CYBERSPACE — Book trailers are all the rage in publishing these days. Authors, publishers and publicists create them to attract the attention of readers in a shrinking market. The concept is that with multiple media assaulting the senses from every direction, a mini-movie teaser that captures the essence of the printed word stands at least a small chance of hooking new readers who might actually buy the product.Author, editor, reading series producer, and promotional whiz Rachel Kramer Bussel is sold on the power of book trailers, but she has learned that in order for a trailer to be effective, it must be viewed. With the proliferation of video-sharing websites, that shouldn’t be a problem, right?
Wrong.
The trailer for Bussel’s new book, Spanked: Red Cheeked Erotica (July 2008, Cleis Press), created a stir, but it wasn’t exactly the stir for which Bussel had hoped. Instead of creating buy-worthy buzz among users, Bussel’s trailer prompted backlash from the video-sharing sites themselves.
Spanked’s low-key-but-suggestive trailer was removed from Vimeo and Flickr within hours of posting. Both sites cited violations of their terms of service, saying they did not allow pornography.
Vimeo emailed Bussel saying it does not allow pornography or “commercial videos.” Bussel admitted to a bit of confusion over the reasoning, since the website displays both racy content and other book trailers.
In fact, the book’s cover (to say nothing of its subject matter) is much racier than its trailer, which includes no nudity and no sex. The hardest-core frames display a short-skirted woman’s bottom taking a few soft blows from various impromptu paddles. Bussel, aware of the vagaries of online morality, said the approach was intentional.
“I wanted to appeal to as many people as possible,” she said. “I wasn’t making pornography.”
Thankfully, she said, YouTube and blip continue to host the trailer — which only serves to deepen Bussel’s confusion about Vimeo’s and Flickr’s rejection.
“Their terms of use are not so different from Vimeo and Flickr, so it is difficult to draw a conclusion about what qualifies as objectionable,” she noted. “Forty years have passed since Supreme Court Justice [Potter] Stewart said ‘I know it when I see it,’ and some video sharing sites apparently follow the same vague criteria.”
