EUROPEAN PUBLISHING TRAINING NEEDS IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY

LEONARDO DA VINCI (STRAND III.2.A)

CZECH REPUBLIC REPORT

PROJECT PARTNERS:

CENTER FOR PUBLISHING DEVELOPMENT, OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE, BUDAPEST, HUNGARY

SCHOOL OF ART, PUBLISHING AND MUSIC, OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY, OXFORD, UNITED KINGDOM

STRATEGY RESEARCH AND ACTION, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM

AUSSTELLUNGS UND MESSE DES BORSENVEREINS DES DEUTSCHEN BUCHHANDELS, FRANKFURT, GERMANY

PUBLISHING TRAINING CENTRE, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM

MAY 2000

1. INTRODUCTION

Leonardo da Vinci project III.2.A has been commissioned by the European Commission to identify the extent and nature of the need for publishing training in Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC). The project is entitled European Publishing Training Needs in the Information Society II (EPTNIS II).

The project was commissioned following the success of EPTNIS I, a project conducted in 1998 in western European countries.

The project assesses the training needs of the publishing industry in 9 CEEC countries.

In January 1999 the project members met in Budapest to draft a research plan and to discuss the agenda for the project. As a result of this planning meeting a two-stage research project was agreed on and completed. The initial stage involved qualitative research in 4 countries followed by quantitative research in all 9 countries.

1.1 PROJECT PARTNERS

The project benefits from experienced partners, and each partner complements the skills of the other partners.

The project partners include:

Paul Richardson, professor of publishing at the School of Music and Publishing at Oxford Brookes University;

Frances Pinter and Jerzy Celichowski, from the Center for Publishing Development, Open Society Institute, Budapest;

Dag Smith, from Publishing Training Centre, London;

Barbel Becker, Ausstellungs und Messe des Borsenvereins des Deutschen Buchhandels, Frankfurt;

Robin Birn and Simon Whitehead, Strategy Research and Action in London.

However the data collection stage of the project could not have been successfully completed without the contribution of the staff of the Open Society Institutes in the countries involved, who worked to coordinate the translation and mailing of the quantitative questionnaire. It is for this reason that the research results have proved so robust, and the success of the project ensured.

It is also of value to mention the high response rates achieved during the research, and to appreciate that many of the publishers have been forthcoming in information, some of which could be considered to be sensitive.

1.2 METHODOLOGY

The research has been completed using a two-stage approach.

The first stage, the qualitative stage, consisted of in depth interviews with publishers. It was designed to provide guidance to help shape the quantitative research and identify the key issues related with training in Eastern and Central Europe. There were 10 interviews conducted in each of the 2 larger countries of Poland and Romania, and 6 in Hungary and Latvia.

The quantitative research was completed in the 10 countries of Central and Eastern Europe that have applied to join, and are being considered for membership of, the European Union in the future.

These countries are: Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria and Estonia. All responded with sufficient questionnaires except Estonia.

The research has been designed to be fully comparative across countries and to identify the comparisons and contrasts between the countries in the study. As such the methodology reflects these needs.

The quantitative research sought to interview a statistically significant number of publishers in all 9 countries and access them by means of a postal self-completion questionnaire. The samples were decided using a sample frame from established data prepared by the Open Society Institute on publisher numbers in each of the countries.

In each country different sources were required to build a postal address list of publishers, and the Open Society Institutes in each country were able to provide substantial assistance in this regard.

A total of 2,306 questionnaires were mailed out.

The response rates in each of the countries obviously differed, but a total response of 780 returned for analysis was achieved.

When compared to typical research projects the response rates are all very high for a number of reasons, and this project has a response rate of 34%. This is in itself an encouraging sign from publishers in the region.

It is believed the good response rates are due to the specific nature of the study, the interest from the respondents, and the Open Society Institutes following up each questionnaire they posted out with a telephone call. The data can therefore be used to define training needs and to assess future training activities in each country.

