You and Your Academy Media Choices
Earlier in the year, some of you participated in a survey on how you read and use the Bulletin, and how you would prefer to use it in the future. While the Bulletin is not an “academic” clinical publication, for purposes of evaluating its success and effectiveness as a periodical it is included in the universe of otolaryngology publications along with ENT Today when comparing such measures as circulation, readership, ads, citations, and other forms of use. Data of this type from the publishing world helps us compare our periodicals to one another and benchmark, improve, and market the Bulletin. It influences advertising sales, submissions of columns from members and other societies, encourages use for meeting notices, and demonstrates the importance of this vehicle for all of our members to communicate broadly about specialty society interests, socioeconomic, political, business, and practice issues. PERQ/HCI by Kantar, a proprietary publication evaluating service, looks at medical journal readership among healthcare professionals and is of particular importance to the Bulletin as a non-academic periodical. Within this universe of otolaryngology publications, the Bulletin has a long-standing history of being highly ranked for readership (in the industry this means “eyeballs on the page”), making it particularly attractive for classifieds, ads, meeting notices, and member use to share information to the broader Academy membership. During my tenure here, it has always ranked among the top third of the more than nine measured otolaryngology publications. On our survey, more than 300 of our members gave direct feedback to specific questions. The questions were strongly worded to elicit honest opinions, both negative and positive, for the purpose of improving the Bulletin. Here is a short capitulation of what we found. The majority of respondents peruse every Bulletin issue and read articles of interest or read every issue cover to cover (74.2 percent). The vast majority of respondents read the Bulletin in print (90.5 percent) rather than online (19.0 percent). A majority collectively said they would use a mobile device to access some element of the Bulletin such as a Table of Contents (37 percent), listen to a podcast or browse and article (31 percent); access available alerts (20 percent); or comment on topics (13 percent). However, a large number (47 percent) said they would not use their mobile device to read the Bulletin. As you can see, we seem to be evolving in our preferences for access to content. As a “curator” for content, the Academy will continue to respond to this evolution in ways that we hope will increase the relevance of our content and programming, as well as facilitate the real-time and point-of-service access that is increasingly demanded. While statistics can sometimes be re-enforcing, they can also be misunderstood or misused and can lead to erroneous conclusions. There are some examples in our survey. We asked which topics were of least interest to our readers. At first glance, the topics rated of least interest to readers revealed subjects that we know from other survey resources are important to our members (advocacy efforts, articles about work and peers, and advertising and classifieds). Since we know that our members care a lot about these topics, it would be a mistake to assume that these topics should be eliminated. In fact, 35 percent, 25 percent, and 24 percent respectively list these topics in the top three reasons why they read the Bulletin. So instead of assuming the three least important topics are not appreciated, we should be amazed to find that the least popular topics are still critical to between a quarter and a third of our members. In other words, the least valued topic on the list is still among the most important topics for a fourth of our readers! The same careful interpretation is required when looking at the least useful content. While humanitarian, international, and editorial content received the lowest ranking out of our list of 10 subjects, 60 percent to 66 percent of respondents stated that this content was “very” or “somewhat” useful to their practices. Again, since we know the huge interest and devotion our members give to international and humanitarian efforts, isn’t it remarkable that our lowest scores have such overwhelming support? If this were an election, 66 percent would be considered a landslide victory! While we have learned much about how the Bulletin can evolve and better meet your needs, a strong underlying message is this: we are a diverse specialty with many varying ideas of what should be prioritized. And the Bulletin is doing a remarkable job of meeting our needs.
Earlier in the year, some of you participated in a survey on how you read and use the Bulletin, and how you would prefer to use it in the future.
While the Bulletin is not an “academic” clinical publication, for purposes of evaluating its success and effectiveness as a periodical it is included in the universe of otolaryngology publications along with ENT Today when comparing such measures as circulation, readership, ads, citations, and other forms of use. Data of this type from the publishing world helps us compare our periodicals to one another and benchmark, improve, and market the Bulletin. It influences advertising sales, submissions of columns from members and other societies, encourages use for meeting notices, and demonstrates the importance of this vehicle for all of our members to communicate broadly about specialty society interests, socioeconomic, political, business, and practice issues. PERQ/HCI by Kantar, a proprietary publication evaluating service, looks at medical journal readership among healthcare professionals and is of particular importance to the Bulletin as a non-academic periodical. Within this universe of otolaryngology publications, the Bulletin has a long-standing history of being highly ranked for readership (in the industry this means “eyeballs on the page”), making it particularly attractive for classifieds, ads, meeting notices, and member use to share information to the broader Academy membership. During my tenure here, it has always ranked among the top third of the more than nine measured otolaryngology publications.
On our survey, more than 300 of our members gave direct feedback to specific questions. The questions were strongly worded to elicit honest opinions, both negative and positive, for the purpose of improving the Bulletin. Here is a short capitulation of what we found.
- The majority of respondents peruse every Bulletin issue and read articles of interest or read every issue cover to cover (74.2 percent).
- The vast majority of respondents read the Bulletin in print (90.5 percent) rather than online (19.0 percent).
- A majority collectively said they would use a mobile device to access some element of the Bulletin such as a Table of Contents (37 percent), listen to a podcast or browse and article (31 percent); access available alerts (20 percent); or comment on topics (13 percent). However, a large number (47 percent) said they would not use their mobile device to read the Bulletin.
As you can see, we seem to be evolving in our preferences for access to content. As a “curator” for content, the Academy will continue to respond to this evolution in ways that we hope will increase the relevance of our content and programming, as well as facilitate the real-time and point-of-service access that is increasingly demanded.
While statistics can sometimes be re-enforcing, they can also be misunderstood or misused and can lead to erroneous conclusions. There are some examples in our survey. We asked which topics were of least interest to our readers. At first glance, the topics rated of least interest to readers revealed subjects that we know from other survey resources are important to our members (advocacy efforts, articles about work and peers, and advertising and classifieds). Since we know that our members care a lot about these topics, it would be a mistake to assume that these topics should be eliminated. In fact, 35 percent, 25 percent, and 24 percent respectively list these topics in the top three reasons why they read the Bulletin. So instead of assuming the three least important topics are not appreciated, we should be amazed to find that the least popular topics are still critical to between a quarter and a third of our members. In other words, the least valued topic on the list is still among the most important topics for a fourth of our readers!
The same careful interpretation is required when looking at the least useful content. While humanitarian, international, and editorial content received the lowest ranking out of our list of 10 subjects, 60 percent to 66 percent of respondents stated that this content was “very” or “somewhat” useful to their practices. Again, since we know the huge interest and devotion our members give to international and humanitarian efforts, isn’t it remarkable that our lowest scores have such overwhelming support? If this were an election, 66 percent would be considered a landslide victory!
While we have learned much about how the Bulletin can evolve and better meet your needs, a strong underlying message is this: we are a diverse specialty with many varying ideas of what should be prioritized. And the Bulletin is doing a remarkable job of meeting our needs.