 Appeal Index (Top-2) Percentage selecting top-2 appeal options on immediate-response survey post-view. +15% vs control (raw archival) Per test cell
2 Continuation Intent Share of viewers indicating likely to watch more of the clip/film. +20% vs control Per test cell
3 Cognitive Friction Index (CFI) Composite of reported effort, reading burden, pacing tolerance, and 30s/60s drop-off; lower is better. -30% vs control Per test and quarterly rollup
4 Perceived Credibility (Top-2) Share rating the source/host as credible or very credible. +15% vs control with framing card/VO Per test cell
5 Segment Lift Ratio of Appeal/Intent for target segments (visual creatives, horror-tolerant) vs general panel. ≥1.5x Per campaign
6 Teaser-to-Longform Conversion Percent of teaser viewers who click through to full clip. +25% vs baseline creative Weekly during pilot

Risks & Mitigations

# Risk Mitigation Owner
1 Purist backlash to added score, subs, or trims on historical works Provide a clearly labeled Original/Purist mode and note reversible enhancements. Editorial/Archive Producer
2 Overgeneralization from a 12-agent calibration panel Scale to statistically powered samples with balanced segment quotas before content-wide changes. Research Ops Lead
3 Modern packaging may dilute intended eerie mood Run multi-cell A/Bs; cap audio levels; use minimal, genre-appropriate scoring; include a no-score variant. Music Supervisor
4 Localization inaccuracies or tone shifts in subtitles Use glossary + spot-check by archivist; QC passes with style guide for period-appropriate wording. Localization PM
5 Licensing/brand safety for distribution pilots Limit to verified public-domain assets; legal review; brand-safety checks and content advisories. Legal & Standards

Timeline

Weeks 0–2: Implement quick wins (framing card, subtitles, teaser cut) and design A/B cells.
Weeks 3–6: Field packaging A/Bs; collect survey + telemetry; initial KPI readout.
Weeks 6–8: Build/validate CFI model; refine segment screeners; iterate winning cells.
Weeks 8–10: Launch ‘Classic-to-Contemporary’ template pilot across 10 clips; start short-form discovery funnel tests.
Weeks 10–12: Consolidated learnings; scale best-performing package; publish internal playbook.
Research Study Narrative
Crafting study narrative…

Objective and context

A+E Global screened a public-domain excerpt of Nosferatu (1922) to a standardized 12-agent calibration panel to capture immediate viewer response to the clip’s visual and audio presentation. This small-sample calibration was designed to surface friction points, credibility cues, and continuation intent across diverse personas.

What we heard: immediate responses grounded in panel evidence

Overall response skewed moderately negative, driven primarily by silent-era format friction-title cards, pacing, and theatrical acting felt like “work” to follow for many agents (Sam Norstrom, Peace Evangelista, Kaila Smith, Precious Rai, Daniel Sassaman, Gregory Cumbo, Maribel Miller, John Grimm, Mario Bockus). The clip’s unsettling, eerie mood was distinctly polarizing: several younger females reported it as draining or intrusive (Peace Evangelista, Kaila Smith, Maribel Miller, Precious Rai), while a minority with aesthetic sensitivity cited the composition, shadow work, and tinting as engaging (Brianna Chapman, Sandra Falcinelli) and maintained curiosity (Brianna Chapman, Mario Bockus, Daniel Sassaman). Credibility judgments split by interpretive lens: those primed to read it as archival/evocative rated it more credible (Peace Evangelista, Sandra Falcinelli, Kaila Smith, Brent Guevara), while others foregrounded staging/theatricality and downgraded authenticity (Gregory Cumbo, Maribel Miller, Precious Rai, Daniel Sassaman, John Grimm, Brianna Chapman, Mario Bockus).

Persona correlations and divergences

  • Older, rural, mid/late-career adults (55–62; mixed gender, mostly White) labeled the clip dated and effortful due to silent conventions, yielding low appeal and continuation (Sam Norstrom, John Grimm, Daniel Sassaman, Gregory Cumbo, Mario Bockus). Their resistance centered on format, not subject matter.
  • Visual/creative occupations (designer, beauty/hair; 30s–60s) were more likely to ascribe intentional craft and respond positively to atmosphere, shadow, and tinting, sustaining curiosity (Sandra Falcinelli, Brianna Chapman).
  • Younger adult females (29–35) often described the experience as intrusive/draining, with the silent presentation compounding friction and lowering intent (Peace Evangelista, Kaila Smith, Maribel Miller, Precious Rai).
  • Analytical/technical occupations (engineer/civil; 55+) emphasized theatrical stylization, reducing perceived credibility, though not always eliminating curiosity (Daniel Sassaman, John Grimm).
  • Lower-income, non-white respondent (Hispanic male; $10–24k) showed openness to mood-driven material and found the atmosphere appealing despite format friction (Brent Guevara).

Notable divergences reinforce nuance: within younger females, a creative-service exception (Brianna Chapman) found the creepy imagery engaging and would continue; an older rural viewer (Mario Bockus) judged the piece staged yet still would watch on; engineers’ skepticism contrasted with Brent Guevara’s affective receptivity.

