What do our readers think about our performance? (original) (raw)

This year, between 29 April and 16 May 2015, 3598 readers from around the world took part in our online readers’ survey. The key findings were:

How does our audience feel about the way we behave as an organisation/business?

When asked to choose from a list of what they would find most worrying if it was to happen at the Guardian, the top answer was if the Guardian ignored views, facts and opinions in our journalism and provided one-sided or unbalanced editorial (55%). 53% think they would find the Guardian entering a sponsorship deal with organisations who are found to be violating human rights, maintain damaging environmental practices or are involved in unethical financial behaviour the most worrying. Those in the US would be more worried about ‘The Guardian not being clear with the audience about who has written or influenced content when it is paid for by a third party’ than the UK (53% vs 39%).

When asked which products or services they think the Guardian should not advertise or sell, the top answer was unethical financial investment products or services (79%), followed by products or services with high risk of human rights violations within their supply chain (71%), and pornography (66%). 75% of Australians don’t think we should advertise or sell gambling, compared to 44% in the US. 66% of those in the UK don’t think we should advertise or sell gambling. Those in the UK are also more likely to say we shouldn’t advertise or sell pornography (71%) than those in any other region.

Satisfaction levels for our open and ethical behaviour were very low, with the exception of our performance in responsible editorial that upholds our integrity, independence and creativity (79%) and supporting local and global communities (55%). But this is because lots of people don’t know what we do in the other areas. Once we exclude “don’t know”, fair treatment of all staff and environmental sustainability of our print operations rises to 60% and 54% satisfaction respectively. Responsible advertising and selling of products and services has the second lowest percentage of those who are satisfied (58%). However, 65% are satisfied with the transparency on paid for content and 62% by the safe storage, management and use of personal data.

GNM Openness

Almost everyone (95%) agrees that it is important for businesses to be open and transparent with readers, customers and suppliers in the way in which they operate. 60% agree that the Guardian is open about its business practices. Again, it’s likely that a lot of people ‘don’t know’ – only 4% disagree.

17% of people were not aware of any of our practices to increase openness at GNM. Around two fifths are aware of Comment is free (63%) and online commenting (61%) – these are the openness practices people are most likely to be aware of. 43% are aware of the Guardian’s Corrections and clarifications column - 55% in the UK. Only 12% are aware of the Guardian citizen reporting programme, although awareness is slightly higher outside the UK.

Corrections and clarifications is most important to people (85%), followed by Comment is free (83%) and the privacy and data site (80%). The Living our Values sustainability site (72%), is particularly valued in Australia (79%). Looking just at those who are aware of these four, the privacy and data site comes out as the most important (96%).

GNM Engagement

When asked how the open and ethical approach of the Guardian has influenced them, 77% said that it has made them read more Guardian content as opposed to an alternative news source. Over a third (34%) have used social media to share an article, 24% have signed in on the website or app, and 22% have downloaded the app. We have also seen that some people have been encouraged to read or engage with sponsored content (9%) or buy advertised products/services (9%). This score maybe low due to a lack of awareness of our open and ethical performance.

Percentage of readers who have lost trust because of advertising or sponsorship deals.

Percentage of readers who have lost trust because of advertising or sponsorship deals.

39% have seen advertising or sponsored content that has made them lose trust in a publication or change their reading habits, 8% of which happened to them with the Guardian. The main reasons why people lost trust in the Guardian were: impropriety or hypocrisy (advert or sponsorship that contradicted editorial); bias or inaccuracy and issues of editorial integrity with regards to unclear adverts and sponsored content.

In some cases this loss of trust has led to a loss of readership, for some is was more temporary anger - “I punched a cushion”- and for others it’s a change in perception - “Filed Guardian under corporate machine that employees naïve hipsters”.

How does our audience feel about our content and campaigning?

What do you want to read?

Privacy, freedom of speech and truth was the issue that was important to most of our readers - 95%. This was the top issue in all regions. Those in Australia were most likely to say they were interested in all the listed issues.

91% of Australians are interested in media ethics, compared to 75% in the Middle East and Africa.

