Results and observations from the NPTalk 2002 Reader online survey conducted between April 1 and May 1, 2002. We hope this summary will prove useful to other groups as they conduct their own member/reader/user surveys. Before we share the findings from our first-ever reader survey, we wanted to share a few notes and observations:

• We received about a 7% response rate out of roughly 900 subscribers. Our average subscriber base throughout the year is about 1100. We currently do not actively advertise the list, so folks who find us generally do so through word of mouth.
• Survey reminders were included, somewhat discretely, in the headers of each NPTalk throughout April, with 2-3 reminders circulated to the whole list during that period as well. We did not, however, compare the online survey with, say, one conducted via e-mail to the readers, either as an attachment or within the body of a message. It might be worth exploring in the future whether these approaches, individually or in tandem with an online version might boost the response rate.
• While we don't have proof, we're speculating that an online survey of this type would only be filled out by those who have either a relatively strong positive or negative reaction, due to a certain level of familiarity beforehand, such that they are motivated to actually follow a link in an e-mail message to a web page requiring them to fill out information. So it might be more difficult to engage, if not ascertain, the thoughts of those who are either relatively new and/or lack some type of previous inclination towards the object of an online survey.

And now to the findings... Who's Reading NPTalk

• About a quarter of respondents have received NPTalk in the e-mail inbox for at least three years. 28% have been reading NPTalk for 1-2 years. An equal percentage of respondents (23.4%) have read NPTalk for two years and 6 months or less.
• Some 22% of NPTalk respondents are on the Mid-Atlantic US (including Washington, DC), and 20% are in the western US. Nearly 19% are in the northeast US;11% in the Midwest; 9% in the Southwest; nearly 8% Pacific Northwest; and about 5% in the Southeast. Roughly 2% each are spaced out nationally, located in the U.S. South, or in Europe.
• About 44% of NPTalk respondents work in nonprofit service, support, or technical assistance organizations. About 19% work for nonprofit policy organizations. Just fewer than 10% are interested individuals or work in the foundation/philanthropic sector; some 6% work in the private sector, about 5% each work in academia and nonprofit trade associations, and 3% work in the public sector.
• 20% of the readers who responded represent executive/management positions, 19% research, program, or project staff within their organizations. Administrative/operations, marketing and outreach, and technology staff each made up 9% of the respondent pool, and 8% training and technical assistance. Legal and government affairs positions, membership, technology consultants, and development staffers each made up 3% of the pool. Budget/finance staff and program directors made up 2% each. Outside vendors made up nearly 5% of the respondents, compared to the almost 2% represented by volunteers.
• How did they find us? About 37% heard about us through colleagues, 19% through another discussion list or online forum, and 14% through another non-OMB Watch website. Nearly 16% first learned about NPTalk through our parent organization, OMB Watch. Three-fourths of respondents have visited the OMB Watch site, half of all respondents also belong to an OMB Watch information list, 45% read about OMB Watch in some other venue, 20% learned about us through a colleague, 17% found us through a search engine. Some 16% have either interacted with OMB Watch directly on issues with which we work, or attended a workshop or training involving our staff.

What NPTalkers Read

• 47% preferred to keep NPTalk as a daily e-mail digest compared to 45% who would rather receive NPTalk as a weekly e-mail update containing content summaries with links to the full online version of individual items. 45% actually read NPTalk each day, compared to 44% who read it 1-2 times a week.
• So what do NPTalkers actually pay attention to in each digest? The most read items include:
  1. Technology News and Nonprofit Policy Items (98%)
  2. Nonprofit Advocacy and Technology Examples (83%)
  3. Opening Content Summary Index (81%)
  4. Followups/ Responses to Items and Questions (55%)
  5. Notices (Jobs, Press Releases) (53%)
  6. Event Notices (50%)
• The least read items include:
  1. Requests (Information, Volunteers, etc.) (44%)
  2. List Administrator Notes (36%)
  3. NPTalk explanatory notes preceding individual postings (33%)
  4. List Instructions at the end of each digest (14%)

