This paper aims to examine potential differences in perceived usefulness of various forecasting formats from the perspectives of providers and users of predictions. Experimental procedure consists of asking participants to assume the role of forecast providers and to construct forecasts using different formats, followed by requesting usefulness ratings for these formats (Phase 1). Usefulness of the formats are rated again in hindsight after receiving individualized performance feedback (Phase 2). In the ensuing role switch exercise, given new series and external predictions, participants are required to assign usefulness ratings as forecast users (Phase 3). In the last phase, participants are given performance feedback and asked to rate the usefulness in hindsight as users of predictions (Phase 4). Results reveal that regardless of the forecasting role, 95% prediction intervals are considered to be the most useful format, followed by directional predictions, 50% interval forecasts, and lastly, point forecasts. Finally, for all formats and for both roles, usefulness in hindsight is found to be lower than usefulness prior to performance feedback presentation.