Thanks to everyone who participated in this! Just under 100 members responded which is great.
It really helps me to see whether what I am doing is hitting the mark and there are lots of good ideas for improvements too.
A more detailed breakdown is available in the members area, but I’ve created a public key point summary as I think it’s nice for people thinking of joining to be able to see what members think.
Results - Satisfaction
Overall Member Satisfaction
This is a fantastic average overall rating of 4.7 out of 5 and whilst the aim is a perfect 5/5 we know as traders that we can’t get everything right. But I can keep trying.
I’ve put countless hours into growing this site so it really means a lot to know it’s generally doing the right things. Thank you.
Layout and Presentation is Good:
Site is fast with few technical problems
I trust FIT to act in best interest of members
Level of Detail is:
Quality of Content is good:
These above 5 are the site basics. Very broad agreement amongst members that in terms of layout, technical issues, content quality, and trust in the advice the standards are high.
Content quality and trust are just so important for any site, and I think particularly when you are doing something on the internet that involves money like FI, it’s always going to attract dodgy characters and social media hype squads.
I set out to create an antidote to all that with this site. It’s over a year since the members area opened now and members consistently agree that my advice is turning out in their best interests. That’s the best thing I can hope for to encourage long term growth in the site.
Site speed and presentation ratings are good. I suspect 3-4 months ago those answers may have been lower but I spent a lot of time in December rebuilding the site to improve this and that seems to have paid off.
There are however some niggles/things to improve that have been suggested – I’ve made a list and will work on them the next time there is a quiet few days. At the moment focusing on producing more content seems to be the right thing rather than too much backend stuff.
Results - Costs
Using the site makes me more money than the subscription cost:
A key question because I wouldn’t have many members if this wasn’t coming out well!
87.6% of members reported making more than the subscription cost using the site information, with 49.5% reporting making a lot more.
7.2% reported about even and 5.2% not covering. The majority of these were members who had been around less than one month which makes sense – sometimes we can get instant results but generally it will take a little while to come through.
I’d also expect members to be at least making more than the cost because if you aren’t finding it useful, you’ll just leave right? It’s only one month not a long term contract.
Current numbers are that around 8/10 people who join stick around longer term and that suggests the majority do find it useful, but not everyone does.
From feedback, most people who have said it wasn’t for them are people looking for very specific tips about who to buy/sell. I provide analysis and suggestions rather than straight up buy/sell orders and there are good reasons for this I’ll discuss later on.
Interesting split between makes more and makes a lot more here. Why are results varying between people with access to the same information?
Some of this can be explained when I sort by portfolio value. Larger portfolio holders (10k+) were much more likely to report making much more rather than more (69% of 10k+ portfolios reported making much more).
That’s what you would expect, the more money you have in FI, the more profits you can make and the subscription cost becomes near negligible at these portfolio sizes.
If there was a clever way of varying pricing to reflect that I would! But I can’t think of one that’s fair or practical. I have to set a price that works for a fairly wide range of people.
However, portfolio value isn’t the only reason.
If we go into the under 5k portfolios only, just under 25% of these report making a lot more than the subscription, 59% more than the subscription, and 18% about even.
This is interesting as even with a smaller portfolio, 82% of members feel they make more than they pay, 25% of those say they make a lot more and just 18% about even.
This is great and suggests that the site is working for smaller portfolio holders too (not that less than £5k is small, it’s actually a lot of money! I’m talking relative to the larger portfolios).
It’s also notable that different people are reporting different results despite having access to the same information.
My theory would be that this is because not everyone trades the same or makes the same decisions based on the site information. Which is how it should be.
I’m always clear that I don’t do anyone’s trading for them – I try my best to be a good assistant manager and support members with high quality information about player quality and give strategy advice.
But each member is the Gaffer when it comes to their own portfolio and they are always going to be the far more important factor in their own results than I am.
It’s great to know that members generally agree that they make at least more than the subscription cost back from the information they get.
(I wish I had also asked about time saved! I think this is an important benefit of the site and I try to take some of the time/number crunching burden off members).
There were also some nice comments about enjoying reading the content as well as just finding it useful. Fellow freaks – I like these people the most.
The Subscription Cost is:
85.6% of members agreed the subscription cost was about right as it is.
I tend to agree and don’t plan on changing it anytime soon.
What I like most about this result is that smaller portfolio holders £1k or less or under £5k were just as likely to agree it was about right as the bigger fish.
It’s a good indicator that you can still get good value from the site with a £1k or under portfolio. Particularly, I think, if you plan on putting in more later and you want to establish good trading habits now.
It does mean that people with £10k+ portfolios are probably getting a pretty sweet deal as they pay exactly the same for more benefit. But, I think pricing out people with £10k or less would be a mistake, and I can’t practically charge more for bigger fish either – I’m hardly going to start checking people’s portfolios!
Interestingly 11.3% of members thought the site was too cheap, with the main worry being that it allows too many people to join if the price is trivial. A lot of these were the larger portfolio holders at 25k to 50k+, but not all.
It’s not often people vote for a price increase but I see the point. One member put it like this: it’s like getting priority seating on an airline – the more people who pay for it the less and less valuable it becomes.
True that, members want an advantage, not something everyone else has. And putting the price up will put some people off joining.
This has a direct relation to the next survey result so I’ll talk about this more below.
Time as Member:
No reason to include this other than it’s nice to see that the majority of members are very long term and are happy to stick around once they join.
Results - Content
Average rating of each type of content out of 5:
Scouting, Key Strategy + State of the Market and Members Articles were the clear favourties amongst members, getting very high ratings of 4.8 or 4.9 out of 5.
This makes sense to me, these are what I would say are the best parts of the site and if I ever needed to strip it back to the core this would be it.
Transfers, Star Ratings, Guide Prices and Dashboard info still scored well around 4 to 4.2 but there was a notable drop here. Some people still rated them highly but there were many more people who rated these 2 or 3.
This can be fine, not everyone has to use everything. I was actually fishing for something not useful to anyone that I could drop to make time for other things. I’m not sure I found one.
Star Ratings tables were seen as a useful guide but some members commented that some ratings could fall out of date. Fair comment. I update most of the main ones as I go through Scouting but particularly where a player hasn’t done anything to come to my attention for a while, they only get reviewed 2-3 times a season.
There were also a couple of requests to provide reasons behind each rating under the comments. This detailed analysis comes in Scouting, but I can’t do it for every player in ratings it would just date so quickly given I review all 5 leagues every week.
Clearly, I can’t run through all 600+ player ratings each week to keep them bang up to date, it’s just not possible.
I think there is a point here though that I need to be clearer about their limitations. I think I might trim this back a bit and make it clearer that the most up to date info. is in Scouting and that Star Ratings are a ball park guide.
Whilst they can fall a bit behind particularly for the more obscure players, I am generally confident in their accuracy though and lots of members commented on this too.
Quite a few members also said they struggle a bit with Guide Prices. I understand why. There really isn’t a one size fits all price where we should sell and so many factors go into that decision. It’s a tough one but I still think it’s worth trying to put a marker in the sand like this.
It’s not an automatic sell trigger when a player reaches a Guide Price, it’s more the point where I think “Ok, what factors/reasons do I have for this player to deserve to be running beyond the average good forward?”. I’ll see if I can do more to explain them better.