gnm sustainability audit reader survey...

GNM Sustainability Audit reader survey resultsMay 2009

! 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.

Research methodology and objectives

Sample profile

The Guardian The Observer guardian.co.uk

Sample size 950 714 1249

Fieldwork dates 2nd-18th May 2009 2nd-18th May 2009 2nd-7th 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

! 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.

Advertising – online audience more tolerant of ‘controversial’ advertising than print audience

53%

52%

41%

41%

33%

35%

17%

15%

9%

19%

38%

42%

33%

37%

39%

33%

24%

21%

12%

27%19%

11%

15%

19%

35%

36%

42%

44%

52%

52%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

GuardianObserverguardian.co.uk

% Yes

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?

52% of Guardian readers think the Guardian should refuse to carry advertising for music with offensive lyrics and fashion brands using cheap labour

Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714), guardian.co.uk (1249)

Reflecting society

! 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.

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

87

81

73

71

70

49

43

5

6

10

11

17

16

37

Gender

Sexual orientation

Ethnicity

Religion and belief

Age

Disability

Regionality

% Yes % No

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…?

Base size: Guardian (950)

*excluding ‘don’t knows’

83

74

68

64

64

42

38

6

8

13

14

22

20

40

Gender

Sexual orientation

Ethnicity

Religion and belief

Age

Disability

Regionality

% Yes % No

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…?

Base size: Observer (714)


75

70

60

57

56

37

35

7

8

13

15

19

31

18

Gender

Sexual orientation

Ethnicity

Religion and belief

Age

Regionality

Disability

% Yes % No

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…?

Base sizes: guardian.co.uk (1249)


Guardian

Don't know% Yes % No

66%10%

24%

Observer

62%15%

23%

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?

Base sizes: Guardian (950), Observer (714)

Recycling and environmental-friendly behaviour

! 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.

Recycling and environmentally friendly production – Guardian and Observer readers remain highly conscious of their personal responsibilities towards the environment

Guardian

% Neither / nor% Quite important% Very important% Not at all important% Not important

54%32%

9% 2%2%

Observer

60%29%

7%2%2%

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?


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

91%

2%3%5%

Observer

93%

2%2%4%

Put it in the bin

Recycle

OtherUse it for compost

Put it in the bin

Recycle

OtherUse it for compost


Coverage of sustainability issues

! 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.

Coverage of sustainability issues – very positive scores given to most coverage, however, readers would like to see more on sustainable travel options

5851 51

3842

30

58 56

46 45

3632 29

55 53

40 42

28 2822

Social justice &human rights

Climate change Biodiversity andconservation

Internationaldevelopment

Role of business insociety

International trade Sustainable travel

Guardian Observer guardian.co.uk87%

82%75%

82%77%72% 71%

65%

57%

71%

63%58%

56%54%

43%

58%

51%43%

50%49%

39%

Excellent ratings for coverage on social justice, human rights and climate change, lower ratings on sustainable travelHow would you rate coverage on the following sustainability issues?

% Excellent/Good


4440

3228

21 22

15

53

3832 32

26 28

17

45

30

39

2933

24 23

Social justice &human rights

Sustainable traveloptions

Role of business insociety

Biodiversity andconservation

Internationaldevelopment

Climate change International trade

Guardian Observer guardian.co.uk

Online users more likely to want to see increased coverage on international development and the role of business in society than print readersWhich, if any, of the following would you like to see more coverage on in The Guardian/Observer/guardian.co.uk?

% Excellent/Good


GNM’s influence on reader behaviour

! 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.

Influence of GNM coverage – The Guardian seen as the most influential of GNM’s three platforms on readers’ sustainable behaviours

36 39

737067655752

353128

21

66626563525136363230

2922

555352525142

343128302620

0102030405060708090

100

OffsettingCO2

emissions

Reducing no.of f lights

Usingalternative

energy

Supportingenv. Charities

Reducing no.of car

journeys

Ethicalinvestments

Consumingorganic food

Consumingless

Purchasing'green'

alternatives

Purchasingfair trade

Recyclingw aste

materials

Energy saving

%


Energy saving and recycling are the two areas of sustainability coverage the GNM audience find most influentialWe are interested in the extent to which the Guardian/Observer/guardian.co.uk coverage has influenced your behaviour in relation to the following?


