royal society of literature survey of members, fellows and ......finally, the survey explores how...

Royal Society of Literature

Survey of Members, Fellows and

e-newsletter subscribers

Penny Mills & Daniel Cowley

September 2016

© The Audience Agency 2016 1

Contents

Background ................................................................................................... 3

Introduction: about the RSL and this report ........................................................... 3

Fellows, Members and subscribers ...................................................................... 4

Methodology ................................................................................................ 4

Sample size and margins of error ....................................................................... 5

Executive summary ......................................................................................... 6

1. Understanding the RSL’s audience ................................................................... 6

2. Feedback on RSL activities ............................................................................ 7

3. Future priorities ........................................................................................ 8

Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................... 10

Comment from Tim Robertson, Director, The Royal Society of Literature ....................... 11

About the audience ....................................................................................... 13

Demographics ............................................................................................. 13

Employment and income ................................................................................ 15

Place of residence ........................................................................................ 17

Compared with the UK population ..................................................................... 19

Membership ................................................................................................. 21

Motivations ................................................................................................ 21

Engagement with literature ............................................................................. 23

Members and subscribers ................................................................................ 23

Fellows’ literary forms ................................................................................... 24

Writing for children, young adults and/or adults .................................................... 25

Involvement with the RSL................................................................................ 26

Fellows ..................................................................................................... 26

Use of RSL services ....................................................................................... 29

RSL Events .................................................................................................. 30

Overall rating of RSL events ............................................................................. 30

Organisation of events ................................................................................... 31

Content of events ......................................................................................... 32

Other events ............................................................................................... 33

Potential changes to RSL events ........................................................................ 37


RSL masterclasses ......................................................................................... 39

Ratings ..................................................................................................... 39

Workshops, courses and masterclasses elsewhere ................................................... 39

RSL prizes and awards .................................................................................... 41

RSL Review magazine ..................................................................................... 43

The RSL website ........................................................................................... 46

Perceptions of the RSL ................................................................................... 48

Describing the RSL ........................................................................................ 48

Performance against the RSL’s current goals ......................................................... 49

RSL’s potential goals ..................................................................................... 51

The difference made by the RSL ....................................................................... 52


Background

Introduction: about the RSL and this report

Founded in 1820, the Royal Society of Literature (RSL) is the UK’s national charity for “the

advancement of literature”.

During 2016, the RSL is reviewing its work and making plans for its future development. As

part of the review, the Society commissioned the Audience Agency to carry out a survey of

the RSL’s Members, Fellows and e-newsletter subscribers. These groups of people

represent the Society’s core supporters, beneficiaries and audience. The survey asked

questions both about them and about their views of the RSL’s activities. The present

report summarises the findings.

The RSL has 520 Fellows – writers in all literary forms who are elected to this honorary

role in recognition of their literary achievements. The Fellows elect a Council which

governs the Society, acting as board of trustees. The Society’s activities include talks and

other public events, literary prizes, a biannual magazine, Masterclasses in creative

writing, and outreach visits to schools. Members of the public may join the Society as

paying Members, giving them free entry to the events and a range of other benefits. The

RSl’s team of 8 staff is based at Somerset House in central London.

The 2016 organisational review has been led by the RSL Council’s newly elected Chair, Lisa

Appignanesi, and recently appointed Director, Tim Robertson. The Council has considered

and discussed the survey findings in detail. A summary of the Council’s initial response is

being published on the RSL’s website in October 2016, along with this report.

Feedback

The research was an opportunity for Fellows, Members and e-newsletter subscribers to

feed back their opinions on the work of the RSL, including:

personal perceptions of the organisation,

its positioning and brand as an organisation,

the impact it has on readers and writers,

the role and impact of particular activities – e.g. events, educational work and

awards.

Understanding the audience

The research also seeks to understand to what extent the current audience represents the

breadth of those engaged with literature – in terms of demographics, form of writing, and

audience.


Future direction of the RSL

Finally, the survey explores how the current audience (in particular Fellows) would like to

be involved with the organisation and what role/s could they take to support its mission,

activities and promotion.

Fellows, Members and subscribers

The survey was distributed to a total of 6,835 people, made up of the following groups:

429 Fellows

To be a Fellow of the RSL is a unique literary honour. A writer may be invited to become

an RSL Fellows when he or she has published at least two works of outstanding literary

merit, has been nominated by two existing Fellows, and has been elected through secret

ballot at the RSL Council. Around 15 new Fellows are elected every year for their

lifetime, maintaining the total Fellowship at around 500. Fellows are entitled to use the

letters FRSL after their name, to stand for election to the RSL Council and to nominate

other writers for Fellowship. Many Fellows also engage in the RSL’s work by speaking at

events, judging for prizes or writing for the RSL Review magazine. The survey was sent to

the 429 Fellows for whom the RSL has a current email address (out of a current total of

520).

766 Members

Membership of the RSL is open to everyone for £50 a year (or £30 for under 30s, or

bespoke packages for groups). Member benefits include a free ticket for every RSL public

event, a second guest ticket for £5, and free subscription to RSL Review magazine. At the

end of June 2016, 58 of the RSL’s 766 Members were Young Members aged under 30.

5,977 E-newsletter subscribers

The RSL publishes a monthly e-newsletter, to which anyone can subscribe free of charge

via the RSL’s website www.rsliterature.org

Methodology

The research was conducted via an e-survey, to which all Fellows, Members and e-

newsletter subscribers were invited to respond. .In addition letters were sent to all

Members not on email inviting them to respond by phone.

Although the survey asked a series of questions to all respondents, most questions were

targeted towards those who had for used a particular RSL activity, or were specifically

asked of Fellows, Members, or subscribers.

http://www.rsliterature.org/


An incentive of entry into a prize draw to win a £100 first prize or £50 runner-up prize

book token was used to encourage responses from all those from whom we sought to hear,

regardless of level of engagement with the RSL.

The e-survey was open for six weeks, from 13 June to 24 July 2016, with a reminder sent

out on 18 July.

Sample size and margins of error

There were 1,001 responses in total, of which 798 were complete responses and 203

partials (i.e. the respondent didn’t complete the survey). Of these:

288 were from Members, representing 38% of the total Membership of 766;

610 were from E-newsletter subscribers, representing 10% of the total;

103 were from Fellows, representing 20% of the total Fellowship.

The margin of error differs for each result, based on the number of responses, the size of

the population (i.e. how many Fellows, Members and subscribers there are amongst the

RSL’s current audience), and the extent to which the observed response diverges from

50%, with less equivocal results having a larger margin of error. The maximum margin of

error1 for each constituency, based on number of responses, were:

Group Sample size (number of responses)

25 50 100 250 500

Fellows ±19% ±13% ±9% - -

Members ±19% ±13% ±9% ±5% -

E-newsletter subscribers ±20% ±14% ±10% ±6% ±4%

Sample sizes for each question are given below the relevant chart/graph.

Where possible, comparisons are given with the UK or England and Wales population2,

based on 2011 census data. As this data describes the entire population, sample sizes are

not given for census data.

1 The margins of error stated in the table are on the basis of seeing a result of 50% (e.g. half say yes, half say no). Where responses are more equivocal (e.g. 10% saying yes, 90% saying no) the margin of error within these results will be smaller. They use the 95% confidence level, i.e. if we ran the survey 100 times, the observed result for that question would be within the margin of error 95 times out of 100. 2 Comparisons with the full UK population are given where the data is available. Some Census questions differ between England/Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland. Where this is the case, the England/Wales figure has been given.


Executive summary

1. Understanding the RSL’s audience

The self-selecting nature of the sample (those who chose to complete the survey) means

that the demographic findings need to be read with caution.

While it is clear that the RSL reaches a diverse range of people, the findings indicate

under-representation of some groups compared with the UK population – notably people

outside London, people from Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds, and (especially

among the Fellows) younger people. The findings indicate strong representation of

women, London residents and people from higher socio-economic groups.

