5 ms·

Fyre Festival organizers blew all their money early on models, planes and yachts

44 points by uladzislau 9y ago

RichardHeart 9y ago
I see good news. "Only one model — “Gone Girl” actress Emily Ratajkowski — labeled her promotion as an ad, as required by the Federal Trade Commission. The other models’ omissions are now the subject of a class-action lawsuit." If you put your face on things that defraud people, you should pay a social penalty, and in this case it would seem, for some, a financial one.
- endominus 9y ago
  It seems odd to sue the models when this kind of lawbreaking is so common - I'm reminded of Microsoft's influencer campaign that raised a stink among the YouTube audience a while back. While I absolutely believe that these models did wrong by not discussing the nature of the promotion, I'm left wondering if the only reason they are being litigated against is that they deceived the wealthy. Another data point for the argument that the law is applied differently to protect different interests, I guess. Unrelated, I'm glad Ratajkowski did the right thing here; always nice to see people you've heard of following a moral (or at least legal) path despite their peers.
  - RichardHeart 9y ago
    There could be nothing easier to comply with, than stating that things that are ads, are ads. The reason this lawbreaking is common, I would assume, is because not enough heads have rolled. It's seems rare that anyone can afford to litigate for justice these days, unless a billionaire happens to smile upon your cause.
  - drzaiusapelord 9y ago
    It seems odd to excuse those low on the totem pole in what was essentially a scam. There's this odd part of American culture that considers marketers and other 'influencers' immune from criticisms. I don't agree with it and stinks of the long debunked "just following orders" excuse. This allows lower-tiered scammers to play up a "but I just work here, go after my rich boss not me," narrative which co-opts class warfare rhetoric to make themselves immune from any criticism or consequences. >I'm left wondering if the only reason they are being litigated against is that they deceived the wealthy. Legal fees are expensive. I don't have $250,000 laying around for legal fees but the wealthy do. The same way Hulk Hogan's wealth and connections weren't enough to take on Gawker, so Thiel stepped in. In both cases the wealthy took on the moral position. Its odd that you're suggesting that because the wealthy are involved and not 'regular joes' that they must be taking an immoral position.
    - endominus 9y ago
      Please do reread my comment. I never said the position of those undertaking the suit are immoral; on the contrary, I specifically stated that the models involved were culpable. I'm merely stating that were the victims not wealthy, this violation of the law would likely never have been punished. I'm pointing out a systemic issue in the legal system, in giving greater access to the capitalist aristocracy.
      - drzaiusapelord 9y ago
        How can you possibly know this? Maybe a lawyer would take up a case for the non-wealthy as a class-action. Or an organization like the ACLU would step in and support someone's claims. I think you're really stretching credibility here with a "Only the wealthy would do this" argument. Most of Fyre's tickets were low end tickets. Painting this as a "capitalist aristocracy" issue is extremely questionable. My reading of your comments just shows someone with a classist axe to grind and little else.
      - tomkarlo 9y ago
        I don't think it's so much the wealth of the victims as the size of the transaction (ticket price) as well as the total spend. It makes a class action lawsuit (where the lawyers will get a % of the value recovered) attractive, whereas if it was a smaller purchase, with the same number of affected customers, that might not be compelling to lawyers.
  - valdiorn 9y ago
    > It seems odd to sue the models when this kind of lawbreaking is so common this may be the event that we've been waiting for, the big, precedence-setting lawsuit that makes this no longer OK, socially or legally
CaptainZapp 9y ago
Serious logistical planning for the festival didn’t even begin until late February or early March This is just so beyond the pale. i did logistics for a collective of artists and this is about the amount of time you need to get a couple containers from Zurich to Torino. Ironically, customs is not really the big issue, provided that you get the paperwork right, the t's crossed and the i's dotted. This blasé attitude about "don't worry about customs" would have made me run far and wide from any such project. Amateurs!
joezydeco 9y ago
Yet, right in the middle of this Vice article when I loaded it, is a video ad for an overpriced vodka with beautiful model staring back at you and making eyes with the camera. (The point is: don't act all high and mighty about companies using models to sucker you into buying stuff when you're doing it yourself. I reloaded the page and now it's a semi-famous DJ talking. Strike two.)
- jungletek 9y ago
  >don't act all high and mighty about companies using models to sucker you into buying stuff when you're doing it yourself. Haha, what? Do you have the same critique for traditional news outlets? Furthermore, could you highlight the part or parts in the article that struck you as having a 'high-horse' tone? Seemed more like a statement of facts (as known) and events, and a critique of poor planning to me. You know, reporting.
- fivestar 9y ago
  But next year's is going to be awesome and hey, the tix are 2 for 1 if you just be-leeve! The essence of a good scam is that at first, you have the dream and they have the money and at the end, you have the money and they have the dream.
  - joezydeco 9y ago
    That pretty much describes 2016-2017 in America in general, doesn't it?
    - 086421357909764 9y ago
      Sums up the world really, most every country has a version of this. Status and notoriety has always been used to sell, it's horrible, but it's hardly a uniquely American thing.
      - joezydeco 9y ago
        Was referring to our current president.
wodenokoto 9y ago
I'm surprised people even arrived at the island.
sschueller 9y ago
After all this I can't believe they are actually trying to convince people to take VIP tickets for next year instead of a refund.
- SkyMarshal 9y ago
  They probably have no money left to refund.
brudgers 9y ago
Reading the headline made me think of George Best.

