GNM Sustainability Audit reader survey results May 2009
Research methodology and objectives! Sustainability research was conducted online between 2nd 18th May 2009 using Confirmit software for each of the core GNM products. However, different methods were used to recruit readers of the Guardian or Observer and users of guardian.co.uk.! Guardian and Observer readers were invited to participate in the survey via email with a link to the questionnaire. Readers were sourced from the Guardian Navigator panel. Consisting of approx. 30,000 readers this panel is made up of readers who have agreed to be part of a panel to periodically take part in selected pieces of research. The Navigator panel was initially recruited using the Guardian s customer relationship management database, therefore any GNM consumer who has ever submitted an email address (a total of 8 million GNM consumers) had the opportunity to take part in research projects such as this reader survey.! Guardian.co.uk users were recruited via a pop-up invitation that appeared on guardian.co.uk.! The methodology employed means that the profile of guardian.co.uk respondents reflects core users, rather than a sample that is totally representative of all guardian.co.uk users.! Overall the profile of respondents participating in the sustainability research was broadly similar to the actual profile of readers of the Guardian and Observer from the National Readership Survey (NRS) and from Forrester research for guardian.co.uk users. However there were some differences from the average profile as follows! Respondents participating in the guardian.co.uk survey were more male in profile than the average guardian.co.uk user (71% male, 29% female as compared to the 58% male, 42% female split for the average profile as given by the latest Forrester audit, November 2008). While most age brackets are broadly similar, the sustainability report sample contained fewer 15-24 year olds and more 55-64 year olds than our typical profile.
Sample profile The Guardian The Observer guardian.co.uk Sample size 950 714 1249 Fieldwork dates 2 nd -18 th May 2009 2 nd -18 th May 2009 2 nd -7 th May 2009 Response rate 32% 24% 6% Male 58% 54% 71% Female 42% 46% 29% 16 24 year olds 4% 4% 9% 25 34 year olds 20% 19% 29% 35 44 year olds 16% 18% 28% 45 54 year olds 19% 19% 20% 55 64 year olds 29% 24% 10% 65 74 9% 13% 4% 75+ 4% 3% 1% Frequency/length of readership This year s survey consisted of less frequent readers than in previous years. One third (33%) of respondents said they read 6 out of 6 issues of The Guardian per week compared to 51% in 2008 and 45% in 2007. Nearly half (47%) of respondents claimed to read 4 out of 4 issues of the Observer each month compared with 74% in last year s survey and 66% in 2007. Meanwhile, 48% of Guardian readers and 42% of Observer readers in the sample have been reading these newspapers for over 20 years. Of the guardian.co.uk respondents, 70% visit the website every day.
Advertising
Advertising online audience more tolerant of controversial advertising than print audience! Consistent with previous years, readers of the two print titles, the Guardian and Observer are more likely to object to certain forms of advertising than users of the guardian.co.uk website. For example, 27% of guardian.co.uk respondents answered they would not object to any of the forms of advertising listed compared with 19% of the print readers.! Differences are also seen between the print and online audiences in terms of the types of advertising deemed objectionable. For example, the type of advertising that most Guardian and Observer readers would like to see omitted from the paper is adverts for music with offensive lyrics (e.g. homophobic or sexist material) whereas guardian.co.uk users object more strongly to fashion labels using cheap foreign labour. Online users also appear to object to religious, political and adverts for oil companies more than their print reading counterparts.! Overall the responses are broadly similar to 2008, however 2009 has seen a slight reduction in objections to advertising for fashion brands using cheap foreign labour, down from 60% of Guardian readers last year to 52% this year! The more open attitudes to controversial forms of advertising amongst the online audience may be attributable to the younger overall age of the online audience.
