European Union Citizens & Intellectual Property Edelman Berland for ETYQ and OHIM Qualitative stage...

European Union Citizens & Intellectual Property

Edelman Berland for ETYQ and OHIMQualitative stage initial report – April 2013

2 © Copyright 2013 Daniel J Edelman Inc. Intelligent Engagement

Methodology

Qualitative research carried out in 9 countries from the European Union in February & March 2013Investigations carried-out by Edelman Berland in GERMANY, SWEDEN, UK, FRANCE, ITALY, SPAIN, LITHUANIA, POLAND, CROATIA. In each market 2 focus groups and 3 triad interviews were moderated (in local languages)

-FOCUS GROUP 1: 8 to 10 citizens from 25 to 45 years old -FOCUS GROUP 2: 8 to 10 citizens from 46 years old and more -TRIAD 1: Boys from 15 to 17 years old-TRIAD 2: Girls from 15 to 17 years old -TRIAD 3: Young adults between 18 and 24 years old

In each group a MIX OF SOCIAL LEVEL, EDUCATION LEVEL AND INCOME LEVEL was elaborated, groups held in capital cities with at least 2 respondents living at least 80 km away from the capital.


Preliminary noteDuring the qualitative stage of the research we engaged in more than 100 cumulated hours of conversations and debates with more than 250 European citizens from 9 countries, the objective of these sessions was to gauge awareness and understanding of Intellectual Property and of its key components / Detail drivers and deterrents to engage in behaviours supportive or disrespectful of Intellectual Property rights / Analyse the relationship that Europeans maintain with Intellectual Property in their day to day life: is it important? Why should it be promoted and protected? What would the world be like if IP instruments like copyright or patent did not exist?

Maybe more importantly the objective of this qualitative research was to listen openly and with as little bias as possible to what citizens from these 9 markets had to say about Intellectual property. We discussed their concerns, their frustrations, their hope and disappointment. By leaving room for surprise and serendipity we learned about their day to day lives and the way Intellectual Property fits (or doesn’t fit) in it. As always we heard a diversity of points of view and observed differences between countries and socio-demographic groups, however, one of our surprise was to realize that from Vilnius to Stockholm, to Madrid and London, perceptions were quite aligned and consistent. This particularly among younger citizens, showing that Intellectual property is probably a common ground for most EU nations, converting in broadly consistent opinion patterns across member States.

During our conversations we also realized that globalization (of trade, culture and information) was reflected in many of the examples, anecdotes or references shared by participants. These references are European but not only, Coca-Cola, Apple, Microsoft are American corporations, however they were discussed in almost each group we moderated as iconic brands, patent holders and trademark originators. The importance of USA pop culture (music, TV shows and videos) is visible in most discussions around copyright and illegal download. As a result, even if our research is centered on citizens from the European Union, it quickly appeared somewhat artificial to posit that the attitudes and perceptions from EU citizens could be analyzed independently from a broader international context.

Finally one must remember that we carried-out this research at a time of intense economic challenges for the EU, where women and men – whatever their personal situation – reported quite important concerns about the future. The words “crisis” or “unemployment” very commonly emerged repeatedly and spontaneously in our discussions and it must be acknowledged that our findings and analysis cannot be fully isolated from this macro context..


1- Awareness of Intellectual Property “Intellectual Property” is an expression that most citizens already heard, they recognize it as part of the legal vocabulary and this sentiment of familiarity is reinforced by the fact the expression is in most languages composed of quite common terms Intellectual & Property The prompted awareness of the expression “Intellectual property” is quite high in the sense that EU citizens “recognize” and “identify” the terms as something they heard before. This feeling of knowing the terms (if not the notions or concepts behind) is confirmed by the analysis of the familiarity rating exercise that we carried out with each participant. When asked to rate their familiarity with various terms connected to Intellectual Property, average rates on 10 points are very highOnly 10% of participants report low familiarity with the terms Patent, Copyright or Trademark using a rate of 5/10 or below. Geographical Indication is an exception to this pattern (45% of respondents rating their familiarity with the term with a 5 or less) The “words” of IP are generally known, but this “prompted awareness” translates in very diverse understanding levels


