Live Discussion: get more involved with Which?

Hi Alfa, I am really keen that you continue to let us know your ideas and suggestions for ways that members and supporters can get involved in what we test and campaign on, so please do keep them coming in. We have been running several small tests over the past few months – some of which you may have seen such as asking what members would like us to test first and we’ve also invited members to come and see how we test printers, and we’d love to do lots more of this going forwards. This year’s AGM is also taking a more interactive format, so there will be lots of opportunity here to get more hands on and see how we test. For Ordinary Members we also launched ‘The Insider’ programme this year to try and bring more behind-the-scenes content forward. This has included a series of regular emails and one printed supplement. We have received really valuable feedback from members on this and will continue to evolve this based on hearing from members. If you aren’t receiving these emails, and are an Ordinary Member we can add you.

Tamsin and Jessica: I have a very simple question: why will Which? not make use of volunteers? I don’t mean simply filling out surveys, but actively taking on some of the roles within Which?.

Hi, Jessica. We have, in fact volunteered to do several things. As for examples…

1. Proof and dry-run connect surveys. That would catch any unintended faux pas before they were released

2. Assist with out of hours and weekend moderation duties. We could rota ourselves and – with training – catch any undesirable phrases or sneaked adverts.

3. Help develop ideas and topics for W? Cs.

4. Work with the testing teams on long term reliability trials. That’s something W? badly needs to address.

They’re just four examples. There are many others.

I envisage that this sort of information could be provided online and include short videos as well as the photos you suggest, Alfa.

When we complain about other on line facilities it often revolves around people who do not have online access or are not good at using it. Sometimes it is suggested many lie in the more elderly age group. I suspect many Which? members might be in that category.

It may not, of course, be that significant – or it may be. That is why I want reasonably comprehensive test reports in print, for those who just have to reach for the magazine. I am all for having a lot more comprehensive results on line – the space is available. But key information, stand alone information, should not be thus restricted with just brief tasters in the mag. We have the space – just restore the 8 missing pages. 8 missing pages?? This time last year there were 84 pages – so we seem to have lost 16 🙁 . Really? Is there a bit of hoodwinkery here?

Incidentally, Private Eye packs a huge amount into its 52 pages, each page weighing just 78% of Which? Sad to examine such things, I know. But perhaps we could save a little bit more of the planet by taking a leaf out of their mag?

Thanks wavechange, I forgot to mention videos of products in action during testing.

I agree with malcolm on product testing and also think it should be restored to the missing pages.

I hope that readers will come to recognise the opportunity to have detailed information online. It’s quick and easy to take multiple photos and informative videos. I would prefer to help readers see the advantage of looking online. For example, if you are specifically looking for a product with specific features it is easy to use the filters on the Which? website, making it easy to exclude those products of no interest. Many of the older people I know have good computer skills and there are plenty who can help the others to get up to speed. Perhaps it would be useful to include an article showing the benefits of using the website reviews and introducing the Which? Reviews app to those who have not used it.

I’m for quality not quantity in the magazine.

I’m for an informative magazine.

I don’t want a glossy for a casual coffee table read; it is not something occasional people pick up on a bookstall. I want a useful reference magazine – journal would be the word in professional communities.

I do not think it right that we should exclude those who do not have, or like, online or do not have a suitable smart phone. Just as with online banking – great for the many who want to use it, not for those who don’t. Supplementary information and useful facilities on line are fine but keep the essentials – and they can be quite comprehensive – in a proper size print publication.

Thanks for your prompt reply, Mark. I will give this some thought and be in touch soon.

Reliability surveys are too vague as model numbers are needed to give meaningful results. Nearly every brand has good and bad products.

We have offered to test-run surveys on several occasions. One major problem is they have no back button. I was interrupted during my last survey and didn’t realise until too late that I had given wrong answers, but there was nothing I could do about it.

Some questions are badly worded or missing what could be important answers. The online supermarket shopping survey missed out asking questions about Ocado so my answers gave a false impression.

Test runs could put surveys right before they go out live.

I agree, Alfa. When completing a survey it’s essential to know what information will be needed, so that we can check dates. There needs to be the opportunity to go back to correct errors or move information to a more relevant page.

As you say, most brands have both good and bad products. Clear evidence comes from the same brand having both ‘Best Buy’ and ‘Don’t Buy’ products.

Hi Mark,

The September survey was on grocery shopping.

A question was:
Which, if any, of the following online supermarkets have you bought groceries from in the last 6 months?
I ticked Asda, Ocado, Sainsbury’s and Tesco.
I selected ‘About once a week’ for shopping at Ocado, much less for the others.

The questions were then:
We would now like to ask you about shopping for groceries online with Asda / Sainsbury’s / Tesco online…

But no Ocado where I do most of my online grocery shopping.

Thankyou Mark.

Thinking about what you have said, it would seem that you are now separating the magazine from product testing in its detailed form, allowing one such test per copy. Your tests are now almost exclusively on line. I appreciate many of your “inciteful” articles and, as noted elsewhere read these with interest. It is useful to understand your intentions for the magazine, but regret that the brief tests, where you highlight products, are not that informative and I do miss the full tests that Alfa has talked about.
On another subject, there are many examples – daily- where comments in this Convo site might produce an informed reply from any one of you. This seldom happens. I outlined a recent eye appointment and hoped someone might look at the financial implication of this. Others have regularly raised issues and provided answers among themselves, almost in a vacuum. This hour -far too short and sudden – is an example of ways in which we can interact with you. Let’s have a few more.

I second a few more of these sessions Vynor. Perhaps one specifically on product testing?

Thanks Malcolm, this is really useful feedback, and all of this has definitely come up in discussions here at HQ. Hope to see you at the AGM.