Demographics

In terms of gender, there is an even male/female split of respondents amongst the

Fellows (closest to the UK population profile) and a bias towards female

respondents among Members and subscribers.

Subscribers are a wider range of ages (closest to the UK population profile) than

either Members or Fellows, with Fellows having the oldest overall age profile.

Subscribers are more ethnically diverse than Members or Fellows. Overall the

profiles are less diverse in terms of Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds

compared with the UK population.

Fellows are more likely to be employed full time, Members more likely to be

retired, and subscribers more likely to be full-time students. This is broadly

reflective of the adult population of England and Wales.

Fellows have the highest annual household income, followed by Members and then

subscribers.

In the context of NS-SEC categorisation a higher than average proportion of

Fellows, Members and Subscribers fall into categories one and two – higher

managerial, administrative and professional occupations.

Over half of Fellows and Members live in London, and Subscribers represent the

highest proportion living in the rest of the UK or overseas. This reflects a

Membership database analysis undertaken by the RSL in July 2016.

Motivations for Membership

The main motivations for Membership are:

to attend RSL events (70%),


to support the charitable work of the RSL (54%) and

free subscription to RSL Review magazine (47%).

Engagement with writing

35% of Fellows are novelists and 22% biographers.

Both Members and subscribers are engaged in a range of forms of writing and over

90% read for pleasure. Around one third of Members and subscribers quote that

they have published work in newspapers, magazines or journals, around a third are

writers published in book form and around a third write for pleasure (unpublished).

Subscribers are most likely to write short stories, novels or poetry, whereas

Members’ writing also includes a wider range of non-fiction forms – biography,

history, print journalism.

Most write for adult audiences, but subscribers are slightly more likely than Fellows

and Members to write for children or young adults.

2. Feedback on RSL activities

Events

Across Fellows, Members and subscribers, most have or are engaged with one or

other of the RSL activities in line with whether they are a Member, Fellow or

Subscriber.

Overall events are rated highly and particularly valued by Members.

The content of the events is also highly rated, particularly the quality of speakers,

with Q&A with the audience lowest of the ratings.

In terms of suggestions for events, most of those suggested have attracted interest,

but, apart from a good proportion of subscribers asking for more events outside

London, a focus on emerging writers attracts the most positive responses.

To put the respondents in context, Fellows are particularly active across the public

literary events scene, although there is also a reasonable level of activity by

Members and subscribers.

Respondents felt that the RSL events were of a similar or higher quality than other

public literary events.

Awards and prizes

Relatively small proportions of Members and Subscribers have entered for RSL

prizes or awards.


The information about the awards and judges supplied in advance seems to rate

higher than the experience post-submission.

RSL Review Magazine

The RSL Review magazine is rated highly across the board, but particularly in terms

of quality of contributors and quality of writing.

In terms of the suggestions included in the survey, they are all mostly of interest

(except quizzes and games), with the news and information on events rating

highest, amongst other key themes.

Website

The website attracts particularly high ratings, especially for recordings of events,

information about RSL events and articles from RSL Review magazine.

Members and Subscribers are the highest users.

Perceptions

Overall, the most commonly chosen adjectives about RSL were prestigious (59% of

all respondents chose this word), informative (54%), London-centric (44%) and

well-organised (44%).

Fellows are more likely than subscribers to describe the RSL as prestigious.

Members are more likely than Fellows or subscribers to describe the RSL as

informative and inspiring, and more likely than subscribers to describe the

RSL as relevant and diverse.

Subscribers are more likely than Fellows or Members to describe the RSL as

elitist.

Fellows and Members are both more likely than subscribers to describe the

RSL as well-organised, welcoming, inclusive, quirky and fun.

Members and Subscribers are both more likely than Fellows to describe the

RSL as academic and contemporary.

3. Future priorities

Involvement with RSL

53% of Fellows overall do not feel very involved with RSL and 29% quite involved.

36% of Fellows feel involved with the organisation and a few would like a greater

involvement. Of those who are not very involved or not at all, over 50% say that


they would like to be a little more involved, and a smaller proportion a lot more

involved. In terms of the types of involvement suggested, there is a good response

across the areas suggested – particularly nominating writers for awards and doing

schools visits, amongst others.

RSL’s goals

In terms of current achievements, respondents feel that the RSL is especially

successful in meeting its goals of honouring and encouraging first-rate writers and

helping existing readers deepen and extend their knowledge of literature.

In terms of goals for the RSL to consider pursuing, Fellows and Members see the

highest priorities as acting as a national voice for the value of literature, and

campaigning on literary issues. Most subscribers also endorse these goals, but for

them the highest priority is supporting and encouraging emerging writers.

For Fellows the chief personal benefits of the RSL seems to be about profile and

networking; for Members and Subscribers it is about deepening and widening

engagement with literature and for Members about meeting others.


Conclusions and recommendations

Overall the work of the Royal Society of Literature is highly valued by its main constituent

groups.

A large majority of Fellows, Members and subscribers report strong levels of satisfaction

with the Society’s activities, and their perceptions of the RSL’s function are in line with

the charity’s goals. It appears that the more involved respondents are in the Society, the

more they gain from it, with more Fellows than Members reporting that the RSL has made

a difference to them, and more Members than subscribers.

Plenty of willingness is stated to be more involved, but the ideas for future directions are

very wide-ranging. This suggests that more detailed consultation and careful planning will

be needed to ensure that future initiatives succeed in meeting varied expectations and

needs.

The following points emerging from the survey may be relevant to the RSL’s future

planning:

1. There is a clear call for more activity beyond London, but any new ventures in the

RSL’s events need to be in addition to maintaining the existing highly regarded

London programme. Given that the RSL’s biggest reach outside London is through

its e-newsletter, digital developments may also be key to accessing this wider

audience.

2. There is considerable support, especially among Fellows, for the RSL to take on

more of a public advocacy or campaigning role, e.g. by acting as a voice for the

value of literature.

3. Harnessing the expressed willingness of many Fellows to be more involved in the

RSL is likely to have a cascading effect, raising the profile and prestige of the

organisation, thereby increasing the engagement of Members and the wider public.

4. Given that Members are generally more satisfied than subscribers, the RSL may

wish to enhance the journey that individuals follow through the organisation,

especially encouraging subscribers to become Members.

5. Many RSL Members and Fellows are from higher socio-economic groups. Given that

the second highest motivation for membership is “to support the charitable work of

the RSL”, these supporters may be willing to contribute to the Society’s growth by

increasing their donations.

6. Compared with the UK population, Black and Minority Ethnic people appear to be

under-represented especially among the Society’s Members and Fellows. This


carries implications for programming, outreach and potentially for the selection of

Fellows.

7. While many Members and subscribers asked for more support for emerging writers,

most of the small proportion who had attended RSL Masterclasses had also been

taught on other creative writing courses, suggesting that the RSL may be, not to

develop more direct provision of its own, but to act as a gateway to partner

organisations.

8. Some improvements can be made to the existing events programme, e.g. better

online booking and better sound systems at venues.

9. The bulk of entrants to the RSL’s awards and prizes must not be Fellows, Members

or subscribers, suggesting that this area of the Society’s work may be an effective

channel for reaching new audiences. Improvements could also be made to the post-

entry administration of the awards, and by introducing feedback to entrants.

Comment from Tim Robertson, Director, The Royal Society of Literature

All of us in the RSL team are tremendously grateful to the hundreds of people who

completed the survey. The time and thought put into the responses, together with the

detail and passion of many of the comments and suggestions, are themselves evidence of

how deeply the RSL is valued by its Fellows, Members and subscribers. We have read,

considered and discussed the findings with great care.

