11 Methodology

11.1 CEEMID Music Professional Survey

The data collection period was April-July, longer than originally planned, because in some countries, the data collection by local partners were not well prepared on time. In Czechia, the data collection was very late and the total replies collected was significantly lower than in Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, where the author’s societies were involved in the data collection, and asked their members to fill out the questionnaire.

The master questionnaire was provided to SoundCzech’s translator in English and Slovak language. Unfortunately, there was no significant testing of the Czech survey, and this may have resulted in lower completion rates than in Slovakia, for example, where the survey was extensively tested by stakeholders and musicians.

In Czechia, almost all responses arrived after the final deadline to fill out the questionnaire, in July and August 2019. OSA appears to have sent out the questionnaire to a very limited number of artists, because the answers received from their entry link (17) is only a fraction received from similar Austrian, Hungarian, Slovak, Slovenian societies. SAI reached out to 37, and SoundCzech to 22 music professionals. Compared to the Austrian, Hungarian, Slovak samples, which contain 400-700 answers, the Czech subsample is rather limited.

Various Czech stakeholders, including SoundCzech itself, Intergram, SAI and smaller partners distributed the questionnaire with a short background information in Czech language and extensive linked English background information and data protection guidance.

The information sent out by SoundCzech and its partners made it clear to the respondents that no data will be provided to a third party, neither to SoundCzech or anybody else.

Music professionals can decide to fill out the survey anonymously or semi-anonymously. In either case, the individual answer will never be shared with anybody except with the respondent. Any statistical reports created for collective management societies, granting agencies and music export offices will not contain individual answers or any answer elements that could identify the music professional personally.

The problems with the data collection are partly understandable. In Croatia this was the second data collection, in Slovakia the third, and in Hungary the 6th. The trust in the survey and the trust among research partners is higher in these countries, and this results in hundreds of questionnaires filled out each year. The first Czech collection was less successful in the number of responses collected than the first Austrian, Bulgarian and Slovenian collection, but more successful than the Armenian, Estonian and Serbian, and roughly equally successful to the Lithuanian collection. The credibility of such a research can be improved year by year, partly with more focus on quality (test surveys, translation checks) and partly by extending the partners who distribute the survey.

For the exploitation of the information, SoundCzech, state51 and CEEMID formed a research consortium. In the Phase I of the project, SoundCzech, like all research partners, receives statistical summaries, that were created

  1. for the preparation of a stakeholder workshop on 8-9 October, 2019 - this was reduced to various reasons to less than one day, hence the written commenting periods

  2. for this Document and

  3. the originally planned final presentation of the Phase I of the project, which due to the lateness became an interim presentation on Nouvelle Prague on 8 November, 2019.

The Phase II of the Project, subject to a grant application for Creative Europe, would create analytics and predictive analysis for the semi-anonymous answers, which will be analysed against the state51 anonymized streaming dataset.

We used an ex ante development program evaluation methodology, the 8-fields method, to get a 360-degree view on the desired changes in the Czech music business and Czech music life. SoundCzech made an effort to organize a workshop with the consultant where all interested parties

  • We invited professionals from the live, publishing/composer, recording/performer, and education functions of music.

  • We made sure that classical and popular genres were present.

  • We made efforts to encourage female professionals to participate and have a gender-balanced view.

  • We made sure that artistic (musicians, DJs), technical (sound, IT, etc) and managerial (tours, labels, publishers) were present.

  • We invited all national stakeholders to the event.

  • Unfortunately, the collective management societies and Platforma accepted the invitation but could not participate in the workshop. We asked their input in email.

The workshop was facilitated by Daniel Antal, CFA, who has many years of experience in ex ante evaluations, music development programs, music pricing and legislative proposals. He collected structured proposals from the participants that were recorded on short-hand memo cards and transcribed into a memo by Ms. Brenda Dobrovicsova in the English language. These inputs were edited into a first English draft by Daniel Antal and circulated among all participants.

11.2 8-fields Music Development Workshop

The workshop was organized by SoundCzech following the instructions of the Consultant. Because of organizational difficulties, the workshop was postponed by 6 weeks, and most of the recommendations of the Consultant how to administer the workshop were not strictly followed. However, the location of the workshop was very suitable, and generally the workshop, with the following limitations, was successful.