Value of NPTalk

• When asked if they'd be willing to pay for NPTalk, 23% of respondents said "Yes", while 64% said "No". But, 85% said they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with our service to you (14% had no strong feelings either way). Oh well, *sigh*…
• When asked to cite how NPTalk has been most useful to them or their organizations, the following represent the highest reported items:
  1. Keeping abreast of policy issues affecting nonprofits (70%)
  2. Providing reference information (64 %)
  3. Highlighted nonprofit case examples or groups (45%)
  4. Locating technology resources (44%)
  5. Learning online and offline advocacy techniques (28%)
  6. Identifying fundraising opportunities (20%)
• When asked to rate NPTalk overall along certain criteria (1 being lowest, 5 highest), here's how the respondents scored us, on average:
  1. Is a trusted/credible information source (4.1)
  2. Is consistent in quality (3.9)
  3. Addresses topics of importance (3.9)
  4. Has useful work-related content (3.8)
  5. Is something I enjoy reading (3.8)
  6. Features material not found elsewhere (3.7)
  7. Contains items I forward to colleagues (3.5)
  8. Answers my questions (3.4)
  9. Generates discussion/debate (3.0)
  10. Is repetitive/duplicates content from other sources (2.3)

What's Desired from NPTalk We asked what types of content NPTalk readers would like to see more (or less) or less of. The respondents surveyed cited the following:

• Would Like to See More:
  1. Nonprofit advocacy examples
  2. Nonprofit technology resources
  3. Nonprofit conferences and events
  4. Funding opportunities
  5. Training opportunities
• Maintain Current Level of:
  1. Nonprofit Action Alerts/Calls to Action
  2. Reader responses/reader-generated content
  3. Commentary/editorial
• Would Like to See Less:
  1. Question and answers to general nonprofit matters
  2. Job Notices

Additional Thoughts We also gave survey participants the opportunity to share their overall thoughts and opinions and suggestions. This often tells you way more than any set of numbers could (and how!). Here's a condensed version of what they said: NPTalk is unique, unusual, and not easily categorized. It is carefully written and thorough, with a truly knowledgeable editor (despite the self-admitted occasional spelling and grammatical errors). The conversational tone, eclectic range of topics, and open nature is appealing, and the editorial comments are helpful in providing context for individual items. The quirky introductions and historical (and random pop-cultural references), help keep the proceedings interesting. Though it takes positions and is biased, it does, more often than not, present other arguments and perspectives to consider. Given the shotgun approach to presenting information, something of interest or relevancy is bound to come up for individual readers and those who work closely with nonprofits. It's a useful part of the growing continuum of online nonprofit resources that helps to keep the sector informed of issues that are often inaccessible or fall through the cracks. Full-length articles are inappropriate for a daily digest, so either provide a short summary and link, or allow subscribers the option to receive individual items. Longer postings make for difficult readings, so readers may wind up stopping or skipping items after a few sentences. The archiving abilities through e-mail are helpful, but the online archives need to be streamlined and improved for better ease-of-use. NPTalk comes out too often, and does not allow individual filtering of information, such that topics of interest and or relevance are received. There is not enough information on resources or events outside of the Washington, DC area. Not enough list members seem to contribute as much information as NPTalk itself cranks out, and when there is other information, too often it's from vendors hawking products, or shameless self-promotion from individuals or organizations. While interesting, some of the lengthier analysis heavy on policy or technology minutiae could be shorter, though it's helpful to know who are the players (especially corporate and government) that affect the activities of nonprofits and their constituencies. NPTalk is a good way to keep on top of what's happening on other key resources and forums, when there isn't time to read and digest everything floating around out there. Yet, it has a distinct niche in the nexus of technology, policy and social/voluntary/civic action, and the information has a long shelf life after the initial posting, especially the listings of resources and reviews of services to nonprofits.