Sustainability practices 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.

Overwhelming support for GNM’s sustainability strategy both in terms of company operations and editorial content

% Not important% Neither / nor% Quite important% Very important

% Not important at all

Guardian

48%

38%

9%2%2%

guardian.co.uk

42%

37%

13%3%5%

Observer

52%37%

8%2%1%

9 out of 10 Guardian and Observer readers value the GNM’s organisational strategy to address sustainability issuesHow 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?


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?

3

2

2

2

2

3

7

5

6

5

6

10

31

40

37

33

37

43

43

42

37

53

45

42

42

41

39

38

37

37

2

2

2

4

6

5Motoring

Travel

Finance

Beauty

Health

Food and drink

Life and style

Homes and gardens

Fashion

Never Occasionally Sometimes AlwaysGuardian

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?

1

2

2

2

1

2

5

6

8

6

5

10

28

39

39

40

37

35

37

43

38

58

47

45

43

43

43

42

39

39

1

1

2

7

6

5Motoring

Travel

Food and drink

Life and style

Health

Beauty

Finance

Homes and gardens

Fashion

Never Occasionally Sometimes AlwaysObserver

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 readersShould our editorial content of any of the following be influenced by environmental and ethical issues?

5

7

5

5

5

7

7

9

6

7

7

10

27

38

32

38

31

35

39

36

33

49

45

43

39

36

36

34

34

33

5

5

5

6

8

5Motoring

Food and drink

Finance

Travel

Beauty

Health

Life and style

Homes and gardens

Fashion

Never Occasionally Sometimes Alwaysguardian.co.uk

Base sizes: guardian.co.uk (1249)*excluding ‘don’t knows’

Values, editorial content ratings and ownership

! 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’.

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

Guardian

% Yes % No

54%

46%

Observer

61%

39%

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?


Guardian

% Yes % No

79%

21%

Observer

73%

27%

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?


43%

32%

25%22% 21% 21%

15%10% 11%

8%

17%

52%

8%

15%14%17%

22%26%

37%

58%

52%

21%

8%13%

17%

30%

17%16%19%

34%

4800%5500%

Boycottedcertainbrands

Talked to friendsabout issuesin the paper

Signeda petition

Donated moneyto charity

Written toan MP

Campaigned onan issue

Participatedin a blog

Been on a demonstration

Contactededitor/journalist

Volunteeredfor charity

Guardian has NOT prompted me

to play more active roleIn society

78%72%

66%56%56%

43%

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?



85%

78%

77%

51%

53%

82%

73%

73%

52%

41%

52%

52%

44%

42%

36%

Its news coverage istrustworthy

Broad range ofperspectives

Brings hidden informationinto public domain

Gives voice to underrepresented groups

Its news coverage isunbiased


% Agree/Strongly agree

To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the Guardian/Observer/guardian.co.uk…?

Guardian scores highest on all editorial measures except unbiased news coverage

86%

83%

81%

66%

50%


3% 2%4%

23%29%


96%95%93%

5% 4% 7%

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?

Yes No


82%

66%

42%

15%

77%

22%

12%

52%

52%

44%

42%

Corrections andclarifications column

Comment Is Free

Readers' editor's columnon GNM's ethical practices

(Open Door)

Living Our Values:sustainability audit


% Aware

Are you aware that the Guardian/Observer/guardian.co.uk has the following practices in place to increase its openness and accountability?

High awareness of corrections column and Comment is Free. Low awareness of Living Our Values

80%

68%

41%

11%


82%

68%

62%

53%

78%

62%

63%

52%

52%

44%

42%

Corrections andclarifications column

Comment Is Free

Readers' editor's columnon GNM's ethical practices

(Open Door)

Living Our Values:sustainability audit


% Quite/Highly Important

How important do you feel it is that The Guardian/Observer/guardian.co.uk has the following practices in place?

More guardian.co.uk users find Comment is Free and Living Our Values important than our print audience

82%

68%

63%

50%


Guardian

70%

30%

guardian.co.uk

45%55%

Observer

62%

38%

Guardian readers are more aware of the Scott Trust than Observer or guardian.co.uk readersAre 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

92%

8%

guardian.co.uk

88%

12%

Observer

91%

9%

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


! 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 contentreceiving 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.

Summary of findings

gnm sustainability audit reader survey...

Documents