| Home || Search || Contact || Free Publications || Eshop || Privacy Statement ||

2003 RIRDC Stakeholder and Client Survey

Prepared in April 2003 by
Agknowledge^®
51 Mottram Rd, Carmel WA 6076
Ph: 08 9291 8111 Fx: 08 9291 8101, E-mail: cookes@iinet.net.au

The Website

The RIRDC website represents a major communication medium for RIRDC. It continues to grow in importance for information delivery, communication with stakeholders and as a sales platform.

For this reason the 2003 Stakeholder survey has gathered feedback on the website from a range of sources including both written surveys, a dedicated online survey and through the qualitative phone interviews.

Access frequency to the RIRDC website has continued to increase dramatically over the past couple of years, in line with the general population’s uptake of Internet information, continual improvements to the RIRDC site and determined efforts to facilitate its use by researchers and producers.

There has been nearly a ten-fold increase in the number of hits, or accesses, to the RIRDC website in the past three years. In January 2000, the site received just 60,000 hits compared to 567,000 hits in January 2003.

While total hits are often questioned because they include graphics and other page elements as accesses, in RIRDC's case the figure is significant. The RIRDC site depends very heavily on text to get its information across. While the site is designed attractively and uses the corporate colours, the site has few graphics or other unnecessary design elements. This is largely to ensure fast accessibility and download speeds - particularly in regional and rural areas.

As a result, when the graphics and other design elements are excluded, the total number of pages served to customers in January 2003 totalled just over 200,000 or 35% of the total hits figure - a very large ratio by web standards.

This 'pages served' figure (also known as 'page impressions') is the main measure used by advertising agencies and their corporate clients as the closest electronic equivalent of the print media circulation and readership figures.

The most popular pages were full Research Reports, links, The Farmers’ Guide to the Internet, the contact page and the e-shop.

Printed survey responses
The results of the 2003 survey indicate the RIRDC website is highly regarded and well recognised as a premier site in the agricultural industry. Everyone involved in its development deserves to be congratulated.

The RIRDC website is well-known and used by the research community and industry.

However, the website appears to be an under-utilised resource for producers. Many producers are still unaware of the site, even those who are computer literate and regularly receive written communications from RIRDC.

Of the 53 producers interviewed by telephone, only two had seen the RIRDC website and one of those had previously been a consultant with RIRDC, so should really be discounted (Appendix 7). Of the 135 producers who responded to the two-page survey only 11% answered the question on the RIRDC website.

Figures 28, 29 and 30

Question 7 (four-page survey): Please rate the usefulness of the RIRDC website

*2001 results have been adjusted to remove producers to allow more accurate comparison with 2003.

Respondents to the four-page survey were asked to rate the RIRDC website according to content, presentation and ease of use (Figures 28, 29, 30).

In 2003 just under 10% of respondents were unable to comment on the website, down from 20% in 2001. Of those providing an evaluation only 1% rated the website as ‘not useful’, with the remainder deriving considerable value from the site.

Very few respondents gave the website a negative rating for any of the three categories.

Questions 6 and 9 in the four-page survey (Table 10) indicated an increase in Internet usage since 2001.

In 2003, 44% of respondents to the four-page survey said they had visited the site more than 10 times in the past two years, up from 28% in 2001.

Recipients of the two-page survey were also asked to indicate whether they used the RIRDC website and to rate its usefulness (Table 9). Fifty five per cent of total respondents answered the question about the RIRDC website. Of these, 97% indicated the website was either ‘useful’ or ‘very useful’.

Forty one per cent of producers answered the question about the RIRDC website in the two-page survey, and 95% of these found it ‘useful’ or ‘very useful’.

Unfortunately, producer feedback on the RIRDC site from the telephone interviews was minimal. Of the 53 producers interviewed by telephone, only two had accessed the RIRDC website. These two producers found it very useful and appreciated free access to many of the reports.

Figure 31. Question 8 (four-page survey): What is your primary reason for using the RIRDC website?

The primary reason to access the website was overwhelmingly for the purpose of accessing information (Figure 31). Nearly half the respondents to question 8 (four-page survey) cited the main reason for the visit was for ‘information access’; a further 32% used the site for research application; 11% for ‘report review’; and just 1% for ‘report purchase’.