The report provides wealth of factual information and informed opinion to feed into the

RSL’s future planning. I am particularly excited to find support for developing a national

voice for the value of literature, as we have already identified “Literature Matters” as the

leading public theme for the RSL’s work in the build-up to our bicentenary in 2020.

We will be publishing on the RSL’s website a summary of specific responses to the findings

– including some more detailed face-to-face consultation with our Members. We hope that

this will be part of a continuing dialogue with our supporters and audience as the RSL

grows in the coming years.

We hope that the report may also be of help to other organisations in the world of

literature and the voluntary sector more broadly.

I would also like to express the RSL’s thanks to the Audience Agency, for designing,

implementing and reporting on the survey so efficiently, and to the RSL’s Communications

Manager Annette Brook for overseeing the project from our side.


About the audience

Demographics

Overall, 70% of respondents were female, 30% male. Fellows are evenly split

female:male, two thirds of Members are female, and around three quarters of subscribers

are female.

Are you...

Base: All respondents (73 / 238 / 498)

Overall, around a quarter of respondents were aged 16-39, a quarter 40-54, a quarter 55-

64, and a quarter 65+. Fellows tend to skew older, with 75% being aged 65 or older, and

subscribers tend to be younger (half being aged under 50) and Members sitting in the

middle, half being aged 40-64.

51% 49%

36%

64%

24%

76%

49% 51%

Male Female

Fellows

Members

Subscribers

UK population


Which of the following age groups do you belong to?


Two thirds of respondents identified as White British, with White Other and White Irish

being the next most commonly chosen categories. Newsletter subscribers are slightly

more ethnically diverse than Members, who are in turn slightly more ethnically diverse

than Fellows.

What is your ethnic group?


0% 0% 0% 0%

3% 3% 3% 3% 4%

10%

25%

19%

13% 13%

4%

0% 1%

4%

2%

3% 4%

8%

12% 12%

14% 15%

12%

6% 5%

1% 2%

5%

8% 8%

7%

10% 11% 12%

9%

13%

7%

4%

2% 2% 1%

5%

7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%

6% 6% 6%

5% 4%

3% 2% 2%

16 -

19

20 -

24

25 -

29

30 -

34

35 -

39

40 -

44

45 -

49

50 -

54

55 -

59

60 -

64

65 -

69

70 -

74

75 -

79

80 -

84

85 o

rold

er

Fellows

Members

Subscribers

UK adult population

72%

21%

2% 3% 0%

3%

72%

17%

2% 4%

1% 3%

64%

22%

4% 5% 3% 2%

80%

5% 2%

8% 3% 1%

Whit

e B

riti

sh

Oth

er

Whit

e b

ackgro

und

Mix

ed/m

ult

iple

eth

nic

backgro

und

Asi

an o

r Asi

an B

riti

shbackgro

und

Bla

ck/Afr

ican/Cari

bbean

backgro

und

Oth

er

eth

nic

backgro

und

Fellows

Members

Subscribers

England and Wales population


15% of respondents identified as having a limiting health problem or disability. 22% of

Fellows have a limiting disability or illness, as do 15% of Members and 13% of subscribers.

Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has

lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months?


Employment and income

63% of respondents were in employment, 20% were retired, and 6% studying full time. 3%

were unemployed or unable to work, and 3% looking after home and family.

All groups tend to be largely in full time employment or retired; compared with other

parts of the RSLs audience Fellows are more likely to be employed full time, Members

more likely to be retired, and subscribers more likely to be full-time students.

9%

14%

78%

6% 9%

85%

2%

11%

87%

9% 9%

82%

Yes, limited a lot Yes, limited a little No

Fellows

Members

Subscribers

England and Wales population


Which of the following best describes your current occupational/employment status?


Overall, around half of respondents had an annual household income of less than £35,000.

Fellows tend to have the highest income (over £60,000 for half of Fellows), followed by

Members (at least £50,000 for half of Members) and subscribers (half with a household

income of less than £30,000 per year).

What is your approximate yearly household income before tax?


73%

0%

18%

1% 0% 1% 0%

7%

57%

4%

29%

0% 2% 3% 2% 4%

64%

8%

17%

1% 2% 3% 0%

5%

62%

9% 14%

3% 2% 4% 4% 2%

Em

plo

yed (

Full-t

ime,

part

-tim

e o

r se

lf-

em

plo

yed)

Full t

ime s

tudent

Reti

red

Unem

plo

yed f

or

less

one y

ear

Unem

plo

yed f

or

more

than o

ne y

ear

Lookin

g a

fter

hom

e o

rfa

mily

Unable

to w

ork

due t

olo

ng-t

erm

illness

or

dis

abilit

y

Oth

er

Fellows

Members

Subscribers

England and Wales adult population

6%

8%

11%

15%

6% 6%

8%

6%

2%

6% 6%

2%

4%

0%

2%

15%

6%

9%

13%

15%

11%

8%

6% 5%

6%

3%

2%

3%

1% 0%

4%

10%

13%

18% 17%

14%

9%

4%

7%

3% 2%

3% 3%

1% 1% 1% 1%

3%

Less

than

£10,0

00

£10,0

00 -

£19,9

99

£20,0

00 -

£29,9

99

£30,0

00 -

£39,9

99

£40,0

00 -

£49,9

99

£50,0

00 -

£59,9

99

£60,0

00 -

£69,9

99

£70,0

00 -

£79,9

99

£80,0

00 -

£89,9

99

£90,0

00 -

£99,9

99

£100,0

00 -

£109,9

99

£110,0

00 -

£119,9

99

£120,0

00 -

£109,9

99

£130,0

00 -

£109,9

99

£140,0

00 -

£109,9

99

More

than

£150,0

00

Fellows

Members

Subscribers


NS-SEC categorises the working population into a number of groups based on the type of

work they do, or most recently did if they are retired3. Overall, 87% of respondents fell

into NS-SEC categories one and two, which cover higher managerial, administrative and

professional occupations. 10% fell into category three (small employers and own account

workers) and 3% categories four and five (Lower supervisory, technical, semi-routine and

routine occupations).

NS-SEC category (of those economically active)

Base: All respondents who are currently employed or have previously been so (57 / 205 / 428)

Place of residence

Around half of respondents live in London, four in ten elsewhere in the UK and one in ten

overseas. This is in line with an analysis of the membership database carried out by the

RSL in July 2016.

Of those who live in the UK, the membership is particularly large in London, with 60% of

UK-resident Members living in London. Fellows, Members and subscribers are similarly

distributed around the UK, with engagement generally falling as distance from London

increases.

Most overseas respondents live in English-speaking countries; sample sizes are not large

enough to look into differences between Fellows, Members and subscribers, but the top

countries of residence amongst respondents as a whole were the USA, India, Australia,

Canada and Ireland, which together accounted for 55% of respondents.

3 NS-SEC does not include those who are currently in full time education, or have never worked

81%

19%

0% 0%

83%

16%

1% 1%

89%

6%

2% 3%

57%

10% 7%

26%

1&2 Higher managerial,administrative and

professional occupations

3 Small employers andown account workers

4 Lower supervisory andtechnical occupations

5 Semi-routine androutine occupations

Fellows

Members

Subscribers

England and Wales adult population


Place of residence


Region of residence (UK residents only)


Region of residence (Overseas residents only)

53%

39%

8%

54%

35%

11%

42%

44%

14%

London Rest of UK Overseas

Fellows

Members

Subscribers

57%

15%

7%

4% 6% 6%

0% 2% 2% 2%

0% 0%

60%

15%

8% 5%

2% 2% 3%

2% 1% 1% 1% 1%

49%

15%

9% 6%

5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1%

13% 14%

9% 9% 9% 11%

7% 9% 8%

5% 4% 3%

London

South

East

East

South

West

Scotl

and

Nort

h W

est

East

Mid

lands

West

Mid

lands

York

shir

e a

nd t

he H

um

ber

Wale

s

Nort

h E

ast

Nort

hern

Ire

land

Fellows

Members

Subscribers

UK adult population



Compared with the UK population

In terms of gender, Fellows are representative of the UK population, but Members and

subscribers are significantly more likely to be female. All constituencies are significantly

older than the UK population, which is fairly flat, age-wise, up to age 70.