1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The main objectives for completing the research were as follows:

• Establish the attitudes towards training of publishers in the region
• Establish the extent to which electronic publishing is undertaken by publishers in the region
• Define the extent to which publishers feel publishing training is needed, and in which business disciplines it is most required
• Define the extent to which electronic publishing training is a priority in the region
• Produce data on the publishing industry which is internationally comparable, and which will provide a benchmark of the state of the publishing sector in the region

Users of the data should therefore be able to define better the segments in the publishing industry in the region, and position themselves better to grow the market with this knowledge.

1.4 USE OF RESULTS

The European Commission who have provided funding for the project, will be using the data, report and recommendations to assess the possibilities of providing financial assistance to publishers in Central and Eastern Europe in order to enhance the building of an Information Society within the Union.

It is assumed that the countries involved in the project will join the EU in the medium or long term. Consequently the results can be used to enhance knowledge about the new countries in order to coordinate transnational projects.

A further use of the data is by publishers themselves and by the Open Society Institute as a tool for decision-making. This is the first definitive survey of publishers’ activities in Central and Eastern Europe and is data which can be interpreted to define transnational publishing and subsequent training needed.

1.5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

There are a significant number of results that have come out of the research. Those that are most significant are likely to refer to individual countries or to come about as a result of comparison between data sets. As such this executive summary is limited to findings relating to Czech only.

The key findings of the research are:

• Criteria used to measure the extent to which an Information Society exists points to an infant stage of development of the Information Society in Eastern Europe.
• Local control over key industries necessary for the Information Society is being reconfigured through privatisation, and it is possible control of some sectors of the economy will pass into foreign hands.
• There is evidence that the publishing sector in the region has restructured during the last decade, and such prioritisation of electronic publishing that exists is taking place within a wider context of change.
• There is also some evidence to suggest that moves by publishers towards involvement in electronic publishing are contingent upon wider restructuring within their markets. Factors such as lack of market and piracy affect the demand for electronic products, and exacerbating the difficulty are supply side issues such as low spending on training, skills shortages amongst staff, and lack of access to finance.
• The most significant sector for publishing in Central and Eastern Europe is the education sector (History/Social Science/Academic/STM/Textbooks). This is measured by the number of publishers involved in publishing each genre.

• Electronic publishing (Internet and CD-Rom) is primarily confined to the Educational market, again implying institutional buying.

• Expenditure on training is very low. Indeed, almost three quarters of publishers spent under Euro1000 on training in the last year, representing (assuming they employ on average 6 people) around €150 each. Again, there is considerable difference between different countries.
• Such training that there is appears to be fairly evenly distributed between non-EU and EU training providers, as well as between trainers in the booktrade and trainers external to it. However, when asked, most publishers feel that it is important that their company has access to training in another country.
• The detailed research analysis shows that it becomes evident that publishers feel that a number of specific fields would benefit from transnational training, whereas a number of others would benefit more from training in their own country.

• The publishers believe the biggest problem experienced in becoming involved in electronic publishing is lack of resources, followed by lack of business partners.
• Supporting this, publishers feel that the biggest threats to electronic publishing are lack of access to finance, and piracy of original copy and texts.
• The lack of current training expenditure is put into further context when publishers say that they feel strongly that their staff will have to change their working methods and roles. Interestingly it is sales and marketing and editorial, techniques which the majority of publishers feel will need to change the most as EU integration develops.
• The fact that publishers would spend any additional funds on new products reveals a belief that essentially they are operating correctly and efficiently, and that growth would best be achieved by expanding output.

• Publishers agree with the statement that they would grow faster if they were to publish through new media.
• Although English enjoys dominance in terms of foreign languages, the majority of electronic publishers publish in their own language revealing a strong degree of cultural diversity in the electronic publishing sector.
• Finally, a significant proportion of publishers’ express and interest in electronic publishing, either by saying it is a priority, or by or by saying that they would be plan to publish electronically relatively soon. However this is to be contrasted with the low proportions of publishers currently involved in electronic publishing. This gap is best explained with reference to the publishers saying that lack of access to finance and lack of resources are a problematic.