Online survey results
An online survey was also posted on the RIRDC website and linked to the RIRDC Research Online newsletter. A total of 57 responses were received to this survey and the results are presented in Appendix 3. This compares to 84 responses received to the same survey in 2001. The low number of responses this year is disappointing especially considering the increase in Internet traffic over this time, but it is possibly a reaction to the large number of surveys currently posted on the Internet.

Posted surveys are more expensive to distribute, but they are harder to ignore than online surveys. This point is worth remembering for future surveys.

This year 22% of respondents to the online survey were producers compared to 37% in 2001.

In 2003 85% of respondents described themselves as ‘experienced’ Internet users compared to just 40% in 2001. This reflects the growing level of Internet expertise in the general community.

Question 10 in the online survey asked respondents which types of information they expected to see on the RIRDC site. The responses are presented below.

Figure 32.

Most respondents wanted information on upcoming events, previous research in its different formats, links to other sites and funding applications (Figure 32).

None of the respondents indicated they were interested in contacting program managers. The idea of being able to interact with staff through the Internet is a good one; it is surprising there was no response to this function. There was no notable difference between the 2001 and 2003 responses to this question.

Question 11 of the online survey asked respondents which transactions they would like to carry out on the RIRDC website. The responses are presented below (Figure 33).

Figure 33

It is interesting that 20% of respondents to this online survey indicated they would like to purchase publications from RIRDC via the Internet.

Both printed surveys also collected information on the use of RIRDC’s e-shop (Figure 34).

Figure 34

*2001 results have been adjusted to remove producers to allow more accurate comparison with 2003.

RIRDC customers are starting to become more confident purchasing publications through the Internet. In 2003, 31% of researchers and Advisory Committee members had purchased their last RIRDC publication across the Internet, compared to 20% in 2001 (significant at the 95% confidence level). And 13% of producers responding to the two-page survey had purchased their last publication across the Internet compared to 0% in 2001 (Figure 34).

As suggested by NFF, RIRDC may need to increase the amount of sales information provided for publications. E-shop users cannot pick up a copy of a publication and flick through it to see if it is relevant. The ‘short reports’ are available however it is clear from comments that the format and availability is not understood. A short summary of information contents would be useful.

These results are backed by the actual figures for RIRDC e-shop sales. In 2001/2002 7.3% (by value) of publication sales were conducted through the e-shop compared to 13.2% in 2000/01 (source: RIRDC annual reports).

Twelve per cent of respondents indicated they were interested in participating in industry forums on the Internet. Individual Advisory Committees may find this idea worth trialling.

Overall the RIRDC website was praised by all who had used it. RIRDC’s challenge now is to increase awareness of the site throughout the relevant agricultural industries and to continue converting interest in the site to publication sales.

Media Communications
The media are important customers to RIRDC. It is important to continually work at building relationships with relevant media representatives to understand their changing needs.

A series of interviews were completed with RIRDC media contacts from a range of sources. Some of the contacts were from mainstream media while others represent a more targeted audience. All are important in ensuring RIRDC’s research information reaches end-users.

Individual interviews are presented in Appendix 5.

The telephone discussions generally supported the survey findings and some positive changes that have been noticed in recent years include:

RIRDC Research Online newsletter is highly regarded by those journalists who receive it.
RIRDC provides a highly valued, personalised service to a targeted group of media.
The RIRDC Website is a useful resource to journalists.

The discussions also highlighted a number of areas needing consideration.

Not all media contacts received the online newsletter or press releases.
While the RIRDC Research Online newsletter is well regarded, some media would prefer information in an immediately publishable format with leads to producer case studies and pictures attached.
E-mail press releases are preferred by some media – and have the advantage of going directly to the desired journalist’s desk.
Fax press releases, while still preferred by a small number of journalists, have the tendency to go astray.
Some mainstream rural media still do not consider RIRDC relevant to their readers.
Others consider RIRDC to have a low profile compared to some of the other RDCs.
A couple of journalists said they would like to hear personally from Murray occasionally when a relevant story presents itself.
Journalists were interested in on-going as well as finished research.

RIRDC’s media communications were comparable with the other RDCs. No RDC was highlighted as being outstandingly better than any of the others.

