The results of our annual subscriber survey are in. And your verdict on The Monitor’s future is…
But first: Could whoever wrote, “I stopped receiving the paper copy and I have never received a PDF paper so I haven’t read The Monitor in months” please contact us? We want to get you your weekly issue!
To the reader who asked: “Is it possible to have the legal section and jobs printed in a wide-across-the-page layout?” No, sorry. But we’ll consider ways to make that page more readable.
Also: Yes, Bret Lian is “a treasure.” And we “love Eliza’s adventures,” too. Charlie was really good. Kate Payne was great!
Thank you to the 284 subscribers (and counting) who took time to complete the survey. I hope you appreciate what a tremendous gift your responses are: They help us better understand how we’ve been providing value, or not, and what we could be doing better. The results provide a lens into the ways different groups of readers engage with The Monitor, and how we can best serve their diverse needs.
We’re buoyed by your many kind words of support. We also welcome — really — the somewhat less-than-kind words: They show us that you’re paying attention, that you value local news, and that The Monitor is important to you.
To cut, now, to the chase: This year, we asked what would happen if The Monitor killed off its weekly print edition. This is something we’ve been seriously mulling for six months; the economics of print publication have seriously deteriorated, and our current strategy isn’t sustainable.
Not surprisingly, many print subscribers aren’t crazy about the idea. Some pointed out that they don’t own a computer, or aren’t handy with technology, or don’t have Internet access — especially, for the last, in remote areas of the county. Others noted that while they could read the news online, they prefer not to. “I look at screens all day,” one person wrote. “Reading printed material is a way to relax after work.”
The upshot: 61% of those who identifed primarily as print readers, as opposed to digital, said they’d be highly or somewhat unlikely to keep reading the paper if we discontinued the print edition – with most of those in the “highly” camp. Somewhat fewer, about 51%, said they’d be inclined to stop reading if we went digital but produced a monthly print product. “Taking our paper away is ridiculous,” wrote one.
Message received.
Also not surprisingly, the response was quite different among those who said they mostly read The Monitor via the emailed PDF edition of the paper or at our website, boulder-monitor.com. Close to 90% of that group said they’d likely continue subscribing if we went all-digital, with slightly fewer favoring a hybrid of digital plus a monthly print issue. “Given current technology and the use of technology by Monitor subscribers, I strongly support moving the Monitor to an all-digital platform,” observed a reader. “Being able to read the paper on-line or in a PDF version is easy [and] readily available.”
This is the conundrum, right? As one person wrote, “I prefer the emailed version, but my Grandma will be devastated if you stop printing.” We serve two groups of readers with starkly different technology preferences. We’re wrestling with the reality of that duality; it’s vital, in so many ways, to keep Grandma in the fold. (Also, we worry about getting disinvited from her Sunday dinners.)
We also asked how much you would pay to preserve the weekly print edition. Honestly, I wasn’t sure what to expect here, and the results were intriguing: About 45% said they’d pay $50 a year (up from our current rate of $40.) Another large group, 31% of the total, offered to pay $75, and 24% said they’d pay $100 or more. (About 25% didn’t respond to this question – in some cases, I think, because there was confusion about whether the amount in question was per year or per week.)
So, there seems to be agreement that local news is worth paying more for, and that The Monitor is underpriced. That’s really gratifying. Could that change the print vs. online calculus? I’m not sure, but our crack financial team is busily refining its spreadsheets.
In other news: Generally, y’all think The Monitor is doing a good job. About 96% say our reporting on local issues is accurate and fair, and the same number agree that we’re telling you what you need to know about what’s happening in our community. That’s on a par with your feedback in previous years.
Interestingly, there was somewhat less agreement that The Monitor reports on topics that matter – indicating that we might reconsider how we’re weighting our coverage. (Which is tricky! One person wrote that they noticed “longer articles that aren’t locally written”; literally the next response commended our increasing “focus on local news.”)
And, on the single question that matters most to me, 95% agreed with the statement, “I trust The Monitor,” with 71% agreeing strongly. As last year, people who self-identified as political conservatives were less likely to agree strongly than those identifying as centrist or leaning left — true to a national trend.
Side note: To the reader who said, “The last question of this survey [regarding political leanings] shows that there is a political agenda behind this newspaper”: No, no, no. The question on politics, like those about age and geography, was meant only to help us understand how different sorts of people value and consume The Monitor.
But I agree with the rest of your comment: “Keep it neutral. Picking sides creates division.” This year, we actually saw fewer complaints that The Monitor is picking sides, or tilting left — and there was some praise for what readers saw as our resistance to polarization. We also got more comments from folks who recognized our increasing investment in coverage of north-county news (including a few, from Boulder residents, who weren’t happy about that). Some people think we aren’t being clear-eyed enough in our reporting on local government.
We have work to do, on many fronts. As we take that on, I deeply appreciate the spirit of partnership that emerged from many comments — in many cases connected to specific suggestions for new collaborations, revenue sources, or distribution strategies. There is broad recognition that The Monitor, while decidedly imperfect, is an important community asset that we must together work to preserve.
Huge thanks to Alisa Smith, who wrangled all these survey responses into a manageable form. Reach Keith Hammonds at keith@boulder-monitor.com.