“I have heard about this [Intellectual Property] but it still feels like something far away. This is not relevant to my daily life” Lea (F), 45+, Sweden

“ All these words are not familiar to me, they make

me think of multinationals, they belong to a reality

that is not mine” Marco (M), 17, Italy


2- Understanding of Intellectual Property Evaluating the understanding of IP is a challenge, this would demand qualifying what is a correct / wrong understanding of IP by citizens and thus creating an objective measurement scale. The challenge lies in the fact that in a majority of cases, (evaluated to 3/5th of the qualitative stage participants) individuals have “some” understanding of Intellectual Property (for instance because they can match it with key components or tools like copyright or patent) but they also have a very partial definition of these concepts, where correct elements coexist with wrong assumptions or ignored notionsA minority of participants seem to have a correct and comprehensive understanding of Intellectual Property (notably covering both Copyright and Industrial Property notions). This whatever the country or the age group The Europeans we have met are aware of the fragility and lack of substance of their understanding, they share the fact that these notions are “fuzzy” / “blurry” / “Unclear” and that they are not confident in the quality / extent of their understanding

Basic / partial

understanding

About 3/5th

Basic / partial

understanding

About 3/5th

Inexistent / low

understanding

About 1/5th

Inexistent / low

understanding

About 1/5th

Refined / advanced

understanding

About 1/5th

Refined / advanced

understanding

About 1/5th


2- Understanding of Intellectual Property Intellectual Property is …a selection of typical answers:

“Someone's intellectual work/knowledge, is something that is being paid

for. Greater knowledge equals greater intellectual property.” Croatia

“The right to state that an idea is mine and nobody can change or copy

it.” Italy

“Everything that is created by humans.” Lithuania

“It (IP) is related to the copyrights. If I have written a book, it is me who

decides whether to publish it online. Whether it will be available or you will

have to pay for it.” Poland

“Everything that is a creation of the mind.” Spain

“Exclusive economic rights for the product you have created.” Sweden

“A unique, intangible idea.” UK

“Not clear to me what IP is referring to, I think it’s the same than ©.”

France

8 © Copyright 2013 Daniel J Edelman Inc.

“I think that Intellectual Property is not a word used in your daily routine. It is a

very specific term that is only used correctly by a small part of society.”

Antonio (M), 45+, Spain

“IP entails an acknowledgment. It is the right of an

individual to be acknowledged as the author

/owner of this idea.” Marco (M), 45+, Italy

“IP means that an object cannot be touched by anyone else.” Vilma (F) 25-45 Lithuania

“We all know what it is more or less but I can’t tell I’m missing some nuances. It seems like it changes all the time, it hard to really get hold of the full concept.” Isabelle (F) 25-45 France


“Patent is just an idea, not the final version, copyrights mean that it is the end product.” Tomas (M), 25-45, Lithuania

“I have a problem with the definition of IP. IP is not a

materialistic property, how do we set it apart, what is

really your own intellectual property and what is

influenced by the environment surrounding

us?” Christine (F), 45+, Germany

“Patent is a product and copyright protects this

product” Piotr (M) 15, Poland


3- Attitude and emotional projections Participants to the qualitative stage broadly recognize the intrinsic

value of Intellectual property. They agree it is « needed », « fair » and

« just » that someone’s ideas are protected and that this person could reap the

benefit of his / her creativity, talent and work. However this positive response

to the principles of IP, is overshadowed by broadly negative perceptions

of the rules and business practices based on IP.

Copyright and the issue of illegal downloading clearly seem at the core of

this quite negative response, much more than the principle of Industrial

Property of than Geographical Indication (whose awareness is clearly low).

When associated to talent and hard work, IP is clearly described

positively, however there is a broad consensus accross all countries and

age groups that IP has become « more and more » attached to money

and profit. In a quite anti-elite environment / challenging economic context, this

doesn’t play in favor of a positive attitude on IP.

