One of the cornerstones of the FAITH Catholic publishing strategy is measuring reader engagement to assure our publications are achieving their stated goals. Since shortly after the launch of our first diocesan publications, FAITH has conducted readership surveys to determine how frequently and for how long people read their magazines, whether our publications encourage specific behaviors, and how effectively a publication inspires discipleship.

Recently, FAITH released results of its readership surveys for 2026. The combined results for nine diocesan publications proved once again that the magazine model for diocesan communications is an exceptionally effective way to reach parishioners, engage them with useful Catholic content, and elicit participation in and support for diocesan and parish ministries.

Here are key findings from the nine dioceses surveyed:

Readers are loyal to their diocesan magazines. They read and enjoy most issues and take the time to engage with the content.

• 93% of readers had read the most recent issue of their diocesan magazine, and 82.7% had read the last three issues.
• 98.1% found their diocesan magazine to be attractive, and 91% said the content interests them.
• Nearly 70% of respondents spend 15 minutes or more reading the magazine.

Readers use their diocesan magazines to gain greater understanding of their Catholic faith, grow spiritually, and share their beliefs with others.

• 88.8% of the respondents said the magazine makes them feel more connected to their Catholic faith, and 89% say it helps them understand the mission and teachings of the Church.
• 82% are moved to be more interested in spiritual growth and development, and 75% say the magazine helps them explain their Catholic faith to family and friends.

Diocesan magazines help readers feel more connected to the wider Catholic community, and inspire them to take the next step in parish engagement.

• 85% say the magazine gives them a greater sense of association with other Catholics in the local church.
• 68% want to be more active in their parish because of the magazine, and 71% are inspired by the magazine to use more of their gifts and talents at their parish.
• 90% have a greater awareness of programs and ministries of the diocese and parishes because of the magazine.

Readers of diocesan magazines are good stewards.

• Roughly 70% said the magazine inspires them to support their parishes financially and to participate in the diocesan annual appeal.

Dioceses surveyed in this round were Cleveland, Erie, Green Bay, Lansing, Manchester, Sacramento, St. Augustine, St. Petersburg, and Tulsa with a total combined circulation of 716,700.

How reliable are FAITH’s readership surveys?

“Research is only helpful if it’s reliable,” Simon said. “To assure our methodology is sound, we recently had it assessed by consultants specializing in surveys and data analysis to test and potentially improve our process.” With that assurance, FAITH launched a new round of surveys in early 2026 among readers of nine diocesan magazines. 

“The results are gratifying! Beyond any doubt, magazines from FAITH are read, appreciated, and enjoyed by the vast majority of their readers. And more than that, they clearly work to encourage Catholics to grow spiritually, gain knowledge about their faith, and take action to be more engaged at the parish and diocesan levels,” Simon said.

“It’s not enough to create a publication month after month and assume that it’s being read or that readers are responding as we hope they will. Research is what gives us the confidence that our strategy is effective.”

Our Methodology: A Foundation of Trustworthy Data

FAITH’s approach involves mailing a survey to a random sample of the magazine's circulation. Probability sampling, in which every single reader in the magazine’s circulation has a known, non-zero chance of being selected for the survey, is the gold standard for quantitative research. Over the last two decades, this approach has been consistently recommended by professional survey companies used by FAITH Catholic including Publishers Information Center and MRI-Simmons, further validating its effectiveness.

By selecting respondents completely at random, we create a small but statistically representative microcosm of the entire readership. This is the key to our methodology's success: it eliminates selection bias. The results we collect are not skewed by who is most motivated to respond. We hear from a true cross-section of a publisher’s audience—from the most engaged to the most casual readers.

This method allows us to make statistically valid inferences about the entire readership with a known margin of error. This means we can say, with a high degree of confidence, that the results from our sample accurately reflect the opinions and behaviors of the entire magazine circulation.

Probability vs. Non-Probability Sampling

The alternatives of sending the survey to all readers or using a QR code within the magazine represent forms of non-probability sampling. The crucial difference is that in non-probability sampling, not every reader has a known chance of being selected. Instead, the sample is created by a process of self-selection.

• Non-Probability Sampling (e.g., QR Code) relies on readers to see the QR code, be motivated to scan it, and complete the survey. The people who do this are likely to have a strong opinion—either extremely positive or negative—about the magazine. This leads to self-selection bias, where the sample is not representative of the broader readership. The results may show an artificially high or low level of engagement and provide a skewed picture of the audience. While this method may increase the total number of responses, the data itself is less reliable and difficult to generalize.
• Probability Sampling (Our Method) removes this bias from the selection process. The decision to participate rests on a foundation of chance, not on a reader's pre-existing feelings about the magazine. This ensures that the data truly represents the entire readership.

Why Quantity Doesn't Equal Quality

It is a common misconception that more responses automatically equate to better data. In the world of statistics, the quality of a sample is determined by its representativeness, not simply its size. A large, biased sample is less useful than a small, unbiased one. For example, if a survey using a QR code receives 5,000 responses, but all of those respondents are the most passionate and dedicated readers, the data will not reflect the behavior of the entire 500,000-person circulation. Conversely, a random sample may receive 500 responses, but because the sample is a true reflection of the readership, findings can confidently be extrapolated to the entire population.

Longitudinal Results Offer Context

FAITH’s 20 years of historical data using our random sampling method is a powerful asset. It allows us to track consistent and reliable trends in readership and engagement over time.

Switching to a non-probability sampling method would create a break in this historical trend line. A sudden spike in engagement or a shift in feedback could not be trusted as a real change in the market; it would more likely be an artifact of the new, biased methodology. By maintaining our current approach, we ensure that new data is directly comparable to past data, allowing for meaningful long-term analysis.