Compared with the population of England and Wales, all constituencies have an under-

representation of the “White British” group, offset by an over-representation of those in

the ‘White Other’ group. Overall, the RSL audience is fairly similar to the England and

Wales population in terms of disability; Fellows are slightly more likely to have a limiting

disability, Members and subscribers slightly less likely.

Fellows are more likely than the England and Wales average to be in employment, and

Members more likely to be retired. All constituencies have a larger proportion of those in

the top two NS-SEC socio-economic categories, with 87% of economically active

respondents having higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations,

compared with 57% of the England and Wales population. Those in semi-routine and

routine occupations are particularly under-represented, accounting for 2% of respondents

compared to 26% of the population.

Members, subscribers and Fellows are all much more likely to live in London than

anywhere else in the UK. The only regions which have the same proportion of those in the

4 Very small sample size; unlikely to be representative of all Fellows

40%

0%

20%

0%

33%

17%

4%

0%

33%

22%

9% 8%

Americas Asia Oceania Africa

Fellows

Members

Subscribers


RSL audience as they do a proportion of the UK population are the South East and East.

The regions which are generally most under-represented amongst the RSL’s audience are

Northern Ireland, the North East, Yorkshire and the Humber and the North West.


Membership

Of the 280 Members who responded to the survey, most (89%) had an individual

membership. 6% had a young person’s membership, 1% a patron membership and less than

1% a group membership5. This is similar to the analysis of the Member database carried

out in July 2016.

When did your current membership begin?

Base: Members (277)

Motivations

Which of the following most motivate you to be a member of the RSL?

Base: Members (277)

5 4% were unsure what type of membership they held

0% 0% 0% 4%

9%

22%

60%

4%

70%

54%

47%

13%

19%

4%

Fre

e e

ntr

y t

o R

SL

events

To s

upport

the

chari

table

work

of

the R

SL

Fre

e s

ubsc

ripti

on t

oRSL R

evie

wm

agazi

ne

Half

-pri

ce

mast

erc

lass

es

Som

eth

ing e

lse

Not

sure


Those who ticked “Something else” tended to cite a love of literature, supporting the RSL

as an institution and belonging to part of a community, attending and getting early

notification of events, and networking opportunities as motivations for membership.

Responses included:

Love of English literature and possibility of listening to interesting authors.

I live in Australia and cannot attend RSL events, but I love literature and strongly

support what the RSL stands for.

The chance to meet and talk with like-minded people.

To be a part of fellow lovers of literature and scholarship

Getting to know about upcoming events in advance of general publicity. Lifelong

love of literature.

I am an author and hoped to meet other authors at events.

Networking within the RSL membership as I'm interested in pursuing a career in

Literature.

Full responses to this question are available in the appendices.


Engagement with literature

All respondents were asked about their engagement with literature. Members and

subscribers were asked about engagement through reading, writing, professional and

personal involvement. The Fellows – who are all writers – were asked about the literary

forms in which they write. All respondents who write were also asked to identify their

main audiences – adults, young adults and/or children.

Members and subscribers

In what ways do you engage with literature, professionally or for pleasure?

Base: Members (272) / Subscribers (593)

Other ways of engaging with literature included as translator, editor, journalist, reviewer,

running reading groups, being a professional reader, and through study. Full responses to

this question are available in the appendices.

90%

34%

28%

36%

20% 19% 19%

7% 6% 7% 7% 3% 4% 3%

1% 1% 1%

9%

93%

36% 32%

27% 25% 25%

15%

8% 9% 7% 6% 7% 4% 3% 3% 2% 0%

11%

Reader

- fo

r pers

onal ple

asu

re

Wri

ter

- publish

ed in n

ew

spapers

,m

agazi

nes

or

journ

als

Wri

ter

- fo

r ple

asu

re -

unpublish

ed/unpro

duced

Wri

ter

- publish

ed b

y a

publish

er

in b

ook

form

Reader

- as

part

of

a c

ours

e o

f st

udy

Wri

ter

- publish

ed o

nline

Academ

ic o

r le

ctu

rer

in f

urt

her

or

hig

her

educati

on

Wri

ter

- pro

duced o

n s

tage

School te

acher

Wri

ter

- pro

duced o

n r

adio

Wri

ter

- se

lf-p

ublish

ed in b

ook f

orm

Sta

ff in a

lit

era

ture

org

anis

ati

on

Publish

er

Wri

ter

- pro

duced o

n s

cre

en

Lib

rari

an

Bookse

ller

Lit

era

ry a

gent

In a

noth

er

way

Members

Subscribers


(Of those who engage through writing) Which of the following forms of literature do you

write?

Base: Members (181) / Subscribers (417)

Other forms of literature included children’s books, literary criticism, essays, micro and

flash fiction, academic articles and texts, and memoir. Full responses to this question are

available in the appendices.

Fellows’ literary forms

Which of the following forms of literature do you write? And of these, which would you

say are the primary forms in which you write?

Base: Fellows (95)

46% 48%

37% 38%

21%

29%

18% 22%

16%

7% 9% 11%

7%

2%

13%

64%

55%

47%

27%

33%

20% 17%

13% 13% 13% 11%

9% 11%

2%

10%

Short

sto

ries

Novels

Poetr

y

Oth

er

non-

ficti

on

Blo

gs

or

oth

er

online

Pri

nt

journ

alism

Sta

ge p

lays

Bio

gra

phy

His

tory

Tra

nsl

ati

on

Scre

en p

lays

Tra

vel

Radio

pla

ys

Gra

phic

ficti

on

Oth

er

Members

Subscribers

35%

22%

15% 14% 14% 11% 9%

5% 5% 4% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1%

11%

19%

16% 15%

6%

34%

21%

7% 6% 8% 7%

3% 4% 0%

5%

Novels

Bio

gra

phy

Oth

er

non-f

icti

on

Poetr

y

His

tory

Pri

nt

journ

alism

Short

sto

ries

Tra

nsl

ati

on

Sta

ge p

lays

Scre

enpla

ys

Tra

vel

Blo

gs

or

oth

er

online

Radio

pla

ys

Gra

phic

fic

tion

Oth

er

Secondary form(s)

Primary form(s)


Writing for children, young adults and/or adults

Not only do subscribers tend to write in more forms than Members or Fellows, and they

tend to write for a wider audience – i.e. they are more likely to write for children/young

adults as well as adults.

(Of those who write) Of those forms in which you write, is your main audience…

Base: Members who write (73) / E-newsletter subscribers who write (161) / Fellows (95)6

6 Question only asked of Members and e-newsletter subscribers for latter period of survey

Adult, 98% Adult, 97% Adult, 99%

Young adult, 2% Young adult, 19%

Young adult, 24% Children, 5%

Children, 5%

Children, 17%

Fellows Members Subscribers


Involvement with the RSL

Fellows were asked about their current, and desired, level of involvement with the RSL.

All respondents were asked which of the RSL’s activities they had used:

Events

Masterclasses

Prizes and awards

RSL Review magazine

The RSL website

For each activity used, respondents were then asked additional questions about their

experience and views.

Fellows

As a Fellow, how involved do you feel with the RSL's work?

Base: Fellows (90)

Would you like more or less involvement? by level of involvement

7%

29%

53%

11% Very involved

Quite involved

Not very involved

Not at all involved


Base: Fellows (6 / 25 / 48 / 10)

17%

16%

10%

10%

17%

24%

54%

50%

67%

60%

35%

40%

Veryinvolved

Quiteinvolved

Not veryinvolved

Not at allinvolved

Much more A little more It's about right at the moment A little less Much less


In which of the following ways might you like to be more involved?