52% of Guardian readers think the Guardian should refuse to carry advertising for music with offensive lyrics and fashion brands using cheap labour The Guardian relies on advertising for a substantial proportion of its operating income. Do you think that the Guardian has a responsibility to refuse to carry any of the following advertising? Music with offensive lyrics Fashion brands using cheap labour Ads using sexual imagery Gambling Religious High emission cars Oil companies Political Budget airlines Do not object to any % Yes 19% 17% 24% 15% 15% 21% 11% 9% 12% 19% 19% 27% 38% 42% 44% 41% 33% 42% 41% 37% 36% 33% 39% 35% 35% 33% 52% 53% 52% 52% Guardian Observer guardian.co.uk Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714), guardian.co.uk (1249)
Reflecting society
Reflections of society in GNM content GNM platforms seen as reflective of gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity in society but less reflective in terms of regionality and disability! Guardian readers are more likely than Observer readers and guardian.co.uk users to think that the content of the newspaper reflects society demographically. For example, nearly three quarters (73%) of Guardian readers felt that the ethnicity of UK society is adequately reflected, compared to just over two thirds (68%) of Observer readers agreed and even fewer (60%) of guardian.co.uk users.! The areas of society where all GNM platforms perform well in terms of demographic reflectivity within its content are gender and sexual orientation 87% of Guardian readers, 83% Observer and 75% guardian.co.uk believe the gender of society is adequately reflected in their content, while 81% Guardian, 74% Observer and 70% guardian.co.uk feel the sexual orientation of society is well reflected in the content.! Across all three brands, the content is seen to be least representative of disability and regional diversity in UK society. Observer readers feel particularly strongly that regionality is under-reflected in its content; Less than 4 out of 10 readers (38%) feel that the content represents the regional diversity of Britain. This is however an improvement on last year, when just 32% felt the content to be reflective of regionality.! Similarly, disability is seen as being distinctly under reflected across GNM content platforms. Less than half (49%) of Guardian readers feel that its content adequately reflects the disabled community (this is down on last year s figure of 52%). Just 42% of Observer readers feel disability is reflected in its content; this represents a rise of 5 percentage points from last year s 37%.! The don t knows in all categories are highest among guardian.co.uk users, perhaps indicating that users are not as familiar with the entire website content than the newspaper readers and thus less inclined to give an opinion.
Most Guardian respondents believe Guardian content adequately reflects society in most areas but not in terms of disability or regionality Do you believe that the content of The Guardian adequately reflects society in terms of the following? % Yes % No Gender Sexual orientation Ethnicity Religion and belief Age 87 81 73 71 70 5 6 10 11 17 Disability 49 16 Regionality 43 Base size: Guardian (950) 37 *excluding don t knows
40% of Observer respondents believe the content of the Observer does not adequately reflect the regionality of society Do you believe that the content of The Observer adequately reflects society in terms of the following? % Yes % No Gender Sexual orientation Ethnicity Religion and belief Age 83 74 68 64 64 6 8 13 14 22 Disability 42 20 Regionality 38 40 Base size: Observer (714) *excluding don t knows
Only 35% of guardian.co.uk users feel its content adequately reflects society in terms of disability Do you believe that the content of guardian.co.uk adequately reflects society in terms of the following? % Yes % No Gender Sexual orientation Ethnicity Religion and belief Age 75 70 60 57 56 7 8 13 15 19 Regionality 37 31 Disability 35 Base sizes: guardian.co.uk (1249) 18 *excluding don t knows
Two-thirds feel that multi-cultural society is represented in the composition of writers Do you feel that multi-cultural society is adequately represented in the composition of Guardian/Observer writers? % Yes % No Don't know Guardian Observer 24% 23% 10% 66% 15% 62% Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714)
Recycling and environmental-friendly behaviour
Recycling and environmentally friendly production Guardian and Observer readers remain highly conscious of their personal responsibilities towards the environment! In previous years we have asked our readers how important it is that the polybags used to contain the multi-section weekend newspapers are made of recyclable or biodegradable material. The answers were always overwhelmingly in favour. This year we changed the question; to reflect the difficulty in meeting the biodegradability demand on plastic polybags we adapted the question to how important is it to you that we continue to explore more environmentally-friendly alternatives. As expected, more than 9 out of 10 readers said that it is important to do so, confirming the green credentials of our readers. (N.B. as a result of last year s survey, GNM s Printing, Distribution and Sales team successfully reduced the amount of plastic composites in the packaging by 20%).! When asked what they do with the Guardian or Observer newspapers when they have finished with them, again 9 out of 10 stated that they recycle them rather than simply putting them in the bin. This year saw a slight rise on people who say they use them for composting, rising to 2% from the 1% score seen in the past 3 successive years.
