Journal survey results: Kudos -- and complaints
The results are in and a full three-quarters of you like the Journal.
When asked more specifically, two-thirds of your responses to our recent online survey were positive in terms of our new name, new design and new features.
Comments included:
“Bravo! The Concordia Journal has a more polished and attractive look than its predecessor — event the photos seem brighter.”
“The new look is much cleaner and easier to read.”
“I find the online edition easier to navigate but am neutral on the new print version.”
The survey, which we advertised last term in this paper and online just after our transformation from Concordia’s Thursday Report, garnered 128 responses.
Those who completed the survey were more likely to be on the Sir George campus than at Loyola and read each issue of the Journal.
Surprisingly, one-third of the respondents to the survey were undergraduates who regularly read the Journal, presumably along with the two student papers.
Just under a third of respondents who identified themselves were staff with the rest split between faculty, graduate students, administration and alumni.
Those of you who did not like the change made no bones about it.
“I don’t understand why the heck the name change was needed.”
“Bring the Thursday Report back.”
“I think there should be a university-wide contest to come up with a new name, something that is less mundane and that reflects Concordia’s culture and history.”
When asked about the paper’s content, there was a general interest in more information about students, especially graduate students’ research.
On the other hand, 82 per cent of you said that information about institutional news and events was important, even very important.
However, we seem to be striking the right note because people were less likely to ask for more of this type of news than for any other subject we asked you about.
Overall, stories about research, students and community involvement interest three-quarters of those who responded.
Stories about services and staff were slightly less popular, with just over two-thirds of respondents expressing interest, though 35 per cent of you wanted more stories about staff.
Surprisingly, only one-third of you found sports stories interesting, with most of you saying they were neutral or disinterested in the subject. This was the only topic to get that response.
We learned that 90 per cent of you also use the university website to find out about Concordia-related news, and two-thirds of you visit the News@Concordia website regularly.
Most of you pick up the Journal on campus. A third of you also consult the online version, where our expanded event listings (another popular feature) can be found.
Your general comments were all over the map. Ranging from:
“The Journal lacks credibility as an actual newspaper. Also, many of the photos are really cheesy.”
“There are many spelling mistakes in each issue. You need better editing.”
To:
“I am very pleased with the responsiveness of the Journal to suggestions with regard to potential stories. The editor and staff are very open-minded, cooperative and professional.”
“Keep up the good work.”
We will take your comments into consideration for future issues. Thanks to all of you who took the time to complete the survey.
Thanks to Rommil Santiago for programming, Allison Martens for crunching numbers, Marcel Proulx for help refining and analysing the survey and Barbara Black for sorting through the comments.