Base: Fellows who would like to be more involved (45)

58%

47% 47%

42% 40%

27% 27% 24% 24%

18%

13%

Nom

inati

ng w

rite

rs t

o b

ecom

eFellow

s

Carr

yin

g o

ut

a R

SL s

chools

vis

it

Contr

ibuti

ng ideas

to t

he R

SL's

develo

pm

ent

Main

tain

ing a

pro

file

about

your

work

on t

he R

SL w

ebsi

te

Pro

posi

ng a

nd c

ura

ting a

n e

vent

for

the R

SL e

vents

pro

gra

mm

e

Sta

ndin

g f

or

ele

cti

on t

o R

SL C

ouncil

Help

ing w

ith R

SL f

undra

isin

g e

.g.

by

meeti

ng d

onors

at

a d

inner

or

event

Guest

-edit

ing a

n iss

ue o

f th

e R

SL

Revie

w m

agazi

ne

Wri

ting a

guest

blo

g f

or

the R

SL

websi

te

Bein

g involv

ed w

ith t

he R

SL in

anoth

er

way

Speakin

g t

o t

he m

edia

on b

ehalf

of

the R

SL


Use of RSL services


69%

57%

85%

76%

11% 10%

63%

14%

3%

27%

8% 6%

61%

35%

81%

32%

9%

2%

31%

7%

1%

6% 5% 5%

68%

76%

85%

72%

21%

15%

27%

17%

9%

3% 0%

3%

59%

63%

79%

48%

17%

6%

12%

9%

3% 1% 0%

3%

79%

73%

21%

33%

27%

19%

2%

11%

3% 2% 0%

6%

75%

57%

13% 12%

21%

11%

0%

4% 1% 0% 0%

5%

Read t

he R

SL M

onth

lyE-N

ew

slett

er

Vis

ited t

he R

SL

websi

te

Read R

SL R

evie

wm

agazi

ne

Att

ended a

RSL p

ublic

event

Follow

ed t

he R

SL o

nso

cia

l m

edia

Ente

red a

RSL p

rize o

raw

ard

Att

ended t

he R

SL

AG

M/su

mm

er

part

y

Lis

tened t

o a

RSL

audio

record

ing

Att

ended a

RSL

wri

ting M

ast

erc

lass

Oth

er

RSL a

cti

vit

y

Been p

art

of

a R

SL

school vis

it

I have n

ot

taken p

art

in a

ny R

SL a

cti

vit

ies

Fellows - ever done

Fellows - done in past 12 months

Members - ever done

Members - done in past 12 months

Subscribers - ever done

Subscribers - done in past 12 months


RSL Events

49% of respondents had been to a public RSL event before, and 27% in the last 12 months.

Members were the most likely to have been to an event in the last 12 months (51%),

followed by Fellows (36%) and subscribers (13%).

Overall rating of RSL events

Events were rated highly across the board, although tend to be most highly rated by

Members, followed by subscribers and Fellows.

How would you rate our events overall?

Base: All respondents who have attended an RSL event in the past 12 months (23 / 125 / 66)

48%

52%

0% 0% 0%

62%

34%

4%

0% 0%

58%

41%

2% 0% 0%

Very

good

Good

Neit

her

good n

or

poor

Poor

Very

poor

Fellows

Members

Subscribers


Organisation of events

Overall, information about RSL events is rated most highly, followed by location and ticket

prices. Although still generally favourably rated, post-event drinks and at-event book

sales are the least highly rated elements of events’ organisation.

For each of the following areas, how would you rate the overall organisation of our

events?

Base: All respondents who have attended an RSL event in the past 12 months (207-218)

Fellows, Members and subscribers who had been to RSL events tended to rate the

elements of events organisation fairly similarly. Notable exceptions were that Fellows

tended to rate post-event drinks, venue location and comfort and facilities at the venues

less favourably than Members or subscribers, and Members tended to rate sound at venues

less favourably than Fellows or subscribers. Subscribers tended to rate most elements

more favourably than Members or Fellows.

21%

21%

29%

32%

38%

45%

53%

47%

36%

45%

48%

47%

48%

43%

37%

49%

18%

9%

20%

18%

10%

8%

9%

22%

23%

Post-event drinks reception(s)

Book sales at the event(s)

Sound at venue(s)

Comfort and facilities at venue(s)

The booking process

Ticket prices

Location of venue(s)

Accurate information about the event(s)

Very good Good Mixed Poor Very poor Don't know


% Good or very good (not including don’t know)

Base: All respondents who have attended an RSL event in the past 12 months, excluding “Don’t know” (13-26

/ 100-125 / 40-66)

Content of events

Looking at the content of events, the quality of speakers is particularly highly rated, with

90% of respondents rating this element as very good or good. Q&As are less highly rated,

although still receive positive ratings from 73% of respondents.

For each of the following areas, how would you rate the overall content of our events?

Base: All respondents who have attended an RSL event in the past 12 months (216-219)

96%

89%

99%

85%

89%

86%

83%

75%

99%

93%

89%

89%

84%

78%

72%

76%

96%

89%

73%

91%

100%

72%

88%

59%

Accurate information about the event(s)

Ticket prices

Location of venue(s)

The booking process

Book sales at the event(s)

Comfort and facilities at venue(s)

Sound at venue(s)

Post-event drinks reception(s)


29%

42%

43%

47%

54%

44%

40%

39%

40%

36%

24%

16%

17%

12%

9%

Q&A with the audience

Chairing of the event(s)

Quality of discussion, talk or othercontent

Choice of topic(s)

Quality of speakers



As with the organisation of events, Fellows, Members and subscribers tended to rate the

content of events fairly similarly. The main differences amongst the three constituencies

were that Fellows tended to rate Q&As less favourably, and Members tended to the quality

of discussion, talk more other content less favourably. Again, subscribers generally rated

most elements more highly than Members or Fellows.

% Good or very good (not including don’t know)

Base: All respondents who have attended an RSL event in the past 12 months, excluding “Don’t know” (26 /

122-125 / 62-67)

Respondents were asked to suggest possible improvements to the organisation and content

of events. As the feedback was quite varied and often specific, responses are not easily

categorise able and so would be worth reading in full (see the appendices). However,

there were some common themes with regards the topics of future events, including

poetry, non-fiction, advice and “how-to” workshops, genre fiction, history and historical

fiction.

Other events

Over 90% of respondents had been to a public literary event before – 95% of Fellows, 93%

of Members and 89% of subscribers. Events at universities were most commonly attended

(50% of all respondents having be to a literary event at a university before), followed by

Waterstones (47%), local libraries (40%) and Southbank Centre (38%).

94%

85%

82%

88%

82%

89%

89%

83%

79%

73%

92%

89%

85%

85%

65%

Quality of speakers

Choice of topic(s)

Chairing of the event(s)

Quality of discussion, talk or other content

Q&A with the audience



Although Fellows were most likely to have attended all the listed events, some differences were found between subscribers and Members.

Members were marginally more likely to have been to events in general, in particular Hay, King’s Place, Society of Authors and Guardian

events, whilst subscribers were more likely to have attended events at local libraries.

Have you ever been to a public literary event run by any of the following?


Other literary festivals often cited by respondents included Oxford, Charleston, Bath, Aldeburgh Poetry Festival, Cambridge, Ilkley,

Brighton, Manchester, Ledbury, Stoke Newington and Way With Words.