1.6 QUALITATIVE FINDINGS

Publishers in the region were initially researched through the Qualitative research about the issues involved in publishing training, as well as their experiences with, and attitudes towards, transnational training and electronic publishing.

The findings of this stage of the research assisted further development of the questionnaire for the Quantitative research, and the bulk of the findings do indeed support the findings of the Quantitative stage.

It was for instance evident that the degree to which a publisher perceived multimedia training as important was a reflection on their abilities to present themselves in the market. Caution was the key word within the multimedia publishing industry, and the inability to deal with piracy a major concern.

Overall, the Qualitative research was used to assess methods to ensure that the quantitative research would be successful, and addressed the perceptions of the publishers in Eastern and Central Europe.

1.7 QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS

The Quantitative findings of EPTNIS II are substantial and in depth. They have been presented as tabulations, and several cross tabulations of questions were specified.

It should be noted that this survey, with 780 completed responses, represents the most extensive survey into the publishing sector ever completed in the CEEC. As such, the data in this report are highly significant statistically. So too, in the Czech Republic, the data represents the most comprehensive picture of the industry yet produced to assess training.

The following are the results of the research.

1.8 QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS

1.8.1 CURRENT MATERIAL PUBLISHED

Of the total sample of 780 publishers, 621 (80%) are currently publishing only in print. 18% are publishing both print and electronically, and just over 1% are publishing only electronically.

In Czech 82% of publishers publish material in print, 16% both electronically and in print, and 1% electronically. Czech is therefore a typical example of the structure of the output of the publishing industry in Eastern and Central Europe.

1.8.2 GENRE CURRENTLY PUBLISHED

In terms of the most commonly published genre in Czech, Academic material are the most common, with 39% of publishers saying that they publish this genre.

This is closely followed by History and Social Science, which is published by 36% of respondents, and literature, which is published by 35% of publishers.

Fiction is published by 28% of respondents, and Children’s material is also published by 28% of publishers.

Science, Technical and Medical (STM) titles are published by 26% of publishers. Textbooks are published by 22% of publishers

Biographies are published by 19% of publishers, and Mind, Body and Spirit titles are published by 16% of publishers. Language titles are published by 15%.

Maps/Atlases and Travel Guides are published by 14% of publishers. Food and Drink titles are published by 12% of publishers, and Computer Software titles are all published by 14% of respondents, and Sports titles by 11%.

Business/Management are published by 4% of respondents, and Cinema and TV by 3%.

Czech publishers generally publish less genre than publishers in other countries. This indicates a degree of specialisation within the industry in Czech.

The only genres which Czech publishers are more likely to publish than publishers in other countries in the region are Sports titles, and Maps/Atlases and Travel Guides.

1.9 FUTURE PUBLISHING

For the majority of genres, respondents as a whole do not plan to increase the range of their output. Generally publishers say they plan to publish similar genres to those they currently publish.

These results are likely to reflect some ambiguity in the question, whereby those currently publishing a genre may not have responded to the suggestion that they plan to publish a genre in the next 2 years because they feel that as they are already doing so it would not be an additional plan to purchase.

1.10 CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN PUBLISHING CD-ROMS

Publishers which are involved in publishing CD ROMs are most likely to publish Academic titles (5% of the total), STM titles (4%), and Children’s titles (3%). Other genres are published less frequently on CD-ROMs by publishers.

Generally Czech publishers are significantly less likely to be involved in publishing on CD-ROM and Disks than publishers in other countries.

1.11 CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN INTERNET PUBLISHING

Publishers which are involved in Internet publishing are most likely to publish STM titles, (5%), Academic (5%), followed by Other titles (4%), Textbooks (3%), and History/Social Science titles (3%). All other genre by less than 3% of publishers.

