VisitRichmond Guide 2015 Questionnaire

Results updated 5 Aug 2015

Background information

VisitRichmond Guide is the official visitor brochure about the borough. It includes editorial and paid adverts, and in addition to being self-funded, it generates an income. It aims to give visitors a taste of the borough and inform both visitors and residents about local attractions, accommodation, places to eat, etc. It includes both well-known and smaller attractions (the latter often in the editorial). Many of the attractions and accommodation providers included in the Guide are stakeholders that form VisitRichmond Partnership and the publication is an important marketing channel to them.

VisitRichmond Guide is printed in 30,000 copies on average (varies per year). The printed copies are distributed locally at fairs (on average 1500 per fair, 10 fairs per year) and other events including Hampton Court Palace Flower Show (up to 8,000 copies distributed), via the libraries, via partners’ premises (attractions, accommodation providers), via local institutions like NPL, colleges, language schools, via information points at the Atrium and doctor’s surgeries, from the VisitRichmond Information Kiosk at Richmond Station and nationally and internationally by post, replying to individual requests (242 between 1 Jan and 31 May 2015). In 2014, 50,000 copies were printed and there were no copies left at the end of the year.

The online version is published on the official tourism website for the borough, www.visitrchmond.co.uk and data on the number of visits to it is being collected from 17 June 2015 onwards. The number of clicks in the 9 days since the start of data collection till the day this report was being finalised was 32, or 29 for 7 days. Assuming the average number of weekly visits to be 30 (a very early assumption), this would give a monthly total of 130, or 1560 visits annually.

Summary

The key outcomes from the survey are summarised below:

• There were 79 responses to the survey.
• 77% thought the overall layout of the guide was good or excellent; 18% thought it to be adequate.
• Cover design had 78% good and excellent ratings, with 17% saying it was adequate. 2 respondents said it was poor but did not offer suggestions for improvement.
• The content was thought to be easy to understand by 83% of respondents. 14% thought it was adequate. One person rated is as poor, however, from the further comments it can be seen they referred to a specific page on the www.visitrichmond.co.uk website rather than contents of the Guide.
• Photography and maps were rated as either good or excellent by 80% of respondents.
• Quality of advertisements was rated as good by 47% of respondents, this was the most popular rating. More rated it as adequate (25%) than as excellent (18%).  No specific additional  comments were received on this.
• 74% of respondents thought there was enough content in each section. 11% disagreed with the statement.
• In the next question, 40% of respondents did not offer a view on whether there should be other information included. 42% thought that there should. Comments and suggestions for additional information are included in the main body of the report.
• Printing of the Guide in future was strongly supported by the respondents. 93% thought the publication should continue in print.
• 76% said they would continue to support the Guide by picking up a copy or advertising in future editions (21% did not answer), and 92% said they would continue to read it.

Conclusions

The survey provided a valuable insight into the readers’ perceptions and opinion of the VisitRichmond Guide. It painted a picture of a publication that is liked and respected, with majority of ratings on all aspects of the design and content being positive. It generated suggestions of possible future content, and, as a result, informed decisions can be made about it.

The survey results showed that a vast majority of readers want the publication to continue in print.

This survey did not ask for respondents’ age; however, an earlier survey of the visitor market (2009) identified those aged 55+ as the main group of visitors to the borough. It may be that this group especially values printed publications. A couple of respondents said in additional comments that the online version was more important. This was a negligible proportion which – although it may be indicative of the current trends – cannot be taken as being indicative of the majority’s current opinion.

It might be useful to run another survey in 2-3 years’ time in order to monitor readers’ preferences and adapt the publication accordingly.