78%

70%

55% 54%

72%

63%

43% 43%

34%

53%

71%

28% 31%

43%

29%

11%

72%

65%

27%

5%

48% 47%

31%

37%

22% 26%

28%

20% 25%

17% 14%

17% 12%

18%

12% 8%

40% 41%

19%

7%

47% 44%

42%

36%

18% 18% 20% 20% 19% 15%

13% 16%

14%

8% 11% 10%

40% 38%

24%

11%

A u

niv

ers

ity

Wate

rsto

nes

A local libra

ry

South

bank C

entr

e

Edin

burg

h B

ook F

est

ival

Hay L

itera

ry F

est

ival

Kin

gs

Pla

ce

London R

evie

w o

f Books

The G

uard

ian

English

PEN

Chelt

enham

Lit

era

ryFest

ival

The P

oetr

y S

ocie

ty

Fre

e W

ord

Centr

e

Socie

ty o

f Auth

ors

Faber

& F

aber

Spre

ad t

he W

ord

Anoth

er

lite

rary

fest

ival

Anoth

er

booksh

op

Anoth

er

org

anis

ati

on

I've n

ever

been t

o a

public

lite

ratu

re e

vent

Fellows

Members

Subscribers


Respondents generally felt that RSL events were of similar quality or slightly better than

other public literary events they had been to. Fellows are most likely to consider RSL

events better than others they’ve attended, followed by Members and subscribers.

Overall, how would you say our events compare to others you've been to?

Base: All respondents who have been to an RSL event in the last 12 months and been to an event organised by

someone else (20 / 112 / 59)

Those who said other events tended to be better tended to comment on other events

having a stronger social element or being more fun. For example, respondents felt that at

other events:

There is more of a sense of occasion and a better ambience in which to mingle

Member

They're varied obviously so some are worse, some better. But those that are better

are more surprising 'outside the box', warmer, less sure of their own superiority and

trying harder to engage with the audience and have a meaningful communication

between speaker and listeners

Subscriber

Whereas by contrast:

To be brutally honest, I find RSL events can be a bit dry and overly cerebral. Let's

have more fun!

Member

RSL very sedate and overly civilised!

Member

0%

5%

50%

40%

5%

1%

12%

50%

25%

13%

2%

7%

71%

17%

3%

Others tend to bemuch better

Others tend to be abit better

They're fairlysimilar in quality

RSL events tend tobe a bit better

RSL events tend tobe much better

Fellows

Members

Subscribers


Of those who said RSL events tended to be better, common themes included the quality of

speakers, the quality of discussion, and good organisation:

Well prepared chairs, high quality of conversation

Fellow

Obviously literary events vary in quality, and in general I find they are excellent,

but with the RSL I have never had a dud - every single one I've seen has been

brilliant - with an interesting combination of speakers who have complementary

takes on the topic.

Member

The calibre of subjects and speakers.

Member

Higher quality speakers, more intelligent questions

Subscriber

The quality of the discussion seems to be generally very high, whereas other events

can be more inconsistent in their quality.

Subscriber

They seem to run smoothly and are very well curated. The atmosphere is usually

pretty good too.

Subscriber

Quality of speakers and organization of events

Member

Full responses to these questions are available in the appendices.


Potential changes to RSL events

To what extent would you support the following ideas for developing RSL events?

Overall, the most popular potential changes to the RSL events programme are more events on emerging writers or new literary forms, more

lectures by individual speakers, and more events on literature from overseas. That being said, all suggestions bar “For and against” debate

format with audience vote and events for children gained support from at least half of respondents. This suggests generally support for

changes to the programme (at least to the extent this is possible without having a detrimental impact on the current offer).

Base: All respondents (757-822)

15%

19%

20%

22%

24%

27%

27%

40%

31%

32%

39%

30%

28%

36%

37%

36%

43%

48%

25%

42%

49%

40%

39%

46%

38%

36%

34%

26%

24%

30%

25%

19%

20%

13%

6%

5%

3%

5%

3%

2%

4%

2%

1%

1%

3% For and against debate format with audience vote

Events for children

Daytime events

Experimental event format (e.g. interactive)

More introductory events for those new to literature

"Desert Island Books" interview on stage with a new RSLFellow

Seasons or series exploring a topic over several events

Events outside London

More events on literature from overseas

More lectures by individual speakers

More events on emerging writers or new literary forms

Strongly support Support Neither support or oppose Oppose Strongly oppose


% Support or strongly support

Base: All respondents (58-73 / 210-239 / 468-511)

Fellows, Members and subscribers tended to support broadly the same ideas for developing the events programme. The most notable

difference between these three groups was, perhaps unsurprisingly given their broader geographical spread, subscribers being most

supportive of having more events outside London. Members were notably keener on introductory events for those new to literature, and

Fellows particularly supported more lectures by individual speakers.

Respondents were also asked for their own ideas for future RSL events; the results are too wide to summarise in this report, but full

responses are available in the appendices.

63% 66%

71%

66%

72% 74%

42%

47%

38% 37% 34%

87%

78%

72% 71%

77%

57% 52%

55% 56%

41% 44%

79% 79%

74% 74%

63% 65% 65%

59% 57%

47% 45%

More

lectu

res

by

indiv

idual sp

eakers

More

events

on

em

erg

ing w

rite

rsor

new

lit

era

ryfo

rms

More

events

on

lite

ratu

re f

rom

overs

eas

Seaso

ns

or

seri

es

explo

ring a

topic

over

severa

l events

"Dese

rt Isl

and

Books"

inte

rvie

won s

tage w

ith a

new

RSL F

ellow

Events

outs

ide

London

More

intr

oducto

ryevents

for

those

new

to lit

era

ture

Experi

menta

levent

form

at

(e.g

.in

tera

cti

ve)

Dayti

me e

vents

Events

for

childre

n

For

and a

gain

stdebate

form

at

wit

h a

udie

nce v

ote

Fellows

Members

Subscribers


RSL masterclasses

5% of respondents had been to an RSL writing Masterclass before, and 1% in the last 12

months. Members were the most likely to have been to a Masterclass in the last 12

months (3%), followed by Fellows and subscribers (both 1%).

Ratings

As only 11 respondents answered these questions, the findings should be taken only as

indicative. Of the eleven responses:

9 rate RSL masterclasses “Very good” overall, 1 “Good” and 1 “Neither good nor

poor”

The elements we explored (location, comfort and facilities, value for money,

quality of tutor, usefulness, balance of teaching and participation, length of class)

were generally rated favourably

Quality of tutor most highly rated – all 11 rated this element Very Good (8 people)

or Good (3 people)

Only one negative response, re: location of venue and comfort and facilities at

venue.

Of the nine respondents who had taken part in an RSL Masterclass and also been taught

writing elsewhere, the majority said the experience was fairly similar at each.

Workshops, courses and masterclasses elsewhere

Over half of respondents had been taught writing, most commonly at university (28%).

15% had been taught writing at an Arvon Foundation course and 8% at City Lit.

Fellows are least likely to have been taught writing (27%), and subscribers most likely

(59%), although Fellows are the most likely group to have been on an Arvon Foundation

course/retreat (23% having done so).


Have you ever been taught writing at any of the following?


The most oft-cited universities were UEA, Open University, Oxford, Cambridge, UCL,

Birkbeck, Manchester, and Goldsmiths. Morley College was the most common adult

education college, Full responses to this question are available in the appendices.

15%

23%

5% 3%

2% 2% 3%

6% 8%

2%

8%

73%

26%

13%

8% 9%

3% 3% 2% 4% 4%

1%

15%

51%

31%

14%

10% 9% 5% 5% 4%

3% 2% 0%

22%

41%

Univ

ers

ity

The A

rvon

Foundati

on

Adult

Educati

on

College

Cit

y L

it

Spre

ad t

he W

ord

The P

oetr

y S

chool

South

bank C

entr

e

Faber

and F

aber

The G

uard

ian

Royal Lit

era

ry F

und

Som

ew

here

els

e

No,

I've n

ever

att

ended a

noth

er

wri

ting c

lass

Fellows

Members

Subscribers


RSL prizes and awards

Members and subscribers were asked about their experiences of RSL prizes and awards.