Innovation is the key to being noticed. It may be timely to revise RIRDC’s communications plan with a view to helping the organisation stand out from the pack as the leader in RDC media communications.

Delivery and adoption of RIRDC research
The rate of adoption of research by industry and producers is perhaps the most important accountability measure for RIRDC.

While the 2003 Stakeholder and Client Survey does not attempt to actively measure adoption, a number of questions in both the two-page and four-page surveys address this issue.

Question 3 (2-page survey): Have you used information sourced from RIRDC to make a change?

RIRDC customers obviously do use information from RIRDC in an ‘adoption’ capacity.

In 2003, of the 121 producers who answered this question in the two-page survey, 63% indicated they had used RIRDC information to make a change. In 2001, 50 producers answered this same question and once more 63% indicated they had used RIRDC information to make a change.

Figure 35. Question 5 (4-page survey) and Question 6 (2-page survey): How would you rate RIRDC’s role in promoting adoption of research findings.

*2001 results have been adjusted to remove producers to allow more accurate comparison with 2003.

Most stakeholders rate highly RIRDC’s role in promoting adoption of research findings and this rating appears to be improving (Figure 35) however the differences are not significant.

Sixty two per cent of the respondents to the four-page survey recognised RIRDC’s role in promoting adoption of research findings as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’. Just 5% of respondents rated RIRDC’s promotion of research findings as ‘poor’.

The same question was also asked in the two-page survey. In 2003, 61% of producers recognised RIRDC’s role in promoting research findings as either ‘good’ or ‘excellent’. However, 15% of producers rated RIRDC promotion of research findings as ‘poor’. This compares to 2001 when 45% of producers recognised RIRDC’s role in promoting research findings as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ and 20% rated it as ‘poor’.

Figure 36*. Question 4 (4-page survey): To what degree do you believe RIRDC should be involved in the dissemination of research directly to its clients?

*2001 results have been adjusted to remove producers to allow more accurate comparison with 2003.

It is interesting that in 2003 a lower percentage (49%) of researcher and Advisory Committee respondents to the four-page survey indicated that RIRDC should be fully involved in the dissemination of research findings than was found in 2001 (68%) (Figure 36).

Perhaps this result reflects the realisation that RDC funds are limited. The more money spent on dissemination, the less research can be funded.

Figure 37*. Question 10 (four-page survey) and Question 4 (two-page survey): How would you rate the timeliness of RIRDC research being made available?

*2001 results have been adjusted to remove producers to allow more accurate comparison with 2003.

More than 79% of respondents believe RIRDC’s timeliness in delivering research results is either ‘good’ or ‘excellent’. This has not changed from the previous survey and is consistent with all surveyed groups.

The most notable improvement is in the producer rating of timeliness. In 2001, 54% of producers rated the timeliness of RIRDC research results as either ‘good’ or ‘excellent’, compared to 77% in 2003.

Once research results are processed promptly internally, the timeliness issue becomes one of sharp marketing. RIRDC has a recently improved process of media management, which is continually being refined. If this can be supported by adequate data management, marketing will become even more efficient in assisting the timely delivery of research results.

Comparison with other Research and Development organisations and suggestions for improvement
Another issue the survey followed was the comparison of RIRDC with other agencies who delivered R&D outcomes to a similar customer base. Question 12 in the 2003 Stakeholder and Client Survey indicated 70% of respondents readily identified additional organisations, compared to 60% in the 2001 survey.

As part of this question, respondents were also invited to name another organisation they had dealings with and list its three best features (Figure 38). Respondents were also asked to list the three best features of RIRDC (Figure 39).

Figure 38. Question 12 (four-page survey): What are the three best features of another R&D organisation whose services you access?

The spread of organisations was diverse but the three most often quoted were the Grains Research and Development Corporation, Horticultural R&D Corporation and the CSIRO.

Figure 39. Question 3 (four-page survey): What are the three best features of RIRDC’s service to you?

The best features of RIRDC most frequently mentioned by stakeholders were ‘staff’ and ‘project management and administration. These results back up earlier comments in the report about the increasing professionalism of RIRDC staff and recent improvements in program management.

