Through your answers, we discovered…
3 surveys, 10'000 respondents, 1 Planet 4
The main purpose of the Survey & Focus group work stream of the Discovery Phase was to get out there and seek direct feedback from users which will ultimately produce and consume content on greenpeace.org. We did not simply ask “what do you need?”, but wanted to assess the main areas of improvement, which devices people use to reach our websites, the perceived website quality and speed, migration intents and much more.
All surveys were shaped so that most questions can be re-asked in the future, to compare if and how much Planet 4 will actually satisfy the needs of website users, content managers, media specialists, volunteers, activists and other NGOs.
We decided to produce and dispatch 3 different questionnaires: one for the public, one for press & media specialists and one for Greenpeace web content managers, gathering 10'979 responses globally, which gave us critical inputs to proceed with the development of Planet 4.
The Public survey
This online questionnaire had to be quick to fill, straight to the point and available in multiple languages. Its main purpose was to provide us a current status on the overall satisfaction of the available content, give us insights on most desired actions to take or device to access, as well as a feedback on the look & feel. The survey was translated in 18 languages and taken by 9'372 people (mostly reaching it via email), here’s the full list of 15 questions.
At a glance, we notice that the overall satisfaction of greenpeace.org is not bad (74%), that the majority of our public visits our websites to sign a petition, look for information on an environmental issue or get an update on Greenpeace campaigns, that 86% believe the information is easy (or very easy) to understand, 84% feel there is the right amount of information and 70% think the information is easy (or very easy) to find.
76% of all respondents find greenpeace.org visually appealing, one third of them prefer to access it via their mobile devices, 22% support Greenpeace financially, and 18% look for volunteer opportunities.
One person out of two uses the search function, and reports on environmental issues are said to be the most desired piece of information.
In terms of free text suggestions, we got nudged to provide more information on specific issues (rights of Indigenous Peoples, mobile phone manufacturing, livestock, geoengineering, etc.), some technical recommendation (use a responsive theme instead of a dedicated mobile site, use AMP to serve webpages faster on mobile, etc.), propose more opportunities in a larger array of languages (Catalan, Esperanto, etc.) and countries (Cuba, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Estonia, Serbia, Ireland, Ukraine, etc.), and of course the request to give the website a layer of fresh paint. There were also a few out of the box ideas (start a TV program about ships, for example) and lot of humbling, very friendly notes of encouragement (we love you too!).
The consolidated, segmentable report is available on the public Tableau server or by clicking here below, feel free to compare results and filter per age or country.
The Press & Media survey
Alongside general satisfaction and insights on preferred use, we wanted to go a bit deeper with content quality assessment, and we needed the point of view of journalists and media specialists, this is why we decided to shape a survey specifically for them.
10 questions were asked via email and the Greenpeace International PressDesk Twitter feed, gathering 1'545 replies. Results tell us that almost half of these specialists visit the Greenpeace website regularly (30% on a weekly or daily basis), whereas the other half tend to rely on email and social media feeds. They seem to like browsing the media library for audio, video or images, mostly look our investigative reports (62%) and have mixed feelings when asked if they would like a “chat support” to reach a specific campaigner or communications specialist.
The option of a “please add me to your press contact list” feature received positive feedback, both social media and website are considered key sources for press information and the work of the Greenpeace Press Desk is generally appreciated.
The full report on both Twitter and email results is available here.
The Greenpeace web content managers survey
The third outcome of this work stream was focused on the perspectives of Greenpeace web content managers, to understand the needs of the people creating and publishing content on our websites.
We needed to hear their thoughts about what is currently working (or not) on the different portals, get an overview on the amount of content they intend to migrate to (and publish on) Planet 4, as well as which functionalities are currently being used the most and which ones are needed to make Planet 4 interactive, user-friendly and easy-to-consume.
This survey was created also to gather direct and critical inputs which will drive our approach when shaping end-user interface, architecture, workflows, feature specifications, training and roll-out plans. We also learned about specific competencies our colleagues have and gathered a comprehensive list of key components which will have to be a must-have for the new greenpeace.org.