17% of these respondents had entered an RSL prize or award, and 9% in the last 12 months.

Subscribers were the most likely to have entered in the last 12 months (12% having done

so), followed by Members (6%) and Fellows (3%).

The V.S Pritchett Memorial Prize was the most widely entered, at similar levels amongst

Members and subscribers. Members are more likely than subscribers to enter the other

three awards/prizes.

Which RSL prize(s) or award(s) have you entered?

Base: All respondents who have entered an RSL prize or award (14 / 60)

Members tend to have a better experience of RSL prizes and awards than subscribers, with

72% reporting their experience as being good or very good, compared with 56% of

subscribers.

Overall, how would you rate your experience of entering an RSL prize or award?

Base: All respondents who have entered an RSL prize or award (14 / 59)

86%

36%

7%

14%

87%

22%

3% 2%

V.S. Pritchet MemorialPrize (for short stories)

RSL Brookleaze Grant RSL Jerwood Awards forNon-Fiction

RSL Ondaatje Prize

Members

Subscribers

36%

14%

36%

42%

29%

39% 3%

Members

Subscribers

Very good Good Neither good nor poor Poor Very poor


For each of the following areas, how would you rate the RSL prize or award you entered?

Base: All Members and subscribers who have entered an RSL prize or award (62-73)

7%

28%

30%

36%

11%

8%

37%

32%

52%

52%

17%

5%

23%

8%

8%

8%

21%

16%

35%

84%

11%

32%

8%

Feedback on your entry

The prize-giving event (if attended)

Information about progress of yourentry

Quality of judges

Level of prize money available

Clarity of guidance and entryprocess



RSL Review magazine

45% of respondents have read RSL Review before, and 43% in the last 12 months. Fellows

were the most likely to have read it in the last 12 months (91% having done so), followed

by Members (85%) and subscribers (15%).

Although all elements of RSL Review were rated favourably, respondents rate the calibre

of contributors and quality of writing particular highly.

For each of the following areas, how would you rate the RSL Review magazine?

Base: All Members and subscribers who have read RSL Review in the past 12 months (256-263)

The elements above were rated fairly similarly by Members and subscribers (who read RSL

Review); the only notable difference was in the calibre of contributors, with 93% of

Members rating this element good or very good vs. 82% of subscribers.

25%

33%

35%

37%

41%

49%

55%

40%

53%

50%

47%

47%

44%

36%

16%

11%

14%

14%

10%

6%

8%

17% Space given to obituaries

Information about the RSL and itsactivities

Quality of images and illustrations

The topics covered

Quality of design and print

Quality of writing

Calibre of contributors



To what extent would you support the following ideas for developing the RSL Review magazine?

Base: All Members and subscribers who have read RSL Review in the past 12 months (233-254)

7%

12%

25%

25%

27%

26%

36%

24%

32%

34%

32%

15%

40%

38%

44%

40%

45%

28%

49%

42%

40%

49%

39%

38%

31%

29%

31%

24%

28%

26%

21%

25%

17%

27%

9%

6%

4%

7%

4%

11% Quizzes or games

Letters from readers

Longer, more in-depth articles

RSL Fellows as guest editors

More articles on literature from overseas

More new writing

More frequently than twice a year

More about the RSL and its activities

Quick recommendations of what to read

More articles on emerging writers or new literary forms

More about other literary events and news

Strongly support Support Neither oppose or support Oppose Strongly oppose


Members and subscribers were also fairly similar in the extent to which they supported the

various ideas for developing RSL Review. There were four notable areas which subscribers

supported more strongly than Members:

Quizzes and games (38% of subscribers support this idea, vs. 17% of Members)

More articles on literature from overseas(78% of subscribers vs. 63% of Members)

Longer, more in-depth articles(71% of subscribers vs. 60% of Members)

Letters from readers (49% of subscribers vs. 59% of Members)


The RSL website

73% of respondents had visited the website, and 63% in the last 12 months, with Members

being the most likely to have visited in the last 12 months (68% having done so), followed

by subscribers (64%) and Fellows (40%).

Members and subscribers were asked further questions about how they use the website.

Overall, the most common use was to find information about RSL events, prizes and

activities, followed by news items. Members and subscribers tend to use the website in

similar ways, although Members are more likely to use it to book events, find out

information about Fellows, and listen to audio of RSL events; subscribers are more likely

to use it for reading news items.

Which areas or features of the website have you read or used?

Base: All Members and subscribers who have used the RSL website in the past 12 months (150 / 299)

Respondents were asked to rate all the elements of the website which they had used in

the past 12 months. All elements were rated positively, although the top rated were

audio recordings, information about RSL events, prizes and activities, and articles from

RSL Review.

91%

53% 49%

65%

31%

22%

29%

22%

49%

14%

1%

88%

65%

39%

27% 32%

29% 23% 23%

5%

13%

2%

Info

rmati

on a

bout

RSL e

vents

, pri

zes

and a

cti

vit

ies

New

s it

em

s

Info

rmati

on a

bout

RSL F

ellow

s

Bookin

g e

vents

Art

icle

s fr

om

RSL

Revie

w m

agazi

ne

Readin

g G

roup

Recom

mendati

ons

featu

re

Audio

record

ings

of

RSL e

vents

Fellow

of

the M

onth

featu

re

Renew

ing

mem

bers

hip

Film

s of

tips

from

RSL

Mast

erc

lass

es

Oth

er

are

a(s

) or

featu

re(s

)

Members

Subscribers


For each of the following areas, how would you rate the RSL website?

Base: All Members and subscribers who have used that element of the RSL website in the past 12 months (58-

391)

Members and subscribers rated all areas of the website similarly. The biggest differences

were found around films of tips from RSL masterclasses (86% of Members rated this

element good or very good vs. 78% of subscribers) and the Reading Group

Recommendations feature, rated positively by 82% of subscribers and 76% of Members.

27%

31%

25%

26%

27%

30%

33%

37%

37%

38%

44%

48%

56%

55%

60%

59%

56%

51%

56%

56%

21%

15%

15%

12%

11%

8%

6%

10%

7%

5%

6% Renewing membership

Booking events

Reading Group Recommendations…

Films of tips from RSL Masterclasses

News items

Fellow of the Month feature

Information about RSL Fellows

Articles from RSL Review magazine

Information about RSL events,…

Audio recordings of RSL events



Perceptions of the RSL

Describing the RSL

All respondents were shown a list of 24 adjectives and asked to choose as many as they

felt could be used to describe the RSL.

Overall, the most commonly chosen adjectives were prestigious (59% of all respondents

choosing this word), informative (54%), London-centric (44%) and well-organised (44%).

Which of the following words would you use to describe the RSL?

Base: All respondents (825

There were some marked differences between how Fellows, Members, and subscribers

responded to this question, as follows:

Fellows are more likely than subscribers to describe the RSL as prestigious

Members are more likely than Fellows or subscribers to describe the RSL as

informative and inspiring, and more likely than subscribers to describe the

RSL as relevant and diverse

Subscribers are more likely than Fellows or Members to describe the RSL as

elitist

Fellows and Members are both more likely than subscribers to describe the

RSL as well-organised, welcoming, inclusive, quirky and fun

Members and subscribers are both more likely than Fellows to describe the

RSL as academic and contemporary

Base: Fellows (75) Base: Members (241 Base: Subscribers (509)


Which of the following words would

you use to describe the RSL? All Fellows Members

E-newsletter

subscribers

Prestigious 59% 72% 59% 57%

Informative 54% 44% 62% 52%

London-centric 44% 48% 46% 43%

Well-organised 41% 48% 52% 34%

Academic 38% 12% 36% 42%

Welcoming 36% 52% 54% 26%

Authoritative 35% 31% 37% 35%

Inspiring 30% 19% 40% 28%

Relevant 29% 28% 37% 26%

High-profile 27% 33% 23% 28%

Old-fashioned 23% 15% 22% 25%

Elitist 22% 17% 17% 25%

Contemporary 19% 8% 20% 20%

Cliquey 19% 23% 18% 18%

National 19% 24% 18% 18%

Diverse 17% 15% 24% 14%

Exciting 14% 17% 18% 12%

Inclusive 14% 21% 21% 9%

Quirky 10% 17% 15% 6%

Innovative 9% 7% 10% 8%

Fun 9% 19% 11% 6%

Invisible 7% 8% 10% 6%

Amateurish 3% 5% 4% 2%

Disorganised 2% 1% 3% 2%

Base 825 75 241 509

Performance against the RSL’s current goals

Respondents generally thought the RSL was achieving its current goals, in particular

around honouring and encouraging first-rate writers. Overall, the goals against which

respondents felt the RSL was performing least well were providing a way in for people new

to reading literature and encouraging reading of literature from overseas.