9 out of 10 readers feel it important that we explore more environmentally friendly alternatives to the weekend polybags Many retailers insist on multi-section newspapers being supplied in 'polybags' at the weekend. In light of this, how important is it to you that we continue to explore more environmentally-friendly alternatives? % Very important % Not important Guardian % Quite important % Not at all important % Neither / nor Observer 9% 2%2% 7% 2%2% 32% 54% 29% 60% Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714)
More than 9 out of 10 Guardian and Observer readers recycle the newspaper after reading it When you have finished with your copy of the Guardian/Observer, which of the following are you most likely to do with it? Guardian Observer Put it in the bin Use it for compost 3% 5% 2% Other Put it in the bin Use it for compost 2% 4% 2% Other 91% 93% Recycle Recycle Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714)
Coverage of sustainability issues
Coverage of sustainability issues very positive scores given to most coverage, however, readers would like to see more on sustainable travel options! In line with previous years scores, the coverage ratings on sustainability issues are much higher for the Guardian and Observer than for guardian.co.uk.! Both the Guardian and Observer score highly in terms of coverage on sustainability, with the Guardian attaining slightly more positive ratings. All scores show slight decreases on last year for both newspapers, for example; The Guardian s social justice and human rights coverage rated 91% good/excellent last year but has fallen slightly to 87% this year. Overall, guardian.co.uk has maintained its scores from last year more consistently than the two print titles.! As social justice and human rights is seen as the best coverage out of all the sustainability issues featured it is perhaps not surprising that it is also the issue which readers would like to see more coverage of. This opinion is particularly marked amongst Observer readers, 53% of whom would like to see more on this subject, compared with 44% of Guardian readers and 45% of guardian.co.uk users. This perhaps reflects the slightly differing editorial policies and perhaps a desire amongst Observer readers to get more of this kind of coverage, in line with the other two GNM brands.! Sustainable travel received the lowest ratings across all three platforms and also featured as the second most frequently cited issue that readers would like to see more of.! It is interesting to note the three areas that guardian.co.uk users asked to see more of than their Guardian and Observer counter parts: 39% of online respondents said they would like to see more on the role of business in society, 33% said international development and 23% international trade. All of these issues were rated as less desired by the print readers.