POSITIVE LEXICON

NEGATIVELEXICON

GENIUS R&D

AUTHOR OWNER

INDIVIDUAL CORPORATIONS

WORK INVESTMENT

REWARD PROFIT

FAIR LEGAL

QUALITY EQUITY

PROTECTING EXCLUDING

RESPECT GREED

ENTERTAINMENT

INDUSTRY

TALENT STARDOM


4- Zoom on Copyright Copyright is a term mostly associated to artistic creation. It is perceived as the only way to guarantee that an

artist can -Establish the evidence that he is the author of his / her creation -Prevent others to claim that they created it -In a secondary mode, guarantee that the artist can make a profit out of the creation

Copyright is a notion pretty well understood, it is associated to the control that an artist can establish

over its creation. In most cases people associate copyright to intangible creation whereas patent would be more

focused on physical goods, however this perception coexists with the fact that the 2 notions may complement one

another: copyright would be connected to the trade of an invention / vs. patent connected to the invention itself

The rules associated to copyright are blurry, Participants to the group generally understand that illegal

downloads are a copyright violation, but they wonder about other forms of copyright infringement

Like in many components of IP, a basic understanding of what copyright is doesn’t mean that people

understand the rules attached to it. Internet and publicity around illegal download prosecutions clearly contributed

to the relatively strong awareness of the notion but also to some degree of negative connotation


“What are the limits of copyright? What if you are in school and children are singing some well-known songs and you do the performance without asking permission. And if you ask for some type of entrance-fee because it’s for charity, then suddenly I have committed copyright infringement and can be sued without being aware of it. It gets tricky very fast.” Eva (F), 25-45, Germany

“The positive side of no copyright would be easy access, everything would be legal, we would be equal, it would be more democratic in a way” Thierry (M), 25-45, France“As soon as you have created a song or a guitar riff or a

tune, then it is immediately copyrighted and you have exclusive rights to it. If someone else would put my song on Youtube without permission, then it is possible for me

to force that person to remove the video.” Max (M), 17, Sweden


5- Zoom on PatentPatent is in many case a word well established and understood by European Citizens. It seems that it has

become part of the vocabulary and carries a diversity of meanings sometime overlapping with other key notions . -An authorization to commercialize or manufacture-An stamp of approval-A label of quality -A registration document, paperwork similar to a “passport” or a “diploma” -An identity card for a product

Because of the importance of Patent in commercial communication by companies and brands since the

very beginning of advertising, the true meaning of Patent is sometime difficult to isolate. The concept is quite

positively described overall.

The most educated groups often associate Patents with licensing rights and a duration of validity. These

groups tend to use the example of pharmaceutical patents to describe this mechanics. More commonly than expected

as well, citizens report that a patent “needs to explain and describe how things work”

The basic rules of patent are quite well integrated by most educated audiences, less educated

participants tend to associate patent with a commercial argument to praise the qualities of a product


“Patents are equivalent to identity cards in charge of proving information on who you are. Someone is watching you and your rights. I think it must be the same for patents. There is an external entity in charge of protecting your idea. This is positive. ” Gemma (F) 25-45, Spain

“When a product is patented it means it is 'approved'. ”

Lara (F), 16, Italy

“ The patent is only valid for a number of years, It is especially important for the healthcare business.

The other companies can dump the price when a patent runs out”

Bjorn (M) 25-45 Sweden

“Without Patent, Innovation could be quicker, like with Open source code or technology. ”

Thibault (25-45) France


6- Zoom on Trademark The concept of Trademark is confusing because it encapsulates a lot of different notions. Trademark are

understood to be a visual symbol in the first place: “a logo or anything designed to make you think of a specific

brand”. But participants that have a more sophisticated opinion on Trademarks associate them with a diversity of

objects / forms: words, symbols, names, shapes and even sounds…. Others just associate Trademarks with “brands”.

Trademarks are associated with a form of “signature” of a brand / a company, it is perceived to be

multiple / subjective. A trademark would be everything that can trigger the identification /

differentiation of a brand.

Trademarks are associated with marketing and advertising of a product or services. They crystalize the

“value” of a brand in the sense that they aim at helping consumer “find the brand they love”. In many occasions

Trademarks are supposed to be a sign of quality.