Again this indicates a very small proportion of publishers in Czech are involved in Internet publishing.

1.12 PLANS TO PUBLISH MULTIMEDIA

45% of publishers say that they are currently unable to get involved in multimedia publishing in the future.

24% of publishers plan to publish electronically within one year, and again this is lower than the average.

Currently 24% of publishers have no plans to get involved in multimedia publishing.

1.13 EU TRAINING PROVIDER

69% of publishers did not mention a training provider in the European Union. This is higher than the CEEC average, suggesting that Czech publishers are less likely to collaborate with EU training providers than the regional average.

16% say that they use external training consultants.

5% use a training provider within the book trade, lower than the average of 11%.

5% use in-house experts, lower than the average of 9%.

2% use a training provider external to the book trade (average 8%).

10% use other EU training providers, lower than the CEEC average of 16%.

1.14 NON EU TRAINING PROVIDER

61% of publishers did not mention a training provider outside the European Union, compared to the average of 59%.

18% say that they use external training consultants.

3% use a training provider within the book trade.

6% use in-house experts, and 9% use a training provider external to the book trade.

13% use other non-EU training providers, compared to an average of 14%.

Overall the data indicates that smaller publishers which do not prioritise electronic publishing are less likely to use an EU training provider.

The general indication then is that the majority of publishers in Eastern and Central Europe do not currently have any provision for training. Interestingly it is those publishers with a concern for electronic publishing that are more likely to participate in training. This may be due to the rapid changes in the field, necessitating the use of external training providers.

The situation in Czech is that the majority of publishers are not engaging in any kind of training, and generally Czech publishers a similar amount of training to other publishers in the region.

1.15 LIKELIHOOD OF CHANGING THESE RESOURCES IN NEXT 2 YEARS

33% of publishers say that they are possibly likely to change their training resources in the next 2 years. Larger publishers, and those with a priority for electronic publishing are more likely to say that they are possibly likely to change their training resources.

16% say that they are likely to change their resources.

11% say that they are unlikely to change their training resources in the next 2 years.

A further 20% do not know, and 20% have not answered the question.

These results indicate that publishers which prioritise electronic publishing are more likely to change their training resources, and this may be as a result of the inadequacy of present training arrangements.

In terms of the objectives of this project, this distinction between the priorities of the publishers is important as it fits within the context of training in the Information Society.

Czech publishers are typical in their attitudes towards their training resources.

1.16 IMPORTANCE OF ACCESS TO TRAINING RESOURCES ABROAD

Respondents were asked to state, on a scale of one to three, the extent to which they feel that it is important that their company has access to training resources in another country. The mean score is 1.81, indicating that overall publishers do not agree that it is important to have access to training resources in another country.

Overall 39% of respondents agree that it is important to some extent that their company’s have access to training resources in another country.

A further 11% believe that it is important to a great extent, compared to 25% who believe that it is not important at all.

23% of respondents do not know.

Czech publishers are by a margin the least enthusiastic about the importance of transnational training. This has some significance when recommending countries most suitable for locating training in the CEEC in this regard.

1.17 FIELDS TRANSNATIONAL TRAINING OF MOST BENEFIT

The fields in which transnational publishing training could be most beneficial to the publishers are:

Sales and Marketing (64%, compared to CEEC average of 72%).

Customer service/distribution (53% compared to average of 55%).

Legal/Contractual (26% compared to 32%).

Design (20% compared to 31%)

Management (18% compared to 44%).

Financial (17% compared to 25%)

Editor Creative (16% compared to 31%)

Production (11% compared to 20%)

In all instances those publishers which publish more than 10 titles a year, and all those which prioritise electronic publishing, are more likely overall to believe that transnational training is beneficial to each of these fields.

What is striking in the results is the extent to which Sales and Marketing is revealed as a field in which transnational training would be beneficial to publishers.

