Thank you to everyone who participated in Professional Planner’s recent reader survey. We received a lot of information and ideas, and it has taken us quite some time to sift through it all.
There was an iPad or a charitable donation as a prize for one lucky reader; the winner has been identified and we’ll be in touch directly, shortly, to determine your preference and deal with the logistics.
It’s always a tricky exercise, a reader survey. On one hand, of course we want to know what readers think, and what you like. On the other hand, there’s always a risk that we’re gong to find out what you really think and it might not be pretty.
At the beginning of June, Ray Henderson from Business Health and Dominic Alafaci from Collins House went on-stage at our annual Dealer Group Summit to explain the virtues of client surveys and feedback for financial planners.
I could sympathise with Dominic’s description of the apprehension he felt before doing the first Business Health CATScan; but listening to him explain how client feedback has fed into business and service improvements over the years, it’s difficult to see how he’d run his practice now without it.
Magazines and websites are really no different in this respect – if we don’t ask our “clients” what you think, we’ll never know, and the risk we run is not dissimilar to the risk faced by your own business: we’ll only know you are really unhappy after you’ve stopped being a reader, and by then it is too late.
A clear path
We continue to digest the findings of the survey, and to seek a clear path, mapped out by your guidance and comments.
We’re looking at the options available to us to produce a version of the magazine suitable for tablets. It’s difficult to gauge the true level of demand for this, but it was mentioned in a number of your responses, so we’ll check it out. (The irony is not lost on us that a prize option for the survey was an iPad, but you cannot currently read the magazine on such a device.)
You provided brilliant guidance on the style of reporting and journalism you want, and also on a range of areas and topics that you want to read more about. It’s reassuring to learn that our basic style and mix of content is not a million miles away from what you say you want, but we also recognise that both can be refined.
We’re already actively developing at least two of the suggestions that came up. It will take a bit of work – the suggested style of article has a considerable lead-time associated with it. But you may see the first iterations of these ideas in the magazine in the new year, and when you see it you’ll realise why it took a little while.
Competitor’s website
We particularly enjoyed the critique of a competitor’s website as the standard we should be aspiring to. Cheers – no iPad for you.
We’ll look up the definition of the word “positive”, now you’ve alerted us to the fact the word exists; and we’ll memorise its definition.
To the reader who pointed out that “at the start of the survey it only said that the survey had to be completed, so I would hope that the contents of this [question] will not influence the ability to win”: It won’t, but you didn’t.
Hats off to the literalist who responded to the question “please tell us how we could improve Professional Planner magazine print publication and website” by suggesting: “You could improve them by making them better.” Wish we’d thought of that.
And finally, to “Heath”: Really sorry that’s not your actual name, and if we can find you on our database we’ll endeavour to get in touch to set our records straight. But please feel free to drop me a line directly, so it can be sorted out as quickly as possible