Our colleagues told us that our websites should have some common baseline and global templates, but they are very keen on developing components and functionalities, keeping it as much local and customisable as possible. Enhanced multimedia management and website responsiveness are identified as key areas of improvement, and clean redesign of look & feel, navigation paths and login features seem to be critical.
To satisfy visitors’ needs and drive them to action, editors believe that future Greenpeace websites will need user-generated stories, personalised content, powerful SEO tools and flawless integrations with social media. Behind the scenes, cloning tools for petitions, pages and sites will have to be impeccable, the platform will have to be stable, the editing tools more user-friendly and the connections to CRM and other engagement systems fully functional.
Detailed results to this survey are available for download, and so is the full list of questions.
Common findings
The three surveys had different audiences and questions, but by having a closer look we can notice key facts that can be taken out from them as a whole:
- In good times and in bad, above the 60% — Yep. 61% of our public believes that greenpeace.org satisfies “very well” their needs (13% even “Extremely well”).
On the other hand, 63% of our web editors are not satisfied with the current Planet 3, and would not recommend it as a CMS.
Planet 4 will have to be developed for all needs, internal and external, and we aim to 75% above for good times only. - Fast. But slow — Greenpeace.org seems to load fairly quick on visitors’ devices (only 2% indicated it being slow or very slow), but it was pointed out as quite a source of headaches for web content editors. Planet 4 backend will have to be faster if we want to win back the heart of the editors.
- Gimme facts, gimme reports — The most desired content on Greenpeace websites seem to be our reports on environmental issues or investigations, looked up by 67% of visitors. This number remains high when coming to media specialists and journalists (62%). Our colleagues are well aware of this, and will keep on publish them in Planet 4 (or at least 88% of them are planning to).
- Beauty and the Twist — Despite being in need of a fresh revamp, most of our website visitors find greenpeace.org visually appealing (26% even “very appealing”). Our colleagues don’t think so, and consider the outdated look & feel and lack of appealing visuals two of the main causes for engagement failure. The twist? Planet 4 will have to be beautiful AND functional.
A few open questions
Beside results, some more questions are emerging from these surveys, especially on what can be done to deepen the engagement of our current audience and extend our reach to new ones. For example:
- What are the barrier that prevents people to go from being endorsers to be more active in the movement?
- How can we help people that regularly sign petitions to take the next step and get involved as volunteers or become organizers?
- What kind of content do we need to attract people that are currently not visiting our website?
Activities of the concept phase will help us imagining new ways of driving people to action via a website, and hopefully we will shade some light on these doubts.
Next step: Interviews & Focus Groups
Surveys provide quantitative inputs which can be compared over time. In the Concept phase we will continue seeking feedback and information to shape Planet 4 around the needs of all its users, but we will do it in a more qualitative way: we will conduct interviews and run focus groups.
Starting from the results of these surveys, we will reach out to both public and Greenpeace staff to get more detailed insights on motivations and barriers for different engagement levels and demographic, to inform better which next actions to take, features to develop and logical flows users may go through. The outcomes will be relevant to all work streams of future phases, and will provide inputs to shape personas, user journeys, architecture and so on.
>>> Should you be interested in being asked a few questions face-to-face, please comment below or tweet at #GPP4.
All this could not have been done without the awesome work of Rémy, Kelli, Ksenia, Natasja, Nadav, Joe, Ingrid, Manoj, Balázs, Noom, Cody, Ana, Marine, Florian, Christophe, Andrada, Shivandan, Lydie, Jenny, Michiel, Marilyne, Ingrid, Matjaž, Justin, Renaud, Irene, Sylvia, Alessandro, Jeanne, Soenke, Zhen, Lena, Valantis and of the guys of the Comms Hubs.
Thank you all for shaping, coordinating, planning, translating, sharing, dispatching, gathering and closing all these surveys, but also for being so patient with us and our “yesterday” timelines and moody days.
Lastly, we would like to thank EVERYONE who took the time to fill the surveys, your voices are heard and you will notice this in Planet 4.
See you in the Concept phase.