Communication and publications were also rated highly as some of RIRDC’s ‘best features’.

While the website was not rated as highly as a ‘best feature’, the site is a delivery mechanism rather than a service.

On the whole RIRDC is considered to have a larger challenge than many other RDCs due to the wide cross section of industries it services.

Survey responses and phone interviews revealed considerable support for the role RIRDC is performing and the standard to which it is being achieved.

Figure 40.Question 14 (four-page survey) and Question 5 (two-page survey) combined – How can RIRDC most improve its service to customers like yourself?

When respondents to both the four-page and two page surveys were asked how RIRDC could most improve its services to customers many respondents (27% of responses) replied that no improvement was necessary.

However, there were a number of suggested improvements including:

Increased advertising (7% of responses) - let people know the services on offer and the information available.
Increase visibility of the organisation (7% of responses) by RIRDC staff getting out in the field more. The current low visibility of RIRDC was confirmed through the telephone interviews with producers.
Improve communication (21% of responses).
Improve e-mail communications (6% of responses) with specific relevant information.
Improve website (6% of responses).
Improve consultation with industry (6% of responses).
More usable farmer information (11% of responses) including more concise reports.
Improvements in administration (2001 – 7%) were suggested in 2001, but not in 2003 indicating there may have been perceived improvements in this area.

Appendix 1 – RIRDC Stakeholder Survey (four-page)

Not Available online

Appendix 2 – RIRDC Client Survey (two-page)
Not Available online

Appendix 3 – Website Survey
Total No of responses - 57

5. Primary place of residence:

States: ACT 3 NSW 11 QLD 10 NT 0 SA 4 TAS 3 WA 11 VIC 8

Other Countries – China - 1 (Chen Feng)

6. Which of the following best describes you?

Primary Producer

13

Investor in Agricultural products/markets

2

Agribusiness

3

Scientist or other Professional

4

Educator

2

Student

1

Other:

16 (Consultant (several), Landcare facilitator, public servant, regional plantation committee member, agricultural foreign correspondent, farm management consultant, media and primary producer, manufacturer, librarian)

7. When accessing this site today are you primarily?

Searching for specific information

7

Browsing the information available

19

Came to complete the survey

28

Please describe the information you are searching for? Compilation of replies:

Details of your publications.

Innovation and new technologies.

New developments in the Ag industry and Farm safety and OH&S issues.

Research papers - usually non-commodity specific socio-economic and NRM related papers.

News leads relevant to rural SA.

Alpaca news.

Advances in all aspects of agriculture particularly herbs, cattle, pulses, grains cotton and wool, fruit and vegetables and storage of same.

Forestry related topics/research.

Mainly equine.

Sustainability related information.

Anything to do with businesses involved with food & agribusiness. Particularly interested in industry financial and statistical information

New research that has been completed.

Grants.

Rural research that relates to Tasmania.

Broad interests relevant to Qld.

I like to keep in touch with what's happening in the world of agricultural research in Australia.

Goat meat production information.

8. How many times have you accessed the RIRDC website in the past 2 years?

This is my first visit

0

1 – 2 times

2

3 – 9 times

10

More than 10 times

38

9. How would you describe your level of Internet experience?

Novice – just getting started

2

Intermediate – know enough to find your way around

4

Experienced – others come to you for advice

34

10. Which of the following types of information do you expect to see on this site?

Important/upcoming events/workshops

33

Previous research reports

49

R&D Funding information/ application

27

Technical production eg. Short reports

36

Contact with Project Managers

0

Project trials/research

40

Links to other relevant sites

35

Other (see compilation below)

5

Compilation of 'other' replies:

Information about industry advisory board positions
Corporate and Operating plans

11. What transactions would you like to be able to carry out on the RIRDC website?

Review and apply for research grants 17

Print off relevant information 48

Purchase of publications 33

Specific industry discussion forums 21

Notification of new information 46

Other (see compilation below) 2

Compilation of 'other' replies:

newsletter of updates

12. Overall how would you rate the RIRDC website?

Very useful

36

Useful

11

Not useful

0

Unable to comment. First time to site

3

13. Please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about the RIRDC website?

Agree Agree somewhat Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree N/A – first time to site - not used

It was easy to find 41 2 2 0 0

It downloads quickly 40 9 3 1 0

It contains all the information I am looking for 39 20 2 2 0

It saves me having to telephone RIRDC 39 2 1 0 0

It is easy to find the information I am looking for 38 12 3 3 0

I like the way it looks 40 8 3 1 0

It always works 43 5 2 0

I would recommend it to others as an information source 47 1 0 0 0

14. Would you like us to inform you of any new research publications, newsletters or news/events in your area of interest?