Excellent ratings for coverage on social justice, human rights and climate change, lower ratings on sustainable travel How would you rate coverage on the following sustainability issues? 87% 58 82% 58 55 82% 56 75% 77% 53 72% 71% Guardian Observer guardian.co.uk % Excellent/Good 51 51 71% 46 65% 45 40 57% 42 63% 58% 38 36 56% 54% 42 32 28 51% 28 43% 58% 30 29 43% 50% 49% 22 39% Social justice & human rights Climate change Biodiversity and conservation International development Role of business in society International trade Sustainable travel Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714), guardian.co.uk (1249)
Online users more likely to want to see increased coverage on international development and the role of business in society than print readers Which, if any, of the following would you like to see more coverage on in The Guardian/Observer/guardian.co.uk? Guardian Observer guardian.co.uk 53 % Excellent/Good 44 45 40 38 30 32 39 32 32 28 29 33 26 21 22 28 24 23 15 17 Social justice & human rights Sustainable travel options Role of business in society Biodiversity and conservation International development Climate change International trade Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714), guardian.co.uk (1249)
GNM s influence on reader behaviour
Influence of GNM coverage The Guardian seen as the most influential of GNM s three platforms on readers sustainable behaviours! A high number of Guardian readers say that editorial coverage has influenced their behaviours in the following areas: energy saving (73% say coverage had some/strong influence), recycling (70%), purchasing fair-trade products (67%) and purchasing green alternatives (65%)! On each issue of sustainability coverage the newspaper titles were far more likely to have influenced behaviour than guardian.co.uk. The Guardian is seen as the most influential title, ahead of the Observer.! 2009 has seen an apparent decrease in the level of influence exerted over reader behaviours. For example, a fall of -7 percentage points in the number of Guardian readers who feel the newspaper has influenced their energy saving behaviour; 7 out of 10 (73%) now say that coverage in the newspaper has influenced their behaviour on this issue compared to 80% in 2008. This falls back into line with the longer term trend (74% in 2007).! When analysing these results we must take into account the fact that some readers will have adopted some of these behaviours through personal choice without any influence from the Guardian. The fall in influence from last year s scores may be partially explained by the fact that editorial policies on sustainability have been in place for some years now and, in the wake of this, other organisations have followed including other media owners, news and information sources and government policies/communications subsequently the perception of readers may now be that the Guardian is no longer their sole or main influence. In the context of wide spread public messages on issues such as energy saving, fair trade, recycling and organic food, it is impressive that readers still feel the Guardian has had an influence on their personal behaviour.! Interestingly the behaviours readers are least influenced by GNM on are reducing the number of flights taken and paying to offset their CO2 emissions. Whether we can read into this that the GNM audience does not exercise these types of behaviour, or if they do but not as a result of GNM influence, is open to interpretation.! It is important to note that 9 out of 10 Guardian and Observer readers (and 8 out of 10 guardian.co.uk users) value as important the GNM organisational strategy to address sustainability issues in its editorial, commercial and operational departments.
% 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Energy saving and recycling are the two areas of sustainability coverage the GNM audience find most influential We are interested in the extent to which the Guardian/Observer/guardian.co.uk coverage has influenced your behaviour in relation to the following? 0 22 21 20 Offsetting CO2 emissions 29 28 26 Reducing no. of flights 31 30 30 Using alternative energy Guardian Observer guardian.co.uk 35 32 28 Supporting env. Charities 36 39 36 36 31 34 Reducing no. of car journeys Ethical investments 52 51 42 Consuming organic food 57 52 51 Consuming less 65 63 52 Purchasing 'green' alternatives Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714), guardian.co.uk (1249) 67 65 52 Purchasing fair trade 70 62 53 Recycling w aste materials 73 66 55 Energy saving
Sustainability practices and editorial content
Overwhelming support for GNM s sustainability strategy both in terms of company operations and editorial content! GNM consumers continue to value the sustainability strategy introduced in 2007. The scores for the Guardian and Observer stayed in line with the trend in previous years with 48% of Guardian readers saying they feel GNM s strategy on addressing sustainability issues is very important to them. This figure is even higher amongst Observer readers (52%).! The importance of the strategy to the online GNM audience is slightly less apparent than with the print audience, but is still valued highly 42% of guardian.co.uk respondents said the strategy is very important ; an improvement on last year s 35%. The positive audience response to the strategy both validates and endorses GNM s policy of leading the media sector in sustainable operational and commercial practices and by influencing sustainable user behaviour.! When GNM users were asked whether they thought certain areas of editorial content should be influenced by environmental and ethical concerns the overwhelming response to every area of content was yes. As seen on other issues, the results show the online audience feel slightly less strongly about this than the newspaper readers but overall are still firmly in agreement.! Across all three platforms there is a consensus that editorial content should be ethically and environmentally influenced. 84% of Guardian readers feel that the motoring editorial coverage should be guided by these concerns 86% of Observer readers concur. Travel (85% Guardian, 86% Observer), Food & Drink (82% and 84%) and Life & Style (81% and 83%) were the next highest areas seen as ethically and environmentally important.! All areas were seen as important, however Fashion had the most dissenters with 13% of Guardian and 12% of Observer readers saying that ethical/environmental concerns should never/only occasionally influence editorial coverage of fashion.! Motoring and Food & Drink also featured at the top of the guardian.co.uk list. Overall, however guardian.co.uk users are slightly less concerned about the slant of editorial coverage. For example, 17% said ethical/environmental concerns should never/only occasionally be taken into account when writing about fashion and 16% said the same about beauty.
