There is a well-known phrase known to businesses relying on the internet to help drive marketing and sales: “Content is king.”
That phrase has expanded, in the wake of businesses turning to Facebook and YouTube and in the development and use of better consumer digital cameras and video. That new and improved phrase is this: “User-generated content is king.” Soliciting user-generated content (UGC) is often an attractive marketing strategy: It engages customers and cultivates much-desired online content for a business all at the same time.
Some companies have come to regret that marketing move, however, as users who generate content are bringing suit when their material appears in future advertising, marketing or other company collateral, as McDonalds recently found out.
In the McDonald’s case, the wheels were set in motion in 2008 when McDonald’s hosted a “Big Mac Chant” contest on MySpace. Contestants created videos of their chants and uploaded them to the website. One participant, Daniel Calden uploaded a video of him in sunglasses with a sock puppet singing “Big Mac. Big Mac. Big Mac. Everybody wants to eat a Big Mac.” Nothing came from the entry, although a few days after it was submitted it was removed, and Mr. Calden’s inquiries with McDonald’s and their marketing firm went unanswered.
A year later, McDonald’s launched a commercial involving a fish mounted on a wall singing to a man about wanting a Filet-o Fish sandwich. Three years later, Calden filed suit against McDonald’s and their marketing company for theft of intellectual property, breach of the contest contract, copyright infringement and a host of other theories. (Interestingly, the statute of limitations on a copyright infringement case is three years.) McDonald’s fired back with a motion to dismiss the claims, citing among other reasons, that the works are not similar in the least except that both works contained men, non-human characters, and music about McDonald’s sandwiches.
Probably the McDonald’s case is one where the plaintiff is fishing for a settlement. However, it serves as a good example of the perils of soliciting UGC. No doubt McDonalds crafted their contest contract in a careful manner, which will definitely help them in the case, however even careful drafting might not prevent a business from being sued. While wanting to be involved with customers on a more interactive basis is an admirable objective, business owners must remember that generally people are passionate about their creations and creative works. They can and often do get very possessive and angry if they feel they have been taken advantage of – even if they assigned their rights to the company in the contest rules. Something that might make good business sense to a marketing professional may leave a customer feeling cheated, taken advantage of, or betrayed.
The worlds of contests and UGC also have a lot of legal issues associated with them. Contests are subject to state gaming laws and can potentially lead to serious liability for illegal gambling if not structured correctly. Additionally, a business will want to make sure that it owns any UCG submitted and that the contestant is not entitled to any additional compensation other than what is provided for in the contest rules – even if they are not the contest winner.
These contracts need to be tightly drafted. Otherwise a company could wake up with a much-enlarged audience resulting from an online initiative, but simultaneously be subject to not just intellectual property violations, but illegal gaming issues as well.
“Content is King,” still applies, but care and caution could help a company’s online efforts from also becoming costly.