The significant changes from the planned workshop, which was also contracted, were the following:

The original workshop was supposed to be a 2-day workshop, allowing enough time for most participants to record the problems (first 4 steps) and on the second they with a limited number of stakeholders to design indicators. Instead of the week 26-31 August, October, 8-9 October, then eventually after a further change, 9-10 October was selected. The first day, 9 October coincided with the OSA 100 anniversary gala, and the collective management societies were not present. The 2nd day was cancelled by SoundCzech.

On the first day of the workshop, only very limited amount of documentation was made. The reason for this was that while the Consultant suggested 3-4 pre-trained co-moderators with a bilingual working capacity in Czech and English, only limited help was available. Compared to the sample documentation of the similar Hungarian workshop, which resulted in more than 10 pages of raw memorandum, sound recordings, and many table, only a short, English language table was prepared by SoundCzech. Therefore, the workshop was moderated by the Consultant alone in the English language, which, on the one hand, made the workshop somewhat faster, and on the other hand, made participation more difficult for some stakeholders. Nevertheless, the English language skills of the people present were generally good, and the participants were very constructive and helped at all tables colleagues who were not confident in speaking English.

Program breakdown
Steps Examples
1 Problem/Challenge Too few people attend concerts, and they go infrequently, which forces many venues to close down -> we should increase the audience and visiting frequency of concerts
2 Change It will be less risky and more profitable to promote concerts. We hope to have longer domestic tours, which are easier to manage.
3 Program
  1. Normative support for concerts, 2. Live shows equipment, 3. Small venue technological upgrades
4 Action We suggested various changes in granting aims.
Note:
Example based on Hungarian workshop, 2015.

To compensate for the lost 2nd day, the absence of the collective management societites, and limited documentation, it was agreed on 10 October between SoundCzech and the Consultant to add a one-week written consultation round, based on a filled up text that contains examples and elements based on the Hungarian workshop documentation (Dániel Antal 2015a). The Consultant offered to hire a local assistant to call participants and individually help with emails and calls to get structured feedback, comments from the participants, but this was rejected by SoundCzech who preferred to do this part of the work without the Consultant.

Program breakdown
Controlling
Steps Examples Steps Examples
1 Problem/Challenge Too few people attend concerts, and they go infrequently, which forces many venues to close down -> we should increase the audience and visiting frequency of concerts 5 Evaluation Annual music industry report key indicators: number of municipalities with active venue, estimated # of concert visitors per year, visiting frequency per year
2 Change It will be less risky and more profitable to promote concerts. We hope to have longer domestic tours, which are easier to manage. 6 Effect indicators
  1. Increased reported concerts measured by OSA or survey, 2. More licensed venues, 3. Longer tours reported in survey, 4. Increase in live music performance royalties
3 Program
  1. Normative support for concerts, 2. Live shows equipment, 3. Small venue technological upgrades
7 Result Indicators Successful grant applications, etc.
4 Action We suggested various changes in granting aims. 8 Progress Indicators Simple indicators, or checkpoints for to do list.
Note:
Example based on Hungarian workshop, 2015.

The aim of the written consultation part was to clarify exactly what changes the stakeholders in various artistic, technical and managerial roles expect in their own professional environment, i.e. in their own freelance or microentrepreneurial working situation from the recommended changes. The other aim of this round was to identify suitable indicators and data sources to measure the change. It was also expected that some participants, especially those who found the workshop very useful, will give testimonies for the grant application necessary for the Phase II of the project.

Because the Consultant did not receive any feedback, expectations, comments, and data sources, or indicators, the Consultant included proposed indicators, whenever possible, with starting indicator values in the final version of the documentation, which is also part of the Final Study.

References

Antal, Dániel. 2015a. “Javaslatok a Cseh Tamás Program pályázatainak fejlesztésére. A magyar könnyűzene tartós jogdíjnövelésének lehetőségei. [Proposals for the Development of the Cseh Tamas Program Grants. The Possibilities of Long-Term Royalty Growth in Hungarian Popular Music].” manuscript.