Again, it is evident that Czech publishers have considerably less enthusiasm than publishers in other countries for transnational training.

1.18 WHERE TRAINING WOULD BE MOST BENEFICIAL

Publishers were asked to state where they believed training would be most beneficial to their companies.

For Management training, 36% of publishers feel that it would most effectively be carried transnationally, compared to 19% who feel it would be best carried out in Czech. 45% did not answer this question.

For Editor/Creative training, 26% of publishers feel that it would most effectively be carried out in Czech, and a further 26% feel it would be best carried out transnationally. Although only 49% of respondents answered this question, the data clearly shows preference.

For Design training, 30% of publishers feel that it would most effectively be carried out transnationally, compared to 25% who feel it would be best carried out in Czech. 45% did not answer in this case.

For Production training, 22% of publishers feel that it would most effectively be carried out in Czech, and a further 22% feel it would be best carried out transnationally. However 55% of respondents did not answer this question, suggesting that they do not consider the issue to be of particular importance.

For Sales and Marketing training, 39% of publishers feel that it would most effectively be carried out transnationally, compared to 34% who feel it would be best carried out in Czech. 27% of respondents did not answer this question.

Conversely, for Legal/Contractual training, 37% of publishers feel that it would most effectively be carried out in Czech, compared to 20% who feel it would be best carried out transnationally. 43% of respondents did not answer this question.

For Financial training 49% of respondents did not answer. Of those that did, 30% believe that training would most effectively be carried out in Czech, compared to just 20% who believe that transnational training is most effective.

For Customer Service and Distribution training 34% of respondents felt that training in Czech would be most effective, and a further 34% feel transnational training would be most effective. A further 55% did not answer this question.

This data shows Czech publishers are evenly split on a number of the fields. This is likely to reflect the fact that few Czech publishers are currently training publishers much.

1.19 SPEED OF GROWTH THROUGH NEW MEDIA

Publishers were asked whether they felt that their company would grow faster if it were to publish through the new media.

On a scale of 1-5, the mean score is 3.17, suggesting mild agreement with the statement that a publisher would grow faster if it were to publish through new media.

1.20 LENGTH OF TIME ELECTRONICALLY PUBLISHING

Of those publishers that have been publishing electronically, 32% have been electronically publishing for over 2 years, compared to the average across all the countries of 24%.

25% have been electronically publishing for between 1 and 2 years, 21% for between 6 months and a year, and 11% for under 6 months.

11% of respondents did not answer the question.

Within Czech, publishers that are publishing electronically are likely to have been doing so for substantially longer than publishers in other countries, indicating a small but established industrial sector.

1.21 FOREIGN LANGUAGES PUBLISHED IN ELECTRONICALLY

93% of those publishers that have been publishing electronically publish in Czech.

29% publish in English, 14% in German, 4% in other Eastern European languages. None publish in another languages.

7% of respondents did not answer this question.

1.22 FOCUS OF ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING

50% of electronic publishers focus on the Educational market. This corresponds to the high proportions publishing genre such as STM, Academic, Textbook, Social Science/History titles.

7% of electronic publishers focus on the Business market, 18% on the consumer market. 21% have no particular focus.

11% of respondents did not mention the focus of their publishing.

These figures are generally in line with trends across CEEC, although Czech publishers are less likely to focus on the business market than the average for publishers in the region.

1.23 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN BECOMING INVOLVED IN ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING

By far the biggest difficulty encountered by publishers in becoming involved in electronic publishing is a lack of business partners for electronic publishing. This is encountered by 43% of Czech publishers, and is considerably higher than the average.

21% suffer from a lack of resources for electronic publishing.

18% suffer from lack of business skills, and a further 18% from investing in other products.

Other problems are encountered by 14% of publishers.

Czech publishers typically claim to experience far fewer constraints than other publishers, however they are far more likely to suffer from lack of business partners, and to suffer far less from lack of resources.

