back talk 



Readers Have 

 Their Say 



Below are the results of our 

 Coastwatch reader survey. We mailed 

 surveys to about 1,100 subscribers — 

 every third person on our zip-sorted 

 mailing list. We received 537 com- 

 pleted surveys back in our office, 

 which constitutes an excellent response 

 rate of almost 50 percent. Thanks to all 

 of you who took the time to complete 

 the survey and send it back. Your 

 comments and suggestions will be 

 helpful as we plan for next year. 



Here's what you had to say. 

 Reader comments are preceded by this 

 symbol: 0, and editor's comments 

 appear in italic. 



How many people read your Coastwatch? 



One (18%) 



Two (43%) 



Three (14%) 



Four (11%) 



Five or more (13%) 



Based on this information, we know that 2.55 

 people read each copy of Coastwatch mailed 

 for a readership of about 8,500. 



How long have you subscribed to 



Coastwatch 1 ! 



Three or more years (68%) 

 One to three years (25%) 

 Less than one year (7%) 



How often do you read the following 

 sections of Coastwatch! 



Always Usually Sometimes Never 



From the Top/Editor's Letter 



(57%) (31%) (8%) (1%) 



Young Mariners/Children's Page 



(34%) (24%) (27%) (17%) 



From Sound to Sea/Nature Page 



(61%) (28%) (11%) (2%) 



Marine Advice/Extension Page 



(61%) (30%) (11%) (2%) 



Field Notes/Science Page 



(63%) (31%) (8%) (1%) 



Aft Deck/News Briefs and Updates 



(60%) (31%) (6%) (1%) 



Back Talk/Letters from Readers 



(53%) (25%) (20%) (3%) 



The Bookstore 



(40%) (29%) (23%) (6%) 

 It is read from front cover to back cover. 



What type of stories do you find most 

 interesting or useful? (Check all that 

 apply.) 



Stories about coastal history (83%) 

 Stories about coastal resources (76%) 

 Stories about coastal controversies (70%) 

 Stories about specific places (68%) 

 Science stories (59%) 

 People profiles (54%) 



Which of the following best describe 

 Coastwatch' s presentation of information? 



Fair and accurate (54%) 

 Easy to read (45%) 

 Outstanding (31%) 

 Informative (19%) 

 Too environmental (3%) 

 Too simple (2%) 

 Biased (1%) 

 Too technical (1%) 

 Too sentimental (1%) 

 Other (1%) 



Good language — carefully documented 

 facts. 



While not biased, a bit too tolerant of those 

 who feel God and the coastal waters owe 

 them a livelihood from fish/shellfish in the 

 wild. 



You can't have it all, but with your 



newsletters and publications you have it all. 

 Not environmental enough. This is not a 

 criticism. I just don't think a responsible 

 publication about natural/cultural/historical 

 resources can be "too environmental." 

 Writing is journalistic, not professional. 

 That's the style we strive to achieve. All the 

 staff members and free-lance writers are 

 trained, professional journalists. We believe 

 journalists do the best job of translating 

 difficult technical or scientific information into 

 layman's terms. 



Are the length of the Coastwatch feature 

 articles: 



About right? (93%) 

 Too short? (5%) 

 Too long? (3%) 



Which of the following best describes 

 Coastwatch' s visual presentation? (Check 

 all that apply.) 



Attractive (78%) 

 Typeface easy to read (28%) 

 Not enough photographs (16%) 

 Not enough color (7%) 

 Other (3%) 

 Too flashy (2%) 

 Typeface hard to read (1%) 

 Too much copy (1%) 



Too conservative (1%) 



Too many photos (1%) 



New version great! 



Good balance of photos and copy. New 



format is an improvement. 

 Forget color. Use money to increase pages. 

 Use more photos if possible. 

 Very interesting photos that go well with 



stories. 



New magazine is too costly. Same informa- 

 tion could be given cheaper. The old 

 newsletter was adequate. Don't need color, 

 pictures, history, etc. 



1 look forward to every issue. The cover is 

 very attractive. The insides should be too. 

 Photos are good, but they should be in color. 



Excellent photos; interesting design and 

 layout. 



How useful to you is Coastwatch 1 ! 

 Moderately useful (42%) 

 Very useful (39%) 

 Marginally useful (11%) 

 Not useful (2%) 



Since I don't live at the coast, I read 

 Coastwatch mainly for my own enjoyment. 



Covers information not otherwise available 

 to me. 



1 use it in my educational curriculum. 

 Especially when explaining coastal 



phenomena, i.e. northeasters, how to judge 



wind speed by ocean foam, etc. 

 As an oceanography teacher, Coastwatch is 



my current events literature. 

 We enjoy the magazine immensely and look 



forward to reading it. 



How do you find the cost of Coastwatch"! 

 Just right (91%) 

 Too high (9%) 

 Too low (4%) 



We didn't ask this question to justify a price 

 increase. We plan to hold at the $12 price as 

 long as we possibly can. Some of you indicated 

 that you thought $6 or $8 would be a better 

 price. We would like to charge a low price too. 

 But we must cover our printing, design and 

 mailing costs. The federal government has 

 virtually level-funded the National Sea Grant 

 College Program during the last 12 years. 

 Consequently, UNC Sea Grant can no longer 

 afford to subsidize the magazine beyond 

 paying the salaries of the staff. And we do not 

 accept advertising to help defray costs. Why 

 not? We don't want readers to think our 

 writing is compromised by advertisers. 



24 JULY/AUGUST 1993 