44 points by uladzislau 9y ago

I see good news. "Only one model — “Gone Girl” actress Emily Ratajkowski — labeled her promotion as an ad, as required by the Federal Trade Commission. The other models’ omissions are now the subject of a class-action lawsuit." If you put your face on things that defraud people, you should pay a social penalty, and in this case it would seem, for some, a financial one.

endominus 9y ago
It seems odd to sue the models when this kind of lawbreaking is so common - I'm reminded of Microsoft's influencer campaign that raised a stink among the YouTube audience a while back. While I absolutely believe that these models did wrong by not discussing the nature of the promotion, I'm left wondering if the only reason they are being litigated against is that they deceived the wealthy. Another data point for the argument that the law is applied differently to protect different interests, I guess. Unrelated, I'm glad Ratajkowski did the right thing here; always nice to see people you've heard of following a moral (or at least legal) path despite their peers.
- RichardHeart 9y ago
  There could be nothing easier to comply with, than stating that things that are ads, are ads. The reason this lawbreaking is common, I would assume, is because not enough heads have rolled. It's seems rare that anyone can afford to litigate for justice these days, unless a billionaire happens to smile upon your cause.
- drzaiusapelord 9y ago
  It seems odd to excuse those low on the totem pole in what was essentially a scam. There's this odd part of American culture that considers marketers and other 'influencers' immune from criticisms. I don't agree with it and stinks of the long debunked "just following orders" excuse. This allows lower-tiered scammers to play up a "but I just work here, go after my rich boss not me," narrative which co-opts class warfare rhetoric to make themselves immune from any criticism or consequences. >I'm left wondering if the only reason they are being litigated against is that they deceived the wealthy. Legal fees are expensive. I don't have $250,000 laying around for legal fees but the wealthy do. The same way Hulk Hogan's wealth and connections weren't enough to take on Gawker, so Thiel stepped in. In both cases the wealthy took on the moral position. Its odd that you're suggesting that because the wealthy are involved and not 'regular joes' that they must be taking an immoral position.
  - endominus 9y ago
    Please do reread my comment. I never said the position of those undertaking the suit are immoral; on the contrary, I specifically stated that the models involved were culpable. I'm merely stating that were the victims not wealthy, this violation of the law would likely never have been punished. I'm pointing out a systemic issue in the legal system, in giving greater access to the capitalist aristocracy.
    - drzaiusapelord 9y ago
      How can you possibly know this? Maybe a lawyer would take up a case for the non-wealthy as a class-action. Or an organization like the ACLU would step in and support someone's claims. I think you're really stretching credibility here with a "Only the wealthy would do this" argument. Most of Fyre's tickets were low end tickets. Painting this as a "capitalist aristocracy" issue is extremely questionable. My reading of your comments just shows someone with a classist axe to grind and little else.
    - tomkarlo 9y ago
      I don't think it's so much the wealth of the victims as the size of the transaction (ticket price) as well as the total spend. It makes a class action lawsuit (where the lawyers will get a % of the value recovered) attractive, whereas if it was a smaller purchase, with the same number of affected customers, that might not be compelling to lawyers.
- valdiorn 9y ago
  > It seems odd to sue the models when this kind of lawbreaking is so common this may be the event that we've been waiting for, the big, precedence-setting lawsuit that makes this no longer OK, socially or legally

CaptainZapp 9y ago

Serious logistical planning for the festival didn’t even begin until late February or early March This is just so beyond the pale. i did logistics for a collective of artists and this is about the amount of time you need to get a couple containers from Zurich to Torino. Ironically, customs is not really the big issue, provided that you get the paperwork right, the t's crossed and the i's dotted. This blasé attitude about "don't worry about customs" would have made me run far and wide from any such project. Amateurs!

joezydeco 9y ago

Yet, right in the middle of this Vice article when I loaded it, is a video ad for an overpriced vodka with beautiful model staring back at you and making eyes with the camera. (The point is: don't act all high and mighty about companies using models to sucker you into buying stuff when you're doing it yourself. I reloaded the page and now it's a semi-famous DJ talking. Strike two.)

jungletek 9y ago
>don't act all high and mighty about companies using models to sucker you into buying stuff when you're doing it yourself. Haha, what? Do you have the same critique for traditional news outlets? Furthermore, could you highlight the part or parts in the article that struck you as having a 'high-horse' tone? Seemed more like a statement of facts (as known) and events, and a critique of poor planning to me. You know, reporting.
fivestar 9y ago
But next year's is going to be awesome and hey, the tix are 2 for 1 if you just be-leeve! The essence of a good scam is that at first, you have the dream and they have the money and at the end, you have the money and they have the dream.
- joezydeco 9y ago
  That pretty much describes 2016-2017 in America in general, doesn't it?
  - 086421357909764 9y ago
    Sums up the world really, most every country has a version of this. Status and notoriety has always been used to sell, it's horrible, but it's hardly a uniquely American thing.
    - joezydeco 9y ago
      Was referring to our current president.

wodenokoto 9y ago

I'm surprised people even arrived at the island.

sschueller 9y ago

After all this I can't believe they are actually trying to convince people to take VIP tickets for next year instead of a refund.

SkyMarshal 9y ago
They probably have no money left to refund.

brudgers 9y ago

Reading the headline made me think of George Best.