As a business mode, “content for traffic and traffic for ads” has become fairly commonplace. For example, online videos are free; nevertheless you have to wade through several advertisements. Even those who pirate software understand the approach: revised software as Tomato Garden Windows and Coral QQ are bundled with commercials.
Copyrights and commercials have never been closer. In the face of profits, right holders have put aside their property rights by dumping their rights for traffic the number of viewers. Earning royalties from copyrights seems to be outdated.
However, aggressive ads are no longer satisfied to be merely add-ons to content, rather they have squeezed their way into the contents. The so-called product placement steams like a torrent and trademarks of various commodities flood the content of films, TV series, online games, and even stage plays. Cindy Callops, president of a branch of American Global Brand Content Marketing Association says: “we are shifting from an age of interruption’ in marketing to an age of engagement’.”
Ahead of his time, master filmmaker Steven Spielberg, opened the door to product placement with his 1982 film E.T. There was a scene of a child attempting to catch an abandoned E.T .by placing candy on the dirty ground. The producer first chose M&M chocolate, but Mars rejected the association of its product with an alien. However chocolate producer Hershey’s agreed and the filmmaker received an ad fee of USD 1 million.
For some films, product placement can return the initial investment and even generate profit. Product placements are usually considered before the script is written. Consequently, certain critics have sharply pointed out that today’s Hollywood script writers are considering how to slip in more ads rather than building characters.
Naturally, some product placements blend seamlessly into the work. In the cartoon Popeye the Sailorman, Popeye’s great love for spinach was the ad of a canned spinach producer. This type of placement did not cause resentment; it rather became a trademark of the character.
However, some product placements, has caused great resentment. The recently screened After Shock triggered controversy due to the great number of product placements; some viewers have accused the producers of “making a fortune out of a national disaster.”
Many viewers have developed a morbid sensitivity, suspecting the appearance of a single trademark or commodity. Product placement has become a topic of virtually every film.
If product placement is a little break in a work, the so-called “viral video” was born for ads. They receive attention and hits by relying on the creativity of works, and spreads like a virus. However most of the time they intentionally pose as “non-commercials.”
Peugeot’s video for the 207CC model is a typical viral video, which attracted nearly 4 million hits on youku.com. It was disguised in a scene as an accidentally shot picture and used voice-over for advertising purposes. The laughter in the voice-over sounds a little obscene.
Many companies have begun to use viral videos as an advertising source. However, for the sake of viewers many companies add shocking headlines to their videos and thus, have joined the rank of “sensational headline writers.” In fact, any work expecting traffic from content can be suspected.
Nonetheless, it is equally dangerous when writers set their eyes on a single method of ads, because their market share is limited. Is an ad the only savior for the copyright predicament of works?
On the path to ads, product placement has become highly controversial. For it often “kidnaps” films, disrupts plots and instantly distracts the audience from the play. Sensational headlines, for ads or not, have become a plague of cyber space and even hurts the content itself.
By Yuan Zhenfu, Vice Director of Shanghai Intellectual Property Academy
(Translated by Li Heng)
