MMM reader survey

[Big Momma]

malc d - 2011-03-12 2:40 PM

 

Big Momma - 2011-03-12 12:45 PM

 

Each to his/her own I suppose. I didn't see any problems with any of the questions, most gave you a range not a specific e.g. age, income so not exactly personally directed. Perhaps there is just more 'paranoia' out there than I had imagined and if they were out to get you, not filling in a generic questionnaire doesn't mean they won't or can't get you anyway 8-) ;-) :D

 

 

Looking at the paper copy which arrived with the magazine, I too " didn't see any problems " with any of the questions.

But, I also couldn't see any connection between some of the questions and the stated aim of the survey.

 

ONE example.

 

The aim of the survey ( it says ) is:

 

"MMM is interested to discover what you really think about the magazine and its website"

 

That's clear enough.

 

Then, question 53 : Have you got a dog ?

 

If they had said " Does your dog read the magazine " I could have understood that there was a link, but otherwise, I am baffled.

 

 

;-)

 

Perhaps they wanted to see if it was worth writing more articles for sites that are Dog freindly, or sites near dog freindly facilities (Pubs, Parks etc), but maybe it was just to send your name to Winalot so they can inundate you with stuff you don't want. There are always alternative perspectives :D

[malc d]

Big Momma - 2011-03-12 3:50 PM

 

malc d - 2011-03-12 2:40 PM

 

Big Momma - 2011-03-12 12:45 PM

 

Each to his/her own I suppose. I didn't see any problems with any of the questions, most gave you a range not a specific e.g. age, income so not exactly personally directed. Perhaps there is just more 'paranoia' out there than I had imagined and if they were out to get you, not filling in a generic questionnaire doesn't mean they won't or can't get you anyway 8-) ;-) :D

 

 

Looking at the paper copy which arrived with the magazine, I too " didn't see any problems " with any of the questions.

But, I also couldn't see any connection between some of the questions and the stated aim of the survey.

 

ONE example.

 

The aim of the survey ( it says ) is:

 

"MMM is interested to discover what you really think about the magazine and its website"

 

That's clear enough.

 

Then, question 53 : Have you got a dog ?

 

If they had said " Does your dog read the magazine " I could have understood that there was a link, but otherwise, I am baffled.

 

 

;-)

 

Perhaps they wanted to see if it was worth writing more articles for sites that are Dog freindly, or sites near dog freindly facilities (Pubs, Parks etc), but maybe it was just to send your name to Winalot so they can inundate you with stuff you don't want. There are always alternative perspectives :D

 

 

In that case, question 53 should have been:

 

" Would you like to see more articles for sites that are dog friendly.... etc."

 

(So I have to conclude that it's more likely to be about sending your name to Winalot).

 

 

 

;-)

[How Much]

Unfortunately i have parted company with the magazine. This time last year when i enrolled, the company took 2 'first payments' under 2 mandates. One was closed, but could i hell get a refund for the payment taken in error. To that end, i cancelled the remaining debit before the final payment was due (having already 'paid' upfront right at the start.) Nothing was said, and no magazine - that i had paid for, arrived thereafter!

[Petra]

We have just filled in the survey online and it is quite a bit different from the paper survey in the magazine. Whats going on? Is it two surveys? Cant see how they will amalgamate the information.

Some of the questions are definitely so that they can attract more advertisers.

[Ina]

Petra - 2011-03-12 5:34 PM

 

We have just filled in the survey online and it is quite a bit different from the paper survey in the magazine. Whats going on? Is it two surveys? Cant see how they will amalgamate the information.

Some of the questions are definitely so that they can attract more advertisers.

 

I did the one on-line, don't buy MMM any more, interesting that the paper one is different :-S

[neilmac]

Filled in the online version, can't see what the problem is, it's a survey.

 

Choice is - either do it or don't *-)

 

 

[neilmac]

Duplicate posting

*-)

[Usinmyknaus]

Daniel the editor - 2011-03-09 11:36 AM

 

The aim of the survey is for us to get information on our readers so we can set the editorial strategy.