1.24 EXTENT TO WHICH FACTORS ARE A THREAT TO PUBLISHING

The extent to which different factors are a threat to electronic publishers is measured on a scale of 1-3, where 3 represents an important threat, and 1 is not a threat.

In ranked order the most threatening factors for electronic publishers are:

Mean

Piracy (2.57, CEEC average is 2.60)

Lack of access to finance (2.37, CEEC average is 2.62)

Lack of market (2.23, average 2.38)

Lack of business skills (2.03, average 2.11)

Lack of technical skills (1.89, average 2.03)

International competition from EU (1.80, average 1.94)

Domestic competition (1.71, average 1.70)

International competition from non EU states (1.70, average 1.67)

Other factors (1.62, average 1.74)

It is evident that the first two factors are considerably more important to the publishers than the other factors. This is the case for all countries in the region.

As might be expected, the threat of domestic competition is felt more in those countries which have more competition naturally as a result of their size.

1.25 EXTENT OF STAFF CHANGE REQUIRED

Publishers were asked to rate the extent to which they will have to change their working methods to meet the challenges of multimedia in the future.

Overall on a score of 1-3, where 1 is not at all, and 3 is a great extent, Czech respondents gave an average of 2.05, showing that they feel to some extent that they would have to change to meet the challenges of multimedia.

16% of respondents state that their staff would have to change a great extent, 59% to some extent, and 11% not at all.

5% of respondents did not answer the question. Publishers which prioritise electronic publishing are substantially more likely to state that they feel their staff need to change, as generally do larger publishers.

Publishers in most of the different countries generally believe their staff will have to change to some extent.

1.26 WAYS IN WHICH STAFF WILL HAVE TO CHANGE TO PUBLISH ELECTRONICALLY

59% of publishers state that their staff would have to develop more experience with multimedia in the future to publish electronically in the future.

27% of publishers feel that they need better working methods between IT and Editorial, which is higher than the average.

25% feel that their staff need to become more aware of market opportunities, lower than the CEEC average.

1.27 LEVEL OF PERSONNEL AT WHICH THERE IS A NEED TO CHANGE OR IMPROVE SKILLS TO PUBLISH ELECTRONICALLY

In Czech, 49% of publishers say that they believe Sales and Marketing need to change or improve their skills to publish electronically.

37% of publishers say that they believe that Editorial Creative staff need to change or improve their skills.

36% say that Customer Service/Distribution staff need to change or improve their skills.

21% say Management need to change or improve.

24% say Production need to change or improve, again this is lower than the regional average.

20% say Design need to change or improve, lower than the regional average.

25% say Financial need to change or improve, and 21% Legal/Contractual. 22% did not mention any areas.

Overall Czechs are confident that management need to change less than publishers in other countries.

1.28 WAYS IN WHICH STAFF ARE CURRENTLY INCORPORATING NEW SKILLS

Currently most publishers are incorporating new skills by on the job training. 21% recruit staff with skills, lower than the regional average.

26% train existing staff internally.

25% train existing staff externally.

23% incorporate new skills through other means.

1.29 LIKELIHOOD OF THIS CHANGING

49% of publishers say that this is likely to change in the next 2 years, 28% do not know, and 18% say it is unlikely to change.

1.30 COMPANY OWNERSHIP

When asked whether they felt that the ownership of their company would remain the same over the next 2 years 86% say that they do expect it to remain the same.

11% do not know, and just 3% expect a change.

1.31 SPENDING PRIORITIES

Respondents were given a hypothetical question, and asked to say how they would spend Euro25,000 if they were given it to spend. Their answers are ranked according to the mean score of their answers on a scale of 1-3.

In first place, most say that they would spend additional resources on new products (mean 2.37), followed by acquisitions (2.35). This is followed by advertising (mean 2.30), spending on marketing (mean 2.16).