9 out of 10 Guardian and Observer readers value the GNM s organisational strategy to address sustainability issues How important to you is it that the Guardian/Observer/guardian.co.uk as an organisation has a strategy to ensure that sustainability issues are addressed through its editorial, commercial and operational departments? % Very important % Not important % Quite important % Not important at all % Neither / nor Guardian Observer guardian.co.uk 9% 2%2% 8% 2%1% 3% 5% 13% 38% 48% 37% 52% 42% 37% Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714), guardian.co.uk (1249)
Majority of Guardian readers believe editorial content should be influenced by environmental and ethical issues Should our editorial content of any of the following be influenced by environmental and ethical issues? Guardian Never Occasionally Sometimes Always Motoring 2 5 31 53 Travel 2 6 40 45 Finance 2 4 37 42 Beauty 3 7 33 42 Health 2 5 37 41 Food and drink 2 6 43 39 Life and style 2 5 43 38 Homes and gardens 2 6 42 37 Fashion 3 10 37 37 Base sizes: Guardian (950) *excluding don t knows
Majority of Observer readers believe all editorial content should be influenced by environmental and ethical issues Should our editorial content of any of the following be influenced by environmental and ethical issues? Observer Never Occasionally Sometimes Always Motoring 2 5 28 58 Travel 1 6 39 47 Food and drink 1 7 39 45 Life and style 1 5 40 43 Health 2 6 37 43 Beauty 2 8 35 43 Finance 2 6 37 42 Homes and gardens 1 5 43 39 Fashion 2 10 38 39 Base sizes: Observer (714) *excluding don t knows
guardian.co.uk users are slightly less likely to say that editorial content should be influenced by environmental and ethical issues than Guardian an Observer readers Should our editorial content of any of the following be influenced by environmental and ethical issues? guardian.co.uk Never Occasionally Sometimes Always Motoring 5 5 27 49 Food and drink 5 8 38 45 Finance 5 6 32 43 Travel 5 7 38 39 Beauty 7 9 31 36 Health 5 6 35 36 Life and style 5 7 39 34 Homes and gardens 5 7 36 34 Fashion 7 10 33 33 Base sizes: guardian.co.uk (1249) *excluding don t knows
Values, editorial content ratings and ownership
GNM audience rate editorial content highly, value the organisation s openness and the mission of the Scott Trust. Awareness of some of GNM s practices could be improved! A relatively low 54% of Guardian respondents were aware of the independent readers editor whose job it is to deal with complaints about editorial content. Observer readers were slightly more savvy 61% claiming to be aware of this role. When asked whether the existence of such an editor makes them feel the paper is open and responsive to the views of readers 8 out of 10 (79%) of Guardian readers said yes, while nearly three quarters (73%) of Observer readers concurred.! As an influential media owner, GNM brands perform well when it comes to their impact on consumer behaviour and encouraging readers to take a more active role in society. The Guardian appears to have more of an influence than the other two brands. 8 out of 10 (78%) Guardian readers say they have talked to friends and colleagues about issues raised in the paper compared with two-thirds of guardian.co.uk users. A staggering 56% have boycotted a product or brand because of Guardian coverage (the same figure applies to Observer readers). 43% of Guardian readers have signed a petition, compared to 37% Observer and 34% guardian.co.uk. Meanwhile nearly a third of all guardian.co.uk users surveyed have participated in a blog (higher than the print readers, as expected). Guardian.co.uk also prompted nearly as many users (13%) to contact the editor or journalist as did the Guardian (15%), this is compared to just 8% of Observer readers. A quarter of all Guardian respondents have written to an MP and 1 in every 10 readers has volunteered for a charity as a result of coverage in the newspaper. These are impacts GNM can be proud of.! The Guardian also produced higher scores than the other two GNM platforms on the editorial criteria we measured: 86% feel it s news coverage is trustworthy (compared with 85% Observer and 82% guardian.co.uk). 