 

Therefore, we do want to know where you live in the country. However, we ask for a name and street address only so we can send the winners of the competition their prizes.

 

We will not send any unrequested mail to postal addresses. Your details will also not be shared with any other company.

 

If you don't want to enter the competition and/or do not want to provide us with your full address then just put your town in the address box and no more. It does explain this on the opening page of the survey also.

 

We will send those who provide us with an email address a welcome email, but this will have an opt out box for those who do not want any more emails from us.

 

Hope that clears it up.

 

Thanks

Daniel

 

Thanks Daniel, that's all I needed to know.

 

Bob

 

 

[mikemoss]

Well, my problem with the online version is that it's not a readership survey as I understand it, but more one of those increasingly frequent 'lifestyle we're just doing a survey, we're not trying to sell you anything et etc' spam phone calls/junk mail things we're all increasingly bombarded by.

 

To me, a true readership survey would ask more detailed questions about what I liked, and to what degree, about each of the sections in the magazine. I didn't like the way there was no possibilty to rank things liked best when, in my case at any rate, I would have given equal weight to several of the options.

 

Anyway, having had my gripe about the survey or non-survey, I have to say that the latest issue is much, much better than those of late. I fel that MMM had been getting tired, so I'm hopeful that responses to the survey and the appointment of a new editor might help to give things a bit of lift.

[Brian Kirby]

mikemoss - 2011-03-14 9:39 AM ............. I have to say that the latest issue is much, much better than those of late. I fel that MMM had been getting tired, so I'm hopeful that responses to the survey and the appointment of a new editor might help to give things a bit of lift.

Well, there you go, and I found myself getting more and more ratty, the more I read!  :-)

Example, two A class vans compared "head to head", both German, both Hymer group, both Fiat based.  Similar size (C 7.5 metres long), similar generic layouts (4 berth), and similar base cost, and cost as tested (C a modest £70K !).  But, the more expensive one has a 2.3 litre engine, a 3,500kg chassis, and a 350kg payload, while the (slightly) cheaper one has a 3.0 litre engine, a 4,000kg chassis, and a 726kg payload. 

In conclusion, both are pronounced equally attractive, but the more expensive one with the smaller engine and the highly marginal (I think inadequate) payload is credited with having a good garage, without reference to that inadequate 350kg payload.

Inadequate?  Well, driver presumed included in MIRO so, 3 adults to add: 3 x 75kg = 225kg.  350kg - 224kg = 125kg.  And thats yer lot for 4 berth van, with a great (empty :-)) garage!  Just 125 kg remaining for all your clothes, food, toys, books, booze, etc, etc.  Staggering!  Superb garage, no payload!  How on earth is that supposed to work in practise?  Some poor sap will buy it, of course, and then come on here fretting about overload and re-plating!

Answer, highlight the poor payload, declare the cost of, and recommend, the (unmentioned) chassis upgrade to 4.0 tonnes, then add the cost of the 3.0 litre engine.  Compare the prices on a workable, now level playing field, basis, and then review the conclusion.  The conclusion as to which was the better van may have remained unaltered, but at least the relative values would have been visible, both would have had workable payloads, and unsuspecting readers would have been tipped off about the payload issue.  How difficult would that have been?

Oh yes, and then there was the splendid Murvi, reviewed by a Murvi owner and brand fan, with a 315kg payload on a (apparently) 3,500kg chassis.  (I say apparently, because the upgrade to 3,500kg is listed as an option not fitted to the test vehicle, while at the same time the MAM of the test vehicle is stated to have been 3,500kg.  Hmmm!  Confusing: no?  Doubtless due to a typo somewhere, but an extremely unfortunate one under the circumstances.)  However, there is, apparently, a further upgrade to 3,900kg at a paltry £200 (which at that price looks a snip, unless it is a "desk" upgrade - no further detail given) which at least holds out the prospect of a reasonable (workable?) payload (unless it is a desk upgrade, of course, in which case it is unlikely to offer much advantage, because the front axle will hit its limit well before the van hits its MAM) for almost zilch - so why not say so and make the reader aware of the issue?