With trademarks more than with Patent or copyright, participants mobilize concepts related to

marketing and consumption. Trademark appear in many ways like the “fun” part of Intellectual Property,

even if the connect between Trademark / Patent and Copyright remains very blurry, Trademark seems to

convey more positive perceptions


“A trademark is just something extra, it helps you to know who the manufacturer is. But the trademark itself does not reveal anything else, unless you have had a good experience with that brand.” Victor (M), 18-24, Sweden

“I think that it could be explained this way: i.e. the name Coca Cola is the trademark, and the recipe for the

beverage is covered by patent” Matteo (M) 25-45 Italy

“When I see some trademark, for example Coca-Cola`s trademark I instantly have representation in my head what

is it and with which product is related to. .” Dario (M), 18-24 Croatia


7- What would happen in a world without IP?


Insights section

1. IP and identity are connected concepts

2. Moral rules protects individuals / inventors / authors NOT business

people

3. Europeans need IP but don’t celebrate it

4. Corporations and Governments are failing IP not citizens

5. IP transcends space and time, unlike IP regulations and IP-derived

revenue models

© Copyright 2013 Daniel J Edelman Inc. Intelligent Engagement

IP and identity are connected conceptsAnalyzing the lexicon used by participants from the 9 countries to describe their attitudes on Intellectual property we found great similarities with the vocabulary of identity. In the extreme, the invention and the inventors / Artwork and artist go in synch to a point where they could even merge.

Patents are “identity cards” or “passports”, Trademarks are “signatures” or “business cards”, Copyright is attached to individual talent or creativity. It seems that in many cases Intellectual Property if FIRST perceived as an Individual’s right to claim ownership of the produce of its intelligence or talent. IP infringement triggers moral blame FIRST when assimilated to Identity theft


Moral rules protects individuals / inventors / authors NOT business peopleParticipants of the qualitative stage seldom express any form of guilt when reporting that they download illegally or purchase counterfeited goods. They feel they have a moral right to do it because they are not harming anyone directly and because there is social and legal tolerance for these behaviors.

On the contrary they seem to morally reprove the attitudes consisting in wrongfully claiming ownership of an idea or of an artistic creation. Plagiarism seems to be the only real Intellectual Property taboo, in a society that in many cases values more creativity and invention per se than business or profit that may derive from it .


Europeans need IP but don’t celebrate it In the focus groups and triads interview one of the exercise consisted of imagining what would the World be like if there was no patent, no copyright, no trademarks. The very large consensus was in every country that it would be…chaos. The economy would be expected to go down, creativity would suffer, all incentives to create something innovative or new would be killed, consumers would be easy prays to all sorts of schemes and would no longer be able to differentiate quality products from others.

The logic would like that the opposite would be true, but not really, the absence of IP is dreadful but this doesn’t convert into a protective or positive attitude toward IP protection or promotion.


Corporations and Governments are failing IP - not citizens When asked about their responsibility and role in promoting the respect of IP rules or defining IP, most Europeans that participated the discussion report that they feel this is NOT their responsibility. They develop quite well practiced justification narrative highlighting the fact that corporations practice unethical pricing and make profit to the extent of quality (Made in China effect) and they also blame governments for not acting on some very obvious IP infringement based business, giving evidence of the fact that “this is not a real crime”. In many cases, citizens report that they would stop downloading illegally if they felt authorities cared enough to warn and fine citizens engaging in such activities., or if there was an affordable and accessible legal alternative


IP transcends space and time, unlike IPregulations and IP-derived revenue models In this qualitative stage we often witnessed paradoxical reactions, citizens claiming they valued creativity, the right to benefit and profit from an idea, the importance of being protected from counterfeit or plagiarism… in the same conversation participants could claim to be proud to download illegally and feel smart when they found an “top quality counterfeit”…The paradox seems to lie in the fact that the value of IP is recognized as a social need and a fair reason to trigger protection and legal enforcement, but citizens refute the responsibility to promote and defend this value . They additionally feel that some of the regulations and revenue models around IP are obsolete or ill-fitted to modern reality and expect that business and governments would recognize it and propose innovative solutions that benefit all European citizens


European Union Citizens & Intellectual Property

Edelman Berland for ETYQ and OHIMQualitative stage initial report – April 2013

Date post:	27-Mar-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jaden-atkinson
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

European Union Citizens & Intellectual Property Edelman Berland for ETYQ and OHIM Qualitative stage...

Documents