I've gotta run, but we went over the survey results and got a lot of great responses.
A lot of the numbers are there for tracking and I need to true up to the old data to see where fencing.net is doing better or worse in areas and then report back on that.
The open-ended questions where you put in your comments and suggestions were eye-opening. From those I have a couple of whiteboards full of new content and program ideas that I hope to be able to implement one day!
For a little tease, a lot of you are self-admitted addicts. Here are the self-reported numbers:
1. How often do you visit Fencing.Net?
I'm an addict and visit all the time (or more than daily) 12.4%
Daily 36.4%
Several times a week 29.5%
Once a week 7.8%
Several times each month 7.8%
Monthly 3.1%
Less than monthly 3.1%
The # for "Addict" should be higher, but it was the last response and a little hidden.
Here is the next piece that was fairly easy to break down - the USFA Magazine. So, there is a new design - how is the magazine tracking among respondents?
After looking at the responses, the magazine hasn't made much traction and has the same spread of comments it did prior to the redesign. Overall, the magazine rates a 3.3 out of 5 (down from a 3.4 out of 5 which isn't significant) - so people are ho-hum about it. It doesn't suck, but it's not that good either.
Overwhelmingly people take issue with the content. People want better written, more practical, more in-depth coverage, content, articles, etc. (We have more detailed analysis that we're using to help direct our own online content efforts.)
The only place where the magazine has picked up has been in the perception of the quality of photos. Photos and "expert articles" are the only two areas where the USFA magazine rated higher than "average" in satisfaction.
How many people responded to this survey? You know, the "n."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig
Here is the next piece that was fairly easy to break down - the USFA Magazine. So, there is a new design - how is the magazine tracking among respondents?
After looking at the responses, the magazine hasn't made much traction and has the same spread of comments it did prior to the redesign. Overall, the magazine rates a 3.3 out of 5 (down from a 3.4 out of 5 which isn't significant) - so people are ho-hum about it. It doesn't suck, but it's not that good either.
Well, I suppose it's good that the magazine hasn't gotten worse in the eyes of the readership. It's better that the USFA spend the money to stand still than to not spend the money and lose ground.
Linear Mode