Privacy, freedom of speech and truth was the issue that the most readers think we cover well (91%). Alternative business models is the issue the fewest readers think we cover well (75%), but 18% don’t know.

How well people think we cover issues is related to their interest – those who are interested in a topic are much more likely to think we cover the topic well than those who aren’t interested. For example, 90% of those who are interested in financial and business ethics think we cover the topic well, compared to 57% who are not interested. Of those who are interested, the topics we perform best on are climate change (93% think we cover it well), and privacy, freedom of speech and truth (93%). The one that comes in lowest is alternative business models - 80% think we cover this well.

67% agree they specifically come to the Guardian to read about social and/or environmental justice issues. This is highest in Canada, where 76% agree. Three quarters (75%) agree that the Guardian’s coverage of these kinds of topics makes them feel more positively about the Guardian, with this being highest in Australia (82%) and lowest in the Middle East and Africa (64%).

What is the role and impact of our journalism?

Three quarters think the Guardian should campaign on issues. This is 85% in the UK compared to 65% in the US. Almost a third (32%) think we should be campaigning more than we do now – again, this is highest in the UK (41%) and lowest in the US (23%).

61% think we should be campaigning on the topic of human and community rights, 60% on privacy, freedom of speech and truth and 58% on climate change. When asked what would be useful for them during a campaign, the top answer was surveys and data about what readers/the general public think (56%). 46% would like follow up pieces on the impact of the campaign, 45% other sources of information, ideas and funding (e.g. checklists, case studies etc.) and 44% video, articles, infographics, animation.

Just over half (54%) say the Guardian’s coverage has encouraged them to change their behaviour or attitudes. Of those who say they have, the most common change was to have spoken to friends, family or colleagues about issues raised (76%). 39% of these people have boycotted a company or product, 35% have chosen to use an ethical company/products and 33% have become more political or got involved in political action.

Does our audience believe we uphold our editorial purpose?

We can’t be the organisation we want to be without the trust of our readers so, do we uphold our editorial purpose?

84% agree that the Guardian’s news coverage is trustworthy.

80% agree that the Guardian’s news coverage is independent. Australians are most likely to agree (89%), with those in the Middle East and Africa least likely to agree (70%).

74% agree that the Guardian’s news coverage is courageous. 83% agree that the Guardian brings information into the public domain that would otherwise remain hidden

The regional variation in the number of people who think we are open and trustworthy.

The regional variation in the number of people who think we are open and trustworthy.

Are we representing societal groups accurately?

73% agree that the Guardian gives a voice to under-represented groups in society across the world

Readers are most likely to agree that the Guardian’s coverage accurately reflects the experience of all genders (74%), followed by all sexual orientations (71%) and all ethnicities (62%).

48% agree it reflects all disabilities, which is the lowest percentage, but has the largest percentage of people answering ‘neither agree nor disagree’, suggesting many people don’t know. Lots of people said they haven’t really seen any articles covering this area.

51% agree the Guardian’s coverage accurately reflects the experience of all religions and beliefs. Of those who think it doesn’t, some felt it was anti-Christian/anti-religious, whereas others felt that we only represented the main religions. Many people also felt that it wasn’t possible for any news organisation to reflect all religions and beliefs.

Reflection of you from where you come from?

69% agree that the Guardian presents a broad range of perspectives from a diverse range of contributors. Those in Canada are most likely to agree (73%), and those in Asia least likely (61%).

Similarly, readers were most likely to agree that our contributors and journalists reflect all genders (73%), and least likely to think they represent those with disabilities (48%) and all socio-economic backgrounds (48%).

67% agree that the Guardian’s global coverage is from and for those places it reports on. Those in Australia are most likely to agree with this (75%), and those in Asia (59%), the Middle East and Africa (57%) are least likely to agree. There is strong evidence that shows if a reader feels contributors are from more diverse backgrounds, they feel our reporting is more accurate in reflecting the experiences of different groups.

So, what do we do with this information? We believe that being open and honest with our readers is crucial to living our values and our success as a business. Clearly we need to do more to communicate our efforts to be an ethical business. We’ll share the specific findings with relevant departments so that we can understand the implications and opportunities for change.