This spring, Gems & Gemology conducted a reader survey, the first in the journal’s 70-year history. The purpose was to better understand our readership so we could ensure that G&G remains relevant to the needs and interests of its audience. More than 10,600 surveys were mailed to current and former subscribers as well as GIA alumni, and we received nearly 3,500 replies, including 42% of our current subscribers from all over the world (a truly amazing response rate).

Before sharing the results, though, I’d like to thank all the respondents for taking time to provide us with valuable feedback. We needed to hear from you, and you delivered for us. I also want to congratulate to Jonathan Ng (San Gabriel, California) and Colleen Ann Murtha-Stoff (Tucson, Arizona), whose survey cards were randomly drawn to win three-year subscriptions to G&G, and lifetime subscriber Roland Schluessel (San Francisco), who chose the $200 Gem Instruments gift certificate.

Who Reads G&G?
Fifty-nine percent of the G&G subscribers who responded are male, while 39% are female (2% did not reply to this question). The mean age is just under 52 years old. Nearly 60% have subscribed for more than five years. Seventy percent are employed in the gem and jewelry industry, most for 10 years or more. The G&G reader is affluent, with a mean annual income of $90,270. (We’d like to think that reading the journal has helped them reach—and maintain—this financial success.)

Although the top occupation is retail jeweler, claimed by 38% of the respondents, our readers also include appraisers, jewelry designers, wholesalers, and lapidaries, as well as educators, research scientists, and laboratory gemologists. We were pleased to see that, in many cases, each copy delivered is read by several people.

Colored stones are the primary area of interest for 45% of the subscribers, followed by diamonds at 28%. Identification techniques, synthetics/simulants, and treatments round out the top five interest categories.

Taking Stock
Satisfaction is high, with 87% of current readers being “Very Satisfied” with G&G. When combined with “Mostly Satisfied,” the total is 99%. Sixty-eight percent of the respondents identified G&G’s articles as their primary feature of interest, followed by the Lab Notes and Gem News International sections.

Of those 13% who were not “Very Satisfied,” the chief concern was that the journal was too technical. However, this represented less than 4% of our subscriber respondents and was mentioned by less than 2% of the former subscribers as the reason they no longer subscribed (cost was the primary concern for this younger, less-affluent group, followed by the fact that they had left the profession).

We received a number of comments and suggestions with the survey responses, which we intend to explore in the months ahead. These include requests for better explanation of technical terms and new analytical equipment, as well as an “Ask the Expert” feature and more short notes on current or historical gemological developments. We will address specific questions about G&G editorial practices in future Letters sections, so we can share the information with all readers.

Among the comments were several compliments, which we hope match your experience as well:

Having your publication in my home and waiting room is tremendous to my business. It’s educational and informative even to the general public, which is also a reflection on me.

I cannot begin to enumerate the useful and critical information Gems & Gemology has brought to me, but I am grateful and I do hope that you keep up the good work.

Gems & Gemology is the most brilliantly conceived, best organized, and most beautifully executed magazine I have ever read. How do you consistently continue to produce so superbly? [Answer: A great staff and terrific contributors and reviewers.]

Looking Ahead
Now that we’ve compiled the results, we want to use the information constructively. It is evident that our readers like what is being presented in G&G, and we appear to be meeting their needs. Yet it is critical to the future of gemology that we attract more younger, less-affluent readers. We need to encourage them to continually upgrade their knowledge of gemology—and we need to help them by keeping the cost as affordable as possible. We also want to see even more retailers embrace the information in G&G. As our managing editor Tom Overton points out in his lead article this issue, there are stringent legal requirements for disclosure in the United States. The retailer must first know his or her product and then be able to communicate that information to the customer. We do not see the need to make any radical changes (a concern expressed by one long-time subscriber), but we will take these and the other results and recommendations into consideration as the journal continues to evolve.

Of course, any time you have a suggestion or an opinion you’d like to share with us, there’s no need to wait until our next G&G reader survey—just e-mail us at gandg@gia.edu. Gems & Gemology is your journal, and we want to know what works—and what doesn’t—for you.

Alice S. Keller
Editor-in-Chief