Postcard Newsletter Evaluation

Substantial time, effort, and expense is expended by Extension agents and specialists in writing and preparing newsletters. Clientele, friends, and co-workers often provide informal feedback. Yet, many newsletters never undergo unbiased evaluations by their readership. Evaluation is needed so the results aren't biased. Conducting a formal, systematic evaluation doesn't need to be complicated or difficult.

Using a simple and inexpensive but carefully designed postcard survey, we evaluated The Woodlander, a one-page, monthly newsletter written for private nonindustrial forestland owners in three northwestern Pennsylvania counties. Produced for more than two years without formal feedback, The Woodlander cost $4,000 annually for materials and mailing alone. The effectiveness and future of the newsletter were being considered in light of the expense. The evaluation was designed to measure how much the newsletter was read, the usefulness of the information, the suitability of the writing style, and the acceptability of the format.

In late Spring 1990, a postcard survey was sent to a random sample of 10% of the 1,500 recipients of the newsletter in the envelope containing the newsletter for that month. A short article in the newsletter alerted readers to the survey and the possibility a postcard might be included with their newsletter. Four questions were printed on the message side of pre-addressed, postage-paid postcards (see Figure 1).

Sixty-eight percent of the postcards (n=104) were returned. In theory, in 19 cases out of 20, the results based on such a sample will differ by no more than one percentage point in either direction from what would have been obtained by surveying all readers.

The results of the newsletter evaluation provided unambiguous information for decisions about the newsletter's future. A substantial majority of the respondents indicated that they "usually read all" of the newsletter. More than three- quarters of the respondents felt that the information was "very important" or "important" to them. Virtually all of the respondents found the newsletter easy to understand. A majority of respondents (61%) favored the present format. However, 32% wanted the number of pages in the newsletter increased. Handwritten comments confirmed the high level of acceptability of the newsletter.

Based on the findings, the agent decided to continue the newsletter in its current format and style. To improve the percentage of the readers who think the information is "very important," a follow-up survey was undertaken among readers to compile a list of topics readers felt needed more coverage.

A simple, carefully designed, inexpensive evaluation can provide valuable information and help determine if a newsletter is doing its job or if action is necessary for improvement. Would you please assist in evaluating The Woodlander newsletter, regardless of how often you get to read it? Circle only one answer for each question:

1.   To what extent do you read The Woodlander?
     
     (0%) don't usually read, (3%) scan some, (16%) scan & read
     some, (81%) usually read all.

2.   How important is the information in The Woodlander to you?
     
     (1%) not important, (21%) somewhat important, (56%)
     important, (22%) very important.

3.   Please circle your reaction to this statement: The
     newsletter is easy to understand; unnecessary and difficult words
     are avoided.
     
     (1%) disagree, (1%) not sure, (59%) agree, (39%) strongly
     agree.

4.   Should the current one-page, monthly format of the
     newsletter be continued, or should a longer newsletter be
     developed?
     
     (61%) keep as is, (32%) increase to 2 pages (4 sides), (7%)
     increase to 3 pages (6 sides).


ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE WOODLANDER THAT YOU WISH TO SHARE? Please
write below, then drop this card in the mail. Many thanks!


Figure 1. Postcard evaluation with findings in parentheses.