Won't go on - too boring!  Apologies to all.  :-D

[Poppy]

Quite right Brian. In Practical Motorhome they reviewed a motorhome clearly intended for long trips.They made much of its huge fridge.freezer.Loading margin quoted as 375kgs!

[Robinhood]

....welcome to the Grumpy Old Men's corner, Brian. :->

 

Just to develop a theme on payloads, don't forget the tested Hymer 534, with a quoted (and price-listed at 440kg) payload of 450kg, but not if you include the two additional seats (...and whose idea was it to fit them like that? :-( ) the electric bed, the Elegance pack and (hurrah) the uprated front axle.

 

Given that the Elegance pack and axle alone account for another 30kg, I'll bet the actual payload of that 'van is well below 350kg - the extra seats and any anchorage and the re-worked furniture must weigh a fair amount.

 

...and the review summed it up "Meanwhile, the rear double bed option (and the correct number of belted seats) means that four people can be accommodated when desired". IMO you'd best not desire to carry much else. :-S

 

 

I know I didn't test it, but frankly, as a design it looked the worst of all worlds. It wasted the A-class advantage of making a big lounge using the front seats, and frankly the space there looked hardly usable for anything but driving. In making an over-complicated rear-lounge arrangement, they also seem to have lost the one major advantage that such layouts have, i.e. a grand panoramic view. The rear windows look OK, but the small side ones, limited by the complicated rear design, simply add little (by the looks of it) to the view.

 

Di Johnson's Murvi reviews are a pet hate of mine for all sorts of reasons, and if I try to comment more, I'll be off on one, so I won't. B-)

 

I haven't bothered filling in the reader survey, as I share most of the negative views already expressed.

 

If I were to summarise my feelings, however, what I would like to see, is some more attention to detail in the motorhome testing, and a dispassionate concentration on the real-life aspects of owning the vehicles under test.

 

[Derek Uzzell]

Colin9591 - 2011-03-10 2:22 PM

 

I was going to have a squint at this and see if I thought it was worth completing but the page doesn't load properly in Safari.

 

Cheers

 

Just to repeat Colin's observation - there seems to be no way of accessing the on-line MMM survey if you have an Apple Mac and are using Safari as your web browser.

 

The link provided in the original post produces a web-page inviting you to fill in the Reader Survey and thanking you in anticipation, but there's no apparent way of going any further.

 

 

[Daniel the editor]

I have looked at this as I too use a Mac.

However, I can not find any issues with filling it out when using Safari.

Indeed, the survey worked perfectly in all our test runs in Safari and Firefox (as well as the other more common browsers).

Now the survey is live I can't access it again to test, but have reported your observations to the survey suppliers.

I'll see what comes back from them, but this does appear to be a problem for only a few of you - maybe (and this is just a guess) you have an older version of Safari which is causing the problems? I use 5.0.3, which worked fine.

Thanks for trying anyway, if you really want to fill it out send me your email and I will email on the survey in word, which you can then email back.

Thanks

Daniel

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

Daniel the editor - 2011-03-16 9:27 AM

 

I have looked at this as I too use a Mac.

However, I can not find any issues with filling it out when using Safari.

Indeed, the survey worked perfectly in all our test runs in Safari and Firefox (as well as the other more common browsers).

Now the survey is live I can't access it again to test, but have reported your observations to the survey suppliers.

I'll see what comes back from them, but this does appear to be a problem for only a few of you - maybe (and this is just a guess) you have an older version of Safari which is causing the problems? I use 5.0.3, which worked fine.

Thanks for trying anyway, if you really want to fill it out send me your email and I will email on the survey in word, which you can then email back.

Thanks

Daniel

 

 

I'm using OS X 10.6.6 and Safari 5.0.3 so it's not old software that's causing the problem in my case.

