Recent online discussions surrounding Chen Zheyuan, Cheng Lei, and Zeng Shunxi and their relationship have sparked the recurring claim that the actors were “undermined” or “betrayed” by the platform. However, a closer look at how industry partnerships actually function suggests that this narrative is largely based on a misunderstanding of current collaboration models.
At the core of the issue lies the distinction between different types of contracts. Unlike traditional full-management agreements—where an actor’s career development, project selection, and promotional resources are deeply tied to a single platform or company—these actors are generally believed to operate under project-based or partial agreements. This structure fundamentally shapes how resources are allocated and why outcomes may differ from public expectations.
Understanding the Difference: Full Contracts vs. Flexible Agreements
A full-contract artist typically benefits from long-term, systematic investment. Platforms or agencies take a more active role in shaping their career trajectory, often prioritizing them in project development and promotional efforts.
By contrast, actors like Chen Zheyuan, Cheng Lei, and Zeng Shunxi are more likely working under flexible arrangements. These allow platforms such as iQIYI (爱奇艺) to collaborate with them on specific projects without exclusivity. At the same time, the actors retain the freedom to work with other platforms and production teams.
This model has become increasingly common in today’s content industry, functioning as a balance between risk distribution and resource mobility.
Why “Lack of Push” Is Structural, Not Personal
Within this framework, the perception that a platform is not “fully supporting” certain actors is less a matter of intention and more a structural outcome. For platforms like iQIYI (爱奇艺), resource allocation tends to favor projects or artists with higher levels of exclusivity and control.
For actors who maintain cross-platform flexibility, the strategy often becomes more selective and situational. They may receive strong support during specific projects or promotional cycles, but not the sustained, long-term resource concentration typically associated with fully contracted talent.
This explains why periods without high-profile projects can be misinterpreted as a withdrawal of support, when in reality they reflect the inherent variability of the collaboration model.
A Two-Way Choice With Trade-Offs
Importantly, this type of partnership is not imposed unilaterally—it is the result of mutual choice. Actors benefit from greater autonomy, gaining access to a wider range of scripts, genres, and production teams across platforms. However, this flexibility also comes with increased responsibility.
Without a single platform orchestrating their entire career path, actors must take a more active role in project selection and long-term planning. As a result, fluctuations in exposure or project scale become more visible and, at times, more pronounced.
A Broader Industry Shift
From a wider industry perspective, the move away from exclusive contracts reflects a broader shift. As platforms adopt more cautious investment strategies and prioritize project-level returns, large-scale artist binding has become less common. At the same time, actors increasingly prefer to remain flexible in an unpredictable market environment.
Within this evolving landscape, framing such partnerships as “betrayal” oversimplifies a far more complex reality. A more accurate interpretation is that the relationship between platforms and actors has become a dynamic negotiation—one defined by collaboration, but also by clearly maintained boundaries.
Ultimately, both sides are operating within a system that prioritizes adaptability and strategic alignment, rather than long-term exclusivity.