83% said that through its writers it covers a broad range of perspectives (vs. 78% and 73%). And 66% said it gives a voice to under represented groups in society (vs. just 51% Observer and 52% guardian.co.uk). However, when asked whether its news coverage was unbiased, slightly more Observer readers (53%) said yes then Guardian readers (50%).! When asked about policies in place that ensure GNM s openness and accountability there was high awareness and advocacy of the corrections columns and Comment is Free. CiF not surprisingly achieved a higher awareness score amongst the online audience 77% vs. 67% of print readers on average). Awareness of the readers editor, however, was lower amongst online users. Awareness of the Living Our Values sustainability audit was very low, averaging just 13% of the audience across all three platforms, this despite 55% of the GNM audience considering it important that the audit takes place.! Finally, the Scott Trust: Guardian readers (70%) were far more likely to be aware of the ownership of GNM and its mission than guardian.co.uk users (45%), with Observer readers somewhere in the middle (62%). However when asked whether they felt the Trust s mission is reflected in the content of the newspaper/website, 9 out of 10 of the GNM audience said yes.
Higher awareness of the independent readers editor amongst Observer readers Are you aware that The Guardian/Observer has an independent readers editor to deal with complaints about editorial content? % Yes % No Guardian Observer 46% 54% 39% 61% Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714)
Guardian readers more likely than Observer to say the independent readers editor makes the papers feel responsive to views and opinions Does the existence of the Guardian/Observer readers editor make you feel that the paper is responsive to your views and opinions? % Yes % No Guardian Observer 21% 27% 79% 73% Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714)
56% of Guardian readers have boycotted brands, 43% signed petitions and 32% donated money to charity as a result of Guardian coverage Do you believe that The Guardian/Observer/guardian.co.uk s coverage has prompted you to play a more active role in society in any of the following ways? 78% 72%66% 58% 5500% 52% 56%56% 52% 4800% 43% 43% Guardian Observer guardian.co.uk 37% 34% 32% 30% 26% 25% 22% 22% 21% 21% 21% 19% 16% 17% 17% 17% 17% 14% 15% 15% 13% 10% 11% 8% 8% 8% Talked to friends about issues in the paper Boycotted certain brands Signed a petition Donated money to charity Written to an MP Campaigned on an issue Participated in a blog Been on a demonstration Contacted editor/journalist Volunteered Guardian has for charity NOT prompted me to play more active role In society Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714), guardian.co.uk (1249)
Guardian scores highest on all editorial measures except unbiased news coverage To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the Guardian/Observer/guardian.co.uk? Its news coverage is trustworthy % Agree/Strongly agree 86% 52% 85% 82% Broad range of perspectives 52% 83% 78% 73% Brings hidden information into public domain 44% 81% 77% 73% Gives voice to under represented groups Its news coverage is unbiased 41% 51% 52% 50% 53% 36% 42% 66% Guardian Observer guardian.co.uk Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714), guardian.co.uk (1249)
Nearly all of the GNM audience values as important the openness of GNM as an organisation Do you believe that it is important for the Guardian to be open with readers in the way it makes editorial decisions and operates as a business? 95% 29% 96% 23% 93% Yes No 5% 3% 4% 2% 4% 7% Guardian Observer guardian.co.uk Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714), guardian.co.uk (1249)
High awareness of corrections column and Comment is Free. Low awareness of Living Our Values Are you aware that the Guardian/Observer/guardian.co.uk has the following practices in place to increase its openness and accountability? Corrections and clarifications column Comment Is Free % Aware 52% 68% 66% 52% 80% 82% 77% Readers' editor's column on GNM's ethical practices (Open Door) Living Our Values: sustainability audit 22% 11% 42% 15% 12% 41% 42% 44% Guardian Observer guardian.co.uk Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714), guardian.co.uk (1249)