Yes – 47

15. Do you have any other comments? 23 respondents made comments. Compilation of replies:

Overall, the site is good, fast, informative, but my concern is, I wonder how much of this information leaks out to overseas (competitors)... perhaps there should be a simple, free, verifiable registration process so that the information will be held a little more tightly in this country, for our benefit...If you explained to people why, they would not mind...
Like to see more material written for popular publication rather than as scientific reports only.
Really appreciate the regular e-mail newsletters from Sam Leone. This means I do not have to remember to go to the site as they either provide the info I am after or are gentle reminder. Also have recommended the site to many clients.
Hi, please excuse my "off-farm day job"..... I find RIRDC reports and website a useful way of keeping myself abreast of new developments in agriculture and have already included some of the research into my far planning.
All past Research Reports should be converted to pdf format. As a researcher with reports prior to about 99, I am concerned that it is possible to download these reports in MS Word, a format that allows others eg students to easily breach copyright etc. These reports should be put into pdf.
There are many older and useful reports pre about 97 that are in electronic format but were only submitted to RIRDC in paper form. RIRDC should provide a small payment (say up to $2000) to researchers to spend time getting these reports into the current RIRDC layout for conversion to pdf and placement on the website.

I have four children studying Agric. in various forms and would be pleased to look at future farming models that are projected as possibilities for the future.

I find the mailouts very useful as I don’t have to keep looking at the site for new info. I know when it arrives and if it of interest to me. It is great and saves me a lot of time sifting through useless info. Keep it up.
Climate variability; climate change; agricultural systems (dryland and irrigated); natural resource management; water use efficiency; agricultural systems analysis; simulation models; Internet use.
I just enjoy using the site, as it is easy to find material. I think it is a great site.
This site is the most useful of the sites I access relative to external funding.
Occasionally find links from newsletter to site lead to Error 404.
I like the monthly summary that is e-mailed to me. Well done to Murray
I have found this is a very interesting site and one that contains most of the topics I am interested in seeking additional information or has the information and additional sites, which are of interest.
Your service is great. Would like to see more equine research for thoroughbreds available to trainers, owners and riders.
Good to access current research and be made aware of what is being done.
I particularly appreciate the option of viewing either a full report or a summary. Also very grateful for the access to the reports free of charge. A very professional site. The e-mail alert service is great too.
Very useful information can be found on your site. I often refer RIRDC to Austrade's clients & allies.
Excellent - More cut flower and foliage research would always be welcome.
My work is all about assessing the financial strength of a business, nearly always a business involved in food and agribusiness industry. So any financial information about the health of an industry is relevant.
It was a bit difficult in answering some of the questions as I do not directly dial into the RIDIC website because I get the weekly updates from RIDC on line - it is great because I never need to remember to have a look as to what is new, I just scan through the dot points on the e-mail and if there is anything relevant I read on and enter a link - just like the one to do this survey.
I get regular e-mail updates - so only access the website through direct links to reports that I am interested in. I haven't really explored the website per se.
I receive the update on a regular basis and value this service. The look of the site is fine, but I suppose things can always be improved?
I get the newsletter by e-mail and click on report summaries I want- this is an excellent service
It would be good to have a chat board similar to the one I use in the USA for cross-stitching. I can supply you with a link, if you'd like.
RIRDC on-line is very useful. I scan it as received, read the relevant abstracts/summaries and forward the on-line e-mail to my staff with requests to read/get full reports etc. A great way to get a snapshot of what's happening.
Keep up the good work - this has been a great site and I have been using it (and recommending it) for years.