Then the priority for spending is on capital goods (2.03), market research (1.99), staff training (mean 1.95), and finally management consultancy (1.52).

This is significantly different from publishers in other countries, and again highlights the low priority Czech publishers attach to staff training.

It is interesting here that information supply fields, such as management consultancy and market research, score poorly, compared to the score of spending on new products and marketing. This may suggest that publishers feel they have knowledge of the market, but without the knowledge of how to access the market with new products and marketing techniques.

1.32 MEMBERSHIP OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

42% of Czech publishers do not know whether membership of the European Union will be an advantage or disadvantage to their company.

50% view it as an advantage and 6% as a threat.

1.33 CURRENT STRENGTHS IN PUBLISHING

When asked to state what they perceived their strengths to be in their current publishing, publishers state two particular strengths.

Specialist lists are mentioned by 63% of publishers, and an established company reputation by 59%.

Other strengths which are considered important are: higher quality than competitors (39%), knowledge of the market (33%), good distribution (24%), a wide choice of publications (18%).

Czech publishers are typical of publishers in the region.

1.34 EXTENT TO WHICH ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING IS A PRIORITY

25% of publishers say that electronic publishing is a priority to some extent, and 4% say it is a priority to a great extent.

63% of publishers say that electronic publishing is not a priority at all.

It is worth remembering that the survey has focused on general publishers, and has not sought out electronic publishers, nor does it include software houses who may have an electronic publishing agenda.

Czech publishers are considerably less likely to prioritise electronic publishing than other publishers in other countries.

1.35 ATTITUDES OF PUBLISHERS

It was important for the project to assess the extent to which publishers in the region perceived their businesses in the light of change. To this end publishers were asked to state their opinions towards various statements.

1.36 ATTITUDES OF PUBLISHERS – KEY PLAYER

When asked if they are a key player in their market, 20% of publishers say that they are to a great extent, and 33% say they are to some extent. 40% say they are not at all. Overall the mean score on a scale of 1-3 was 1.79, indicating very mild agreement.

1.37 ATTITUDES OF PUBLISHERS - VULNERABILITY

43% of publishers say that they are not at all vulnerable to foreign involvement in their market. Only 4% say they are vulnerable to a great extent, and 44% say they are to some extent.

The mean score is 1.57, indicating that most Czech publishers are confident that they are not vulnerable. This reinforces the strong positive sentiment in the publishing sector in CEEC as a whole.

1.38 ATTITUDES OF PUBLISHERS – NEED TRAINING

66% of publishers say that to some extent they need training, and a further 12% say that they need training for some skills to a great extent. Just 14% say that they did not need any training for any skills at all.

The mean is 1.98, indicating weak agreement that training is needed for some skills.

Czech publishers are less certain of the need for training, and this confirms the low importance and current prevalence of it amongst Czech publishers.

1.39 ATTITUDES OF PUBLISHERS – GROWTH

60% of publishers are confident to some extent that they will grow next year. 9% are confident to a great extent that they will grow next year.

26% of publishers feel that they will not grow at all next year. This is far higher than the average amongst publishers in other countries (12%).

This high level of insecurity amongst publishers in Czech may be to a small extent both a cause and a consequence of the low prevalence or consideration of the importance of training.

The mean in Czech is 1.82, compared to a CEEC average of 2.13.

1.40 ATTITUDES OF PUBLISHERS – REFLECTOR OF COUNTRY’S ECONOMY

36% of publishers agree to some extent that they are an accurate reflector of their countries economy. A further 39% agree to a great extent that they are an accurate reflector of their countries economy, compared to 20% who feel that they are not an accurate reflection at all.

The mean is 2.20, indicating general agreement that publishers are an accurate reflection of the countries economy.

1.41 CLASSIFICATION

1.42 LENGTH OF TIME IN PUBLISHING

64%, of publishers have worked in publishing for between 5 and 10 years. 18% have worked in publishing for between 11 and 20 years, and 10% for over 20 years.