More guardian.co.uk users find Comment is Free and Living Our Values important than our print audience How important do you feel it is that The Guardian/Observer/guardian.co.uk has the following practices in place? Corrections and clarifications column % Quite/Highly Important 52% 82% 82% Comment Is Free 52% 68% 68% 78% Readers' editor's column on GNM's ethical practices (Open Door) Living Our Values: sustainability audit 50% 42% 53% 63% 62% 62% 63% 44% Guardian Observer guardian.co.uk Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714), guardian.co.uk (1249)
Guardian readers are more aware of the Scott Trust than Observer or guardian.co.uk readers Are you aware that The Guardian/Observer/guardian.co.uk is owned by a trust whose mission is to ensure the continued existence of [all 3 GNM brands] as quality newspapers/news sources free from party affiliation remaining faithful to liberal tradition? % Yes % No Guardian Observer guardian.co.uk 30% 70% 38% 62% 55% 45% Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714), guardian.co.uk (1249)
An overwhelming majority believe the Scott Trust s aim is reflected in the content of GNM products Do you believe that the Trust s mission is reflected in the content of the newspaper/website? % Yes % No Guardian 8% Observer 9% guardian.co.uk 12% 92% 91% 88% Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714), guardian.co.uk (1249)
Summary of findings! Following the trend we have seen in previous reader surveys, results indicate that sustainability is an extremely important issue for GNM consumers. Amongst its audience across all three platforms, GNM is considered to be addressing social, ethical and environmental issues well in terms of commercial and editorial coverage and content, with many sections of editorial content receiving good or excellent ratings (for example social justice & human rights and climate change). This sits well with GNM s sustainability vision for the future not only of itself as an organisation but throughout the media industry.! Many GNM consumers state that coverage and content across the platforms has influenced their behaviour with regard to certain environmental issues such as energy saving and recycling, however, far fewer feel that GNM content has influenced them to pay to off set their CO2 emissions, take fewer flights or reduce their number of car journeys.! A large portion of the GNM audience feels strongly about types of advertising considered unethical or controversial and believe that GNM should refuse to carry some forms of advertising. This year s survey saw 52% of print readers oppose advertising for fashion brands that rely on cheap foreign labour. Results show, however, that the online audience are generally more tolerant of so-called controversial forms of advertising than our newspaper readers.! Readers and users also feel strongly that editorial coverage of subjects such as motoring, travel, life & style and food & drink should be influenced by environmental and ethical concerns and would like to see more editorial content on sustainable travel options and social justice.! GNM has had a significant influence on the ethical behaviour of its audience with the Guardian proving to be particularly influential. A high proportion stated that the GNM brand had helped them take a more active role in society, particularly in terms of discussing issues raised in the newspaper with friends or colleagues, boycotting products or brands, signing petitions and becoming involved with charities. All very positive situations.! Awareness of the Scott Trust is far higher amongst Guardian readers than Observer or guardian.co.uk readers. A huge majority of the audience across all 3 platforms believe the mission of the Trust is reflected in the content of the newspapers/website. The lower awareness of GNM s ownership among the online audience is probably due in part to the shorter length of relationship with the brand, and the fact that the online format by it s nature brings in users who have a more fleeting affiliation with the brand and therefore are less knowledgeable about the organisation and its values.