How well do you think the RSL is doing against its goals listed below?

Base: All respondents (606-697)

Although Fellows, Members and subscribers all tended to rank RSL’s progress against their

goals similarly, there were some notable difference. Fellows generally rated the

organisation’s performance against its goals most highly, followed by Members and

subscribers. This patterns is seen most strongly for the goals “Encouraging reading of new

literature by living writers”, “Honouring and encouraging first-rate writers, e.g. through

Fellowships and prizes” and “Supporting and encouraging emerging writers”.

11%

11%

15%

18%

19%

26%

37%

31%

39%

49%

45%

55%

49%

50%

38%

38%

25%

28%

20%

19%

11%

17%

10%

10%

8%

5%

5%

2%

Providing a way in for people newto reading literature

Encouraging reading of literaturefrom overseas

Supporting and encouragingemerging writers

Encouraging reading of classicliterature from the past

Encouraging reading of newliterature by living writers

Helping existing readers deepen orextend their knowledge of

literature

Honouring and encouraging first-rate writers, e.g. through

Fellowships and prizes

Very well Quite well Neither well nor poorly Quite poorly Very poorly


How well do you think the RSL is doing against its goals listed below? (% very well or quite

well)

Base: All respondents (68-71 / 232-237 / 495-505)

RSL’s potential goals

All respondents were asked about the relative importance of goals for the RSL to pursue in

the future. Those considered most important overall were acting as a national voice for

the value of literature, campaigning on literary issues, supporting and encouraging

emerging writers, and raising discussion about literature in the media or wider society.

Each of these goals was selected as among the top five most important goals for the RSL

by at least half of respondents.

84%

68%

76%

57% 60%

45%

31%

80%

72% 69%

57% 54%

43%

36%

67%

61% 60%

48% 45%

36%

30%

Honouri

ng a

nd e

ncoura

gin

gfi

rst-

rate

wri

ters

, e.g

. th

rough

Fellow

ship

s and p

rize

s

Help

ing e

xis

ting r

eaders

deepen o

r exte

nd t

heir

know

ledge o

f lite

ratu

re

Encoura

gin

g r

eadin

g o

f new

lite

ratu

re b

y liv

ing w

rite

rs

Encoura

gin

g r

eadin

g o

f cla

ssic

lite

ratu

re f

rom

the p

ast

Support

ing a

nd e

ncoura

gin

gem

erg

ing w

rite

rs

Encoura

gin

g r

eadin

g o

flite

ratu

re f

rom

overs

eas

Pro

vid

ing a

way in f

or

people

new

to r

eadin

g l

itera

ture

Fellows

Members

Subscribers


And which of these do you think are most important for the RSL to pursue?


Fellows were more likely than either subscribers or Members to feel that acting as a

national voice for the value of literature, campaigning on literary issues and honouring and

encouraging first-rate writers should be amongst the most important goals for the RSL.

Subscribers were more likely than Fellows or Members to favour the RSL supporting and

encouraging emerging writers and providing a way in for people new to literature.

Members tended to sit somewhere between Fellows and subscribers on this topic.

The difference made by the RSL

Respondents were also asked what difference the RSL had made to them personally.

Overall, 39% said the RSL had introduced them to new books, and 34% that it had

deepened their appreciation for books; 32% said it hadn’t made a difference to them.

84%

72%

34%

54%

65%

30%

45%

16%

30% 33%

75%

57% 56%

51%

56% 53%

44%

29%

36%

23%

61% 64% 65%

51%

46% 44% 45%

39%

26% 29%

Acti

ng a

s a n

ati

onal voic

e f

or

the v

alu

e o

flite

ratu

re

Cam

paig

nin

g o

n lit

era

ry iss

ues,

e.g

. libra

ryclo

sure

s, w

rite

rs' p

ay,

freedom

of

speech

Support

ing a

nd e

ncoura

gin

g e

merg

ing

wri

ters

Rais

ing d

iscuss

ion a

bout

lite

ratu

re in t

he

media

or

wid

er

socie

ty

Honouri

ng a

nd e

ncoura

gin

g f

irst

-rate

wri

ters

Help

ing e

xis

ting r

eaders

deepen o

r exte

nd

their

know

ledge o

f lite

ratu

re

Encoura

gin

g r

eadin

g o

f new

lit

era

ture

by

livin

g w

rite

rs

Pro

vid

ing a

way in f

or

people

new

to

readin

g l

itera

ture

Encoura

gin

g r

eadin

g o

f cla

ssic

lit

era

ture

from

the p

ast

Encoura

gin

g r

eadin

g o

f lite

ratu

re f

rom

overs

eas

Fellows

Members

Subscribers


What difference has the RSL made to you?


For this question, the differences between Fellows, Members and subscribers were stark.

More than half of Members felt the RSL had made a difference by introducing them to new

books to read and deepening their appreciation for books they have already read,

compared to just under a third of Fellows and between a third and a quarter of

subscribers. Members were also more likely than Fellows or subscribers to have found

their skills as a writer have developed thanks to the RSL.

Fellows had the broadest range of areas in which the RSL had made a difference, with

between a quarter and a third of Members selecting all but two areas. Members were

notably more likely to have felt the RSL made a difference to them through giving new

networks and contacts and helping increase their public profile.

On almost all counts subscribers were less likely than Fellows or Members to have found

that the RSL made a difference to them personally, and 41% felt the RSL had not made a

difference to them. Of those for whom the RSL had a made a difference, this was mostly

felt in terms of introducing them to new books to read and deepening their appreciation

for books they have already read.

31% 32%

33% 31%

4%

33%

21% 24%

54% 51%

39%

14% 17%

3%

13%

17%

33%

26%

19%

8% 7%

1%

7%

41%

Intr

oduced m

e t

o n

ew

books

to r

ead

Deepened m

y a

ppre

cia

tion

of

books

I have a

lready

read

As

a r

eader,

bro

ught

me

into

conta

ct

wit

h o

ther

lite

ratu

re lovers

As

a w

rite

r, g

iven m

e n

ew

netw

ork

s and c

onta

cts

As

a w

rite

r, d

evelo

ped m

ysk

ills

As

a w

rite

r, h

elp

ed

incre

ase

my p

ublic p

rofi

le

The R

SL h

as

made a

dif

fere

nce t

o m

e in

anoth

er

way

The R

SL h

asn

't m

ade a

dif

fere

nce t

o m

e

Fellows

Members

Subscribers


Contacts

London Office

2nd Floor, Rich Mix

35-47 Bethnal Green Road

London E1 6LA

T 020 7407 4625

Manchester Office

Green Fish Resource Centre

46–50 Oldham Street

Northern Quarter

Manchester M4 1LE

T 0161 234 2955

[email protected]

www.theaudienceagency.org

Registered in England & Wales 8117915

Registered Charity No. 1149979

royal society of literature survey of members, fellows and ......finally, the survey explores how...

Documents