Appendix 4 – Accountability stakeholder interviews

Interview	Comments and action
AFFA, Gavan Cattanach	RIRDC is doing as good a job as any of the Corporations at getting research results out to end-users, but they need to quantify the outcomes of research so they can maximise the returns from future expenditure. RIRDC, like all the RDCs, need to be measuring the rates of adoption of their research in a way that can stand intellectual scrutiny. Case studies are useful, but they illustrate rather than substantiate adoption. Just because producers hear about research doesn’t mean they will necessarily use the information. RDCs need to intelligently manage the release of information to assist adoption. At the moment the majority of R&D funding is allocated to Research rather than Development or Adoption. The RIRDC Board needs to look at this mix to determine the right balance. If more funds are allocated to adoption, RDCs would develop a better understanding of which research projects are actually adopted by industry. A better understanding of adoption would help the RDCs focus funds on Research and Development that is needed and actually used by industry.
Senator Troth’s Office, Peta Slack-Smith	We are normally in contact with RIRDC every four to six weeks. If there is a particular issue we are dealing with it maybe daily. RIRDC satisfy the requirements of setting research priorities through their annual operating plan and satisfy the requirements of reporting against research priorities. RIRDC have a good reputation for the quality of their publications. I cannot comment on how effective they are at distributing them. We would use RIRDC publications and reports more if they came with a brief summary. I have not used the website. RIRDC is highly regarded and is comparable to the other RDC’s. They are doing a good job.
National Farmers Federation, Anna Cronin and Peter Arkle	RIRDC have a difficult role to play. They have the dual responsibility of representing all the small industries without their own RDC and they play a generic role managing cross-sectoral research and development. More input Representatives from NFF meet with the managing director or program managers from RIRDC about once per month. Despite this relatively frequent contact, NFF do not feel they are adequately consulted regarding research and industry priorities. There in no formal process to seek their feedback and they do not recall being consulted when industry five-year plans were prepared. This is not to say that this did not necessarily occur just that it did not happen in a streamlined way to encourage their feedback. NFF has provided some input in the past, but RIRDC has not really proactively sought input from them. Suggestion: NFF have just initiated two-monthly, two-hour meetings with BRS between all the senior staff in both organisations, a similar arrangement with RIRDC would be useful. These meetings allow for the meaningful exchange of information. Those with the BRS have been very useful. Communications with the internal program managers (Jeff Davis and Roslyn Princely) is already excellent. However there would be a big benefit if the external program managers could also attend the meetings. When NFF has put forward ideas for research (three times in the past two years) these have always been very positively received by RIRDC. Examine the balance between research and extension In the past the State Departments of Agriculture have largely been responsible for extension. We are now seeing nearly all these departments wind back their extension activities leading to an information gap. As a result, RIRDC needs to re-examine their balance of expenditure between research and extension. RIRDC very forgettable – consider re-branding with new name Everything produced by RIRDC passes across Anna Cronin’s desk and, apart from those reports she is very familiar or involved with, none have left any impression on her in terms of content or presentation. RIRDC does not have good recognition outside the niche industries it services. Anna had been working in Agriculture for 20 years and had not heard of RIRDC before she started working at NFF. Certainly most broadacre farmers would have no idea who they are. RIRDC is a very unwieldy acronym. They need to consider rebranding and renaming the organisation. (Suggestion: Rural Research Australia). Land and Water Australia have successfully re-launched themselves – RIRDC would do well to take a leaf out of their book. Most of RIRDC’s work is unwieldy and technical. The RIRDC Short Reports are good and are a step in the right direction – but are still very technical. RIRDC needs to consider how it distributes its information. Even though they work on a ‘cost recover’ policy, the cost of reports is still a disincentive. They need to look at other avenues for distributing the information. Suggestion for Website sales: RIRDC needs to supply more information on reports advertised on the Internet. You can’t pick them up and flick through them to see what they contain. Suggestion for Website: Many producers come to the RIRDC seeking diversification options. RIRDC may want to consider including a diversification decision-making tool, which leads producers to the commodities most appropriate to their circumstances. The Veteran Affairs site contains a good example of a decision tool that could be adapted to do this.

Appendix 5 – Media interviews

Interview Comments and Action

Babs McHugh
ABC Rural Radio Babs receives the e-mail newsletter and speaks to RIRDC staff about once every three months and interview contacts about once every two months.
She says she always generates a lot of listener interest when she runs stories sourced from RIRDC online.