Implications and recommendations

For modern U.S. viewers, archival horror requires low-friction packaging and contextual framing to convert initial interest into continuation. Near-term, prioritize:

  • Add an 8–12s archival framing card or brief VO to set provenance and expectations, boosting credibility and reducing surprise/friction.
  • Replace/augment intertitles with modern English subtitles to lower reading burden and improve accessibility.
  • Offer an optional, light modern score (toggle) to mitigate “silence fatigue” while preserving a clearly labeled Purist/Original mode.
  • Create a 60–90s tight-cut teaser to address pace complaints and let mood/visuals shine.
  • Target tests to visual creatives and horror-tolerant micro-panels to validate segment lift observed in this calibration.

Risks and guardrails

  • Purist backlash to enhancements-mitigate with an Original/Purist mode and reversible edits.
  • Overgeneralization from a 12-agent panel-scale to statistically powered samples with segment quotas before broad rollout.
  • Mood dilution from modern scoring-A/B include a no-score cell; cap levels; genre-appropriate cues.
  • Localization inaccuracies in modern subs-archivist glossary, QC passes, period-appropriate style guide.
  • Licensing/brand safety for distribution pilots-limit to verified public-domain assets with legal/standards review.

Next steps and measurement

  1. Weeks 0–2: Implement framing card, modern subtitles, and a 60–90s teaser; design multi-cell A/Bs (Control; +Framing; +VO; +Subs; +Light Score; combos).
  2. Weeks 3–6: Field A/Bs across balanced panels; capture surveys + telemetry; initial KPI readout.
  3. Weeks 6–8: Build a Cognitive Friction Index (CFI) from effort, reading load, pace tolerance, and 30s/60s drop-off; refine segment screeners.
  4. Weeks 8–10: Pilot a Classic-to-Contemporary editorial template across 10 clips; launch short-form discovery funnel tests.
  5. Weeks 10–12: Consolidate learnings; scale best-performing package; publish an internal playbook.

Track: Appeal Index (Top-2) +15% vs control; Continuation Intent +20%; CFI −30%; Perceived Credibility +15% with framing/VO; and Segment Lift ≥1.5x for creatives/horror-tolerant. These guardrails ensure we reduce format friction and clarify credibility while preserving the film’s intended atmosphere.

Word count: 672 Updated: 2026-07-05T14:09:14.639595+00:00
Recommended Follow-up Questions Updated 2026-07-05T14:09:14.424874+00:00
  1. For each element, indicate whether it enhanced or detracted from your viewing experience: cinematography, production design (sets), character appearance (makeup/costume), pacing, acting style, intertitles, music/score, image quality.
    matrix Pinpoint which craft elements to preserve vs. change to improve immediate engagement in future edits.
  2. Among the following emotions, which felt most and least while watching? Tense, uneasy, scared, intrigued, curious, nostalgic, amused, bored, confused, annoyed, delighted.
    maxdiff Identify dominant and aversive emotions to align mood, scoring, and pacing with intended tone.
  3. How clear were the following without spoken dialogue: what was happening, why characters acted as they did, when/where the scene took place?
    matrix Gauge narrative comprehension gaps to justify adding context cards or subtitles.
  4. If this clip were presented again, rank these presentation options from most to least preferred: brief context card up front; brief voiceover introduction; modern English subtitles replacing intertitles; keep original intertitles only; slightly faster pacing via edits; newly composed modern musical score; on‑screen host commentary overlays; leave as‑is with no changes.
    rank Prioritize format interventions that would most increase receptivity without overhauling content.
  5. What do you think this clip is?
    single select Clarify perceived provenance/genre to adjust framing that influences credibility and expectations.
  6. Please rate the background music/score (if present) on these scales: distracting–supportive; poor fit–excellent fit; monotonous–dynamic; decreased engagement–increased engagement.
    semantic differential Assess how the score shapes moment‑to‑moment engagement to guide music selection or mix.
Randomize option orders where feasible (except fixed anchors) to reduce order bias.
Study Overview
Research questions: We screened a public‑domain silent‑era film excerpt with the 12‑agent Calibration – HotHH panel to assess immediate response to visuals/audio across three areas-overall appeal, likelihood to watch more, and perceived host/source credibility.
Research group: US‑based, ages 29–62, mostly rural, with mixed occupations (retail, driver, designer, HR), including younger adult females, visual creatives, and analytical/technical older adults.
What they said: Most found the piece dated and effortful (silent format, title cards, pacing, theatrical acting), the eerie mood was polarizing, continuation intent was generally low, a small visually oriented minority would keep watching, and credibility split between “archival/genuine” and “staged/fictional” given the absence of a visible host.

Main insights: Format friction-not subject matter-is the primary drag on appeal and watch‑on; credibility hinges on whether viewers foreground archival provenance or theatricality.
Older rural and younger female clusters skewed negative; visual creatives and some cultural‑minority viewers were more receptive; analytical/technical participants were credibility‑skeptical.
Takeaways: Package with a brief provenance frame and modern English subtitles to cut friction and raise credibility; consider an optional light score and a tight 60–90s teaser to lift watch‑on; target creative/horror‑affinity segments first, include a simple comfort cue, and retain a clearly labeled purist mode to protect historical fidelity.