[Tony Jones]

One comment I made, I wonder what the rest of you think?

 

MMM has a "sister" mag, in Which MC, entirely devoted to those who are "in the market" for a van. I'm sure those in that position will buy it.

So why does MMM NEED so many road tests?

IMHO the space could be better devoted to travel, places to stay, accessories, gadgets and gimmicks, "interchange" and other practical tips. The sort of stuff we want when we've bought our MH, and are USING it rather than constantly thinking about our NEXT van!

I had hoped that "Go MH" might have gone that way but no, still MORE road tests.

With a "stable" of magazines from the same publisher, isn't there room for a more adventurous approach?

 

Oh, and if we MUST have so many road tests, how about a policy of ensuring that every month at least one of them is on a non-Sevel-based vehicle? (Sorry, I said "one comment," that makes two - but they're related!)

[Guest pelmetman]

How about a property section in MMM, where people who have a property ideal for parking a Camper could advertise ?:D

[t5tripper]

I was going to fill out the survey but got fed up with all the are you replacing your motorhome, what with etc, I thought it was about what you liked and disliked about MMM. I could see my letter box being filled with marketing stuff from advertisers, so abandoned my effort.

[catinou]

Tony Jones - 2011-03-16 10:02 AM

 

One comment I made, I wonder what the rest of you think?

 

MMM has a "sister" mag, in Which MC, entirely devoted to those who are "in the market" for a van. I'm sure those in that position will buy it.

So why does MMM NEED so many road tests?

IMHO the space could be better devoted to travel, places to stay, accessories, gadgets and gimmicks, "interchange" and other practical tips. The sort of stuff we want when we've bought our MH, and are USING it rather than constantly thinking about our NEXT van!

I had hoped that "Go MH" might have gone that way but no, still MORE road tests.

With a "stable" of magazines from the same publisher, isn't there room for a more adventurous approach?

 

Oh, and if we MUST have so many road tests, how about a policy of ensuring that every month at least one of them is on a non-Sevel-based vehicle? (Sorry, I said "one comment," that makes two - but they're related!)

Couldn't agree more Tony - except the latest review featured a van like ours, so that was more interesting to us (in a stable gate / horse type of way) ;-) than the ones written for the last few years.... and yes, we did upgrade the chassis to 3,850 kgs - we had ordered the 4,000 but the dealership error supplied us with the 3,500 *-) We now have a very acceptable payload and are looking forward to Easter and spending 10 days in it in France. B-)

[Derek Uzzell]

Derek Uzzell - 2011-03-16 10:01 AM

 

Daniel the editor - 2011-03-16 9:27 AM

 

I have looked at this as I too use a Mac.

However, I can not find any issues with filling it out when using Safari.

Indeed, the survey worked perfectly in all our test runs in Safari and Firefox (as well as the other more common browsers).

Now the survey is live I can't access it again to test, but have reported your observations to the survey suppliers.

I'll see what comes back from them, but this does appear to be a problem for only a few of you - maybe (and this is just a guess) you have an older version of Safari which is causing the problems? I use 5.0.3, which worked fine.

Thanks for trying anyway, if you really want to fill it out send me your email and I will email on the survey in word, which you can then email back.

Thanks

Daniel

 

 

I'm using OS X 10.6.6 and Safari 5.0.3 so it's not old software that's causing the problem in my case.

 

This seems to be a 'cookies' security thing.

 

The "accept cookies" option in the Security section of Safari's Preferences was, in my case, set to "Only from sites I visit". I swapped to the "Always" option and the Reader Survey emerged. I've now swapped back to "Only from sites I visit" and the Reader Survey still appears.

[Mel B]

Sorry Tony, I disagree, I actually like the reports on motorhomes, it makes interesting reading, especially seeing how things are changing, or in some cases, going back to how it used to be as it wasn't 'broke' and worked better than the 'new fix' one that replaced it! :-S

 

Intereting also to see some of the daft ideas that they come up with!!!! :D