Just 9% have worked in publishing for less than 5 years.

This indicates that on the whole, the decision makers in the publishing industry in Czech are relatively experienced.

1.43 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

69% of publishers have less than 10 staff, 18% of publishers have between 11 and 30 staff, 5% between 31 and 50, 3% between 51 and 100. A further 1% have over 100 staff.

Czech publishers tend to be below average sized in the region.

1.44 NUMBER OF COMPUTERS

74% of publishers have less than 10 computers, while 16% have between 11 and 20.

5% of publishers have between 21 and 50 computers, and 3% have over 50 computers.

1.45 OWNERSHIP

82% of publishers are independent, with 3% part of a national group.’

3% of publishers are part of an international group.

1.46 GENDER OF RESPONDENT

70% of the respondents are male, and 30% female.

1.47 AGE OF RESPONDENTS

65% of the respondents are aged between 35 and 54, with 14% under 34 and 22% over 55. Czech respondents are therefore somewhat older than the average respondent in the survey.

1.48 EXPENDITURE ON TRAINING

43% of publishers say that they spent nothing on training last year, whilst another 28% spent less than Euro250.

16% of publishers spent between Euro250 and Euro1000, and a 5% spent between Euro1000 and
Euro5000. 4% spent over Euro5000. A further 1% receive government or external funding.

1.49 LOCATION OF EXPENDITURE

84% say that none of this expenditure was spent outside their country, although this includes those publishers that spend nothing on training (43%).

7% say that they spent up to 25% of their expenditure abroad, 3% spent between 26% and 50% of their training expenditure abroad. 1% of publishers say that they spent between 51% and 75% of their training expenditure abroad, and 1% say that they spent over 75% of their training expenditure abroad.

Czech publishers are considerably less likely to spend money outside their own country. This again relates to the low priority of training and low spending on training.

1.50 ANNUAL TURNOVER

There was a wide distribution of turnover for publishers in the last year.

16% had a turnover of less than Euro10,000, and a further 19% had a turnover between Euro10,000 and Euro30,000.

11% had a turnover between Euro31,000 and Euro50,000, 11% between Euro51,000 and Euro100,000.

9% had a turnover between Euro100,000 and Euro300,000, 11% between Euro300,000 and Euro500,000. 7% have a turnover between Euro500,000 and Euro1m.

9% have a turnover above Euro1m, and most of these (7%) between Euro1m and Euro5m.

Again, for publishers with a turnover of more than Euro100,000, more of them are likely to be publishing over 10 titles a year, and to prioritise electronic publishing.

Czech publishers have a lower turnover than those of other countries, particularly compared to Poland and Hungary.

1.51 LOCATION OF PUBLISHER

Publishers are located in 9 countries of Central and Eastern Europe. They are slightly more likely to come from either Hungary, Czech or Poland, reflecting the larger publishing industry in these countries.

1.52 OWNERSHIP OF PUBLISHER

57% of publishers have none of their company owned by the state.

5% have over 75% owned by the state, with none in between.

38% of respondents did not answer this question.

1.53 PROPORTION FOREIGN OWNED

43% of publishers say that none of their company was foreign owned, 6% said that more than 75% was foreign owned, with 1% in between. 49% did not answer this question.

This may reflect lack of knowledge about the financial ownership of the company, and this may be exacerbated by the difficulties caused by transition to the free market, or it may simply be due to the sensitivity of the information that publishers are reluctant to divulge it.

1.54 NUMBER OF TITLES PUBLISHED A YEAR

48% of publishers publish less than 10 titles a year, 30% between and 10 and 30 titles, and 9% between 31 and 60.

8% publish between 60 and 100 titles, and 5% over a 100 titles a year.

Czech publishers tend to produce marginally fewer titles a year.

Executive summary

• Bulgaria
• Czech Republic
• Hungary
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Poland
• Romania
• Slovakia
• Slovenia

policy resources