Pat Francis
Rural Press
Australian Farm Journal Pat receives the e-mail newsletter, which is great. The links to the website are excellent.
He doesn’t receive any press releases – but this doesn’t really worry him. He is more interested in knowing about the reports as they become available.
RIRDC are good at what they do. AWI and MLA send mostly press releases, which are not so useful.

RIRDC needs to do more of their own advertising so producers hear about their reports.

Shane Wright
AAP Receives the e-mail newsletter and occasional press releases. The web connections in the newsletter are useful as it can be difficult to find new information on the website.
GRDC sends weekly information. AWI is currently keeping a low profile.

It is good to hear when reports are completed, but it would be good to hear more about research in progress.

Asa Walquist
The Australia Only receives the e-mail newsletter.
Happy with what she is currently receiving and there were no suggestions or requests for additional information.

Mark Phelps
Queensland Country Life Receives occasional press releases and event invitations.
He does not consider RIRDC as a source of "news" stories. RIRDC is a bit "esoteric" for their needs.

Lindsay Bock
Acres Australia

Receives faxed press releases only – he would prefer to receive this in an e-mail format. He requested to be added to the online newsletter list.
They also receive information from CSIRO whose information is exemplary. RIRDC is good.
He is happy with what he currently receives from RIRDC. They seem to share information on all they are doing.

They could give me more leads to farmers doing on-farm research into sustainable agriculture.

Peter Brady, Kate Dowler
Stock Journal The Stock Journal receives the online newsletter and occasionally receives press releases by fax.
No comments or suggestions.

Ed Gannon, Xavier Duff, David McKenzie
The Weekly Times The Weekly Times receives press releases occasionally but does not receive the online newsletter.
RIRDC is not very visible.
They would prefer e-mail press releases to fax.
Xavier occasionally uses the website, which is a fantastic resource for new and emerging industries.

Make themselves known. It is good to get the occasional phone call.

Mark Griggs
Western Magazine Received occasional press releases but did not receive the e-mail newsletter.
They rarely have space for RIRDC stories – but they are used from time to time.

Fiona Douglas
National Marketplace News They do not receive press releases but do receive the online newsletter.
Information from the online newsletter is good but it tends to be too technical for their magazine. It would be useful to receive more leads to producers and articles written in ‘news’ format.
The Queensland DPI provides good useful information. They send e-mail press releases with researcher interviews and jpeg images that can be scanned straight into the magazine.

Gib Wettenhall
Australian Forest Grower He has frequent personal contact with Murray who provides content for the magazine.
He would like to receive the e-mail newsletter. He would also be interested in receiving all the JVAP final reports and their grower newsletter.

Tony Biggs
Good Fruit and Vegetables

They occasionally receive press releases and regularly receive the online newsletter. The online newsletter is okay for an overview – but if they want more information they need to chase it.
The other RDCs seem to be providing a similar service.
He would like more detail up front (lots of journalists wouldn’t, but he is a professional horticulturalist).
He would like copies of the Research Reports as soon as they are released and a monthly index of all material released.
He prefers hard copy to e-mail.

Cameron Morse
Stock and Land He does not receive press releases but does get the e-mail newsletter.
He is happy with the current service. A lot of RIRDC information is niche rather than mainstream so not so relevant.
He prefers press releases by fax.

Links

Primary Producer	13
Investor in Agricultural products/markets	2
Agribusiness	3
Scientist or other Professional	4
Educator	2
Student	1
Other:	16 (Consultant (several), Landcare facilitator, public servant, regional plantation committee member, agricultural foreign correspondent, farm management consultant, media and primary producer, manufacturer, librarian)

Searching for specific information	7
Browsing the information available	19
Came to complete the survey	28

This is my first visit	0
1 – 2 times	2
3 – 9 times	10
More than 10 times	38

Novice – just getting started	2
Intermediate – know enough to find your way around	4
Experienced – others come to you for advice	34

Important/upcoming events/workshops	33
Previous research reports	49
R&D Funding information/ application	27
Technical production eg. Short reports	36
Contact with Project Managers	0
Project trials/research	40
Links to other relevant sites	35
Other (see compilation below)	5

