Abstract
Katharine Downs, the Bulletin's marketing coordinator, has been telling me about the results of the reader survey that was mailed with the March/April issue of the magazine. Those results reminded us of something we already knew, but should never forget—how passionate our readers are about this magazine and its purpose.
For Katharine (who can sometimes be seen staffing the Bulletin's booth in the exhibit hall at political science conventions and librarians' conferences, tempting attendees with Atomic Fireballs, sample issues, and a chance to win a free subscription), one happy surprise was how many readers took the time to fill out and return the survey. Most direct mail pieces elicit a return rate of 1 to 3 percent; but when we asked Bulletin readers to reply, one in four individual subscribers sent the survey in. We at the Bulletin thank them all.
And what neat guys those readers are (well, 83 percent of them are guys, anyway). They are painfully well educated—nearly half have Ph.D.s. Not surprisingly, their incomes are substantially above average as well.
All in all, this year's responses were strikingly similar to the responses the magazine received in 1989, the last time it queried readers. Len Ackland, then the Bulletin editor, described that year's readership as “an active, highly educated, diverse, and loyal group.” All still true, and as for “loyal,” my heavens, yes: One reason responses were similar to those in 1989—many of the respondents are the same. The average subscriber has been receiving the Bulletin for nearly six years. (Most circulation managers would be green with envy.)
Beyond all the statistics that marketers look for, however, is the real gold the staff takes away from a survey like this: readers' personal comments that humble us, inspire us, and point to our follies.
First, readers' all-too-generous praise. The word most frequently used to describe the magazine was “invaluable,” but needless to say we also liked “Love it. Need I say more?” We blushed at one reader's extraordinary hyperbole: “The best, most valuable publication in the world.” But another reader's more practical tone brought us down to earth: “The Bulletin is unique. Don't louse it up.” Readers love the cartoons but complain about the “amateurish graphics.” (To be fair, though: One woman wrote, “I hate your stupid cartoons.”)
Finally, a British reader could have written ad copy: “I love this magazine and would be lost without it…. It is topical, sophisticated, brilliantly incisive, and covers all the key topics and is well ahead of situations. The cartoons are a good laugh, too, and there's a nice touch of irony here and there.”
Many readers thought that “more people should read” the Bulletin, and some said members of Congress should be forced to read it.
Readers also share a periodic concern of those of us who work at the mag-azine—that it may be difficult to continue publishing in these post-Cold War times, although one reader said he wouldn't lay a guilt trip on us if the magazine folded. Another was concerned that we would abandon print for the Internet. (We won't.) The most frequent comment of all was, “Keep up the good work,” although many introduced a note of uncertainty: “Hope you can keep up the good work.”
The survey was mailed with the issue in which Editor Mike Moore announced he was retiring to Missouri, so there may have been more than a usual number of personal comments: “Sorry to see Mike go” and “Mike Moore deserves a great deal of credit for strengthening the journal,” were typical. But readers were also optimistic: “Mike Moore is a good editor, who will be missed, but good luck to Linda R.”