We received more than 500 responses to the reader survey last week. Here’s what the results mean and how New Zealand Geographic will make good on reader expectations.
Black-Backed Gulls
Meth & HIV in Fiji
Dung beetles
Centro
Rogaining
The open text fields of your ideas and suggestions fill 130 pages. There are hundreds of other data points for us to process and understand. It could take us weeks to get through the detail, but here are the top-lines.
“Gutsy, challenging, interesting journalism.” JW
The first aspect to consider is that those who took the time to respond to the survey were largely those readers over 30 years of age, and particularly those over 50. This differs from our readership data which is a close match for the national average, and may be a reflection of those who have time to set aside for a long survey on a Wednesday. We’re grateful you took that time of course, and every response counts.
In general, New Zealand Geographic as a product seems to be on the right track. Just over 92% of you believe that our stories are roughly the right length. We had readers say they wanted shorter pieces, and others who read NZGeo for the “meaty” features. About 9% said stories were too long, and those numbers were the about same for digital subscribers too. Reading level, not a problem—though a greater proportion of our youngest readers say it’s too high.
We were extremely interested in your perspectives on how we cover controversial stories, ‘political’ stories, and for your views on New Zealand Geographic’s role in the public conversation.
“There is nothing comparable in the New Zealand publishing landscape. We ‘truthers’ in a post-truth age need you to succeed.” MR
As I noted in the survey, during COVID the New Zealand Geographic editorial team decided that we could no longer give equal voice to dangerous perspectives when scientific evidence was clear. This started with vaccination but also defines how we report on climate change and the biodiversity crisis. Remarkably, 86% of readers felt like we had navigated this minefield in a reasonable fashion, and 8% felt we should be more committed. Just 6% of you thought we should pump the brakes.
“Whilst I believe that NZ Geo should cover stories which have a political element to them, or consequences which are political, I would not want to see the editorial position of the publication become political itself. NZ Geo is refreshing in that it allows ideas to breathe. This is really important.” JB
I have observed that when we write stories about the environment, it’s impossible to avoid talking about climate, or extractive industries, or anything where New Zealanders have overlapping values. In fact, stories that fail to engage with the consequences of our actions and industry and interests are sort of incomplete, and at some deeper level, even untrue. We could stick to stories about sea lions and tree ferns, and steer clear of revealing or discussing policy or practice… but is that right? Some 57% of readers said we had struck the right balance, but 32% wanted us to wade deeper into the mire of public opinion, to not only be an observer but also a committed analyst too. 10% disagreed. And interestingly, it was the younger demographic pulling back on the reins. We’re going to look at this more closely.
“Impeccable balance between evidence-based journalism and calling out bullsh*t when it’s needed. Don’t change.” CG
Given our coverage of environmental issues, New Zealand Geographic is sometimes regarded as an advocate for leftie or green values. We try to avoid this, defer to science, and play with a straight bat, believing that a healthy environment is beneficial for all Kiwis and should be valued across the political spectrum. But this inference can be hard to avoid. Some 90% felt we were doing OK or should be more stridently positioned. This last one is something I’ll take back to the editorial team. While I don’t mind publishing high quality analysis of our greatest challenges as a nation, we need to retain political independence.
Turning to the finances, there were 28 pages of ideas from readers suggesting everything from selling branded hoodies to building a multi-million dollar endowment fund to pay for our journalism. My orange highlighter took a thrashing. We will think through the feasibility of these ideas over coming months—thank you for the very thoughtful responses.
“A big thank you to all for a lifetime of ‘Wow… check that out!’ And ‘Who knew?!’” DO
All but out our youngest readers felt our pricing was “about right”. A good portion of subscribers were happy to pay more for a subscription, but others on budgets and pensions noted that their lives are ruled by fixed costs, and they’re not in a position to pay more. A number of you suggested a premium subscription for those willing to pay more, or a pay-what-you-want scheme. We’ll look at this.
Ninety percent of respondents paid for their subscription or bought it at retail, which makes you ‘primary’ readers in market analysis language—you read your own copies. It’s little wonder you care enough to endure a long survey.
“It’s a completely wonderful magazine. I hope you can continue forever.” BR
More than a third of readers said they would ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ be open to donating to power our journalism. If that’s you, read the bit at the bottom of this newsletter about how we’ve structured that. If this is going to be an important feature of our revenue in the future, we will need to put some thought into a charitable entity and what that delivers to New Zealanders.
However I’m saving the best to last. The thing I’m most proud of is that New Zealand Geographic readers are so confident of what we do that more than 96% of you will stick your neck out and recommend New Zealand Geographic to others. This is why our graph of subscription growth keeps going up, and why our future is looking good.
I’d like to thank everyone who contributed to the survey. There’s years of great ideas and lessons in this data for the editorial team to pick apart. You can look forward to New Zealand Geographic becoming a better reflection of what our readers and subscribers want us to be.
More by dan_roberts
We received more than 500 responses to the reader survey last week. Here’s what the results mean and how New Zealand Geographic will make good on reader expectations.
More by dan_roberts
Black-Backed Gulls
Meth & HIV in Fiji
Dung beetles
Centro
Rogaining
More by dan_roberts
Subscribe to our free newsletter for news and prizes
3
$1 trial for two weeks, thereafter $8.50 every two months, cancel any time
Signed in as . Sign out