Review and apply for research grants	17
Print off relevant information	48
Purchase of publications	33
Specific industry discussion forums	21
Notification of new information	46
Other (see compilation below)	2

Very useful	36
Useful	11
Not useful	0
Unable to comment. First time to site	3

	Agree	Agree somewhat	Neither Agree nor Disagree	Disagree	N/A – first time to site - not used
It was easy to find	41	2	2	0	0
It downloads quickly	40	9	3	1	0
It contains all the information I am looking for	39	20	2	2	0
It saves me having to telephone RIRDC	39	2	1	0	0
It is easy to find the information I am looking for	38	12	3	3	0
I like the way it looks	40	8	3	1	0
It always works	43	5		2	0
I would recommend it to others as an information source	47	1	0	0	0

Interview	Comments and Action
Babs McHugh ABC Rural Radio	Babs receives the e-mail newsletter and speaks to RIRDC staff about once every three months and interview contacts about once every two months. She says she always generates a lot of listener interest when she runs stories sourced from RIRDC online.
Pat Francis Rural Press Australian Farm Journal	Pat receives the e-mail newsletter, which is great. The links to the website are excellent. He doesn’t receive any press releases – but this doesn’t really worry him. He is more interested in knowing about the reports as they become available. RIRDC are good at what they do. AWI and MLA send mostly press releases, which are not so useful. RIRDC needs to do more of their own advertising so producers hear about their reports.
Shane Wright AAP	Receives the e-mail newsletter and occasional press releases. The web connections in the newsletter are useful as it can be difficult to find new information on the website. GRDC sends weekly information. AWI is currently keeping a low profile. It is good to hear when reports are completed, but it would be good to hear more about research in progress.
Asa Walquist The Australia	Only receives the e-mail newsletter. Happy with what she is currently receiving and there were no suggestions or requests for additional information.
Mark Phelps Queensland Country Life	Receives occasional press releases and event invitations. He does not consider RIRDC as a source of "news" stories. RIRDC is a bit "esoteric" for their needs.
Lindsay Bock Acres Australia	Receives faxed press releases only – he would prefer to receive this in an e-mail format. He requested to be added to the online newsletter list. They also receive information from CSIRO whose information is exemplary. RIRDC is good. He is happy with what he currently receives from RIRDC. They seem to share information on all they are doing. They could give me more leads to farmers doing on-farm research into sustainable agriculture.
Peter Brady, Kate Dowler Stock Journal	The Stock Journal receives the online newsletter and occasionally receives press releases by fax. No comments or suggestions.
Ed Gannon, Xavier Duff, David McKenzie The Weekly Times	The Weekly Times receives press releases occasionally but does not receive the online newsletter. RIRDC is not very visible. They would prefer e-mail press releases to fax. Xavier occasionally uses the website, which is a fantastic resource for new and emerging industries. Make themselves known. It is good to get the occasional phone call.

Mark Griggs Western Magazine	Received occasional press releases but did not receive the e-mail newsletter. They rarely have space for RIRDC stories – but they are used from time to time.
Fiona Douglas National Marketplace News	They do not receive press releases but do receive the online newsletter. Information from the online newsletter is good but it tends to be too technical for their magazine. It would be useful to receive more leads to producers and articles written in ‘news’ format. The Queensland DPI provides good useful information. They send e-mail press releases with researcher interviews and jpeg images that can be scanned straight into the magazine.
Gib Wettenhall Australian Forest Grower	He has frequent personal contact with Murray who provides content for the magazine. He would like to receive the e-mail newsletter. He would also be interested in receiving all the JVAP final reports and their grower newsletter.
Tony Biggs Good Fruit and Vegetables	They occasionally receive press releases and regularly receive the online newsletter. The online newsletter is okay for an overview – but if they want more information they need to chase it. The other RDCs seem to be providing a similar service. He would like more detail up front (lots of journalists wouldn’t, but he is a professional horticulturalist). He would like copies of the Research Reports as soon as they are released and a monthly index of all material released. He prefers hard copy to e-mail.
Cameron Morse Stock and Land	He does not receive press releases but does get the e-mail newsletter. He is happy with the current service. A lot of RIRDC information is niche rather than mainstream so not so relevant. He prefers press releases by fax.