16 ms·

Fyre Festival Was a Huge Scam. Is Netflix’s Fyre Documentary a Scam, Too?

314 points by danso 8y ago

rotrux 8y ago
Opinion: Yes. Just less of a malignant one.
hkon 8y ago
It sure is entertaining.
bluetidepro 8y ago
Yeah, I was pretty annoyed after I watched the Netflix documentary on this to find out it was produced by the same people at "FuckJerry." That's also why they had so much better "inside" footage compared to the Hulu one. I watched them both, and from a visual/entertaining stand point, the Netflix one was far superior, but the Hulu one was much more informative and critical of all parties involved. Clearly this article explains that neither were innocent, though. I just feel like Netflix was pretty sketchy not to include a disclaimer at the start or end of theirs to explain that the people at "FuckJerry" were a producer of the doc. The whole thing, from the festival itself to the documentaries, is incredibly fascinating. Just another example of the plague that is social media. In years to come, I expect we will only see more stories of this level of social media marketing manipulation. It's scary.
- bluetwo 8y ago
  I do agree they should have disclosed this at the top. They promoted the thing and it could be argued hold some responsibility for the failure.
- acomjean 8y ago
  I’ve only seen the Netflix one. Although nobody looks good in the documentary, the involvement of one of the parties in the production is certainly troubling. There is no way to make it even seem objective if they were involved. I’m discounted.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    Same, but my understanding is that in the Netflix doc, some of the people on the agency side were claiming that they had no knowledge or involvement, which is in question because they could have made the doc to distance themselves from the mess.
    - WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
      Then again, Hulu paid an undisclosed amount of money to Billy McFarland for an interview on a documentary after he scammed a whole bunch of people. Noone can throw the first stone here.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - mtrpcic 8y ago
        To be fair though, Billy basically didn't answer any questions during that interview (at least that were put into the final cut). Nearly every question asked of him was met with awkward silence and pursed lips, or canned "I have no knowledge.." or "I can't comment on.." responses. I don't know that his interview added any bias in terms of what was shown in the film.
        eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
        Yep, he didn't truly seem remorseful either. He was more interested in protecting himself from any further legal issues. I don't think it was ethical to pay for his interview whatsoever.
        neaden 8y ago
        Doesn't that make it worse? They paid him money and didn't really get anything out if it means he just scammed someone else.
        spatley 8y ago
        Which is likely a deliberate editing choice. Billy was paid to do the interview and then the director showed all that awkwardness to illustrate the depth of the grift.
- jngreenlee 8y ago
  >only see more stories of this level of social media marketing manipulation Yes. See the news about Burning Man and the Humana Camp. Mobile right now can't grab the links easily but I will try to come back with them.
- liquid153 8y ago
  Could you elaborate on what "FJerry" is for the uninformed.
  - bluetidepro 8y ago
    It's a social media marketing agency [1] (the article mentions they are trying to rebrand though as "Jerry Media" [2]) that lead all the social media marketing for the festival. They also mainly known for having a very popular Instagram account [3] where they have been in trouble in the past for reposting memes or content without giving credit to the creators. Basically people pay them to post content or spread content through their social media "influencer" network. [1] http://fuckjerry.com/ http://fuckjerry.com/ [2] http://jerrystudios.com/ http://jerrystudios.com/ [3] https://www.instagram.com/fuckjerry https://www.instagram.com/fuckjerry
    - dmix 8y ago
      Was going through their instagram and noticed one of their obviously paid posts pushing the Hinge dating app: https://www.instagram.com/p/BqDzdzLBJti/ https://www.instagram.com/p/BqDzdzLBJti/ I tried looking up the girl in the tweet to see if even that part was real and the username (https://twitter.com/dontcallortext_ https://twitter.com/dontcallortext_) doesn't exist, nor does searching "Simone Axing". So I'm guessing the entire tweet was manufactured for marketing purposes. I guess fake tweets interspliced within other stolen content is modern marketing 101.
      - manigandham 8y ago
        >> modern marketing 101 No, it's false advertising and misleading business practices, if not plainly illegal. The regulations just haven't caught up to this because politicians are terrible at understanding how this works and the public doesnt care.
        asdff 8y ago
        Famous people endorsing snake oil has been a thing since famous people and snake oil, instagram is just the latest way to serve it up.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  That fuckjerry was involved doesnt really matter imho. I dont really care who specifically was to blame. The lesson is that the entire situation was allowed to happen. The individual personalities are secondary to the larger story. What matters is what physically happened. Blame and who made what decision doesnt matter to the lessons we should all take from the overall event. So some internal bias doesnt really alter my opinion of the doc.
  - sct202 8y ago
    It doesn't bother you that they could splice out any footage that would make themselves look worse? Or cut in footage out of context that would make themselves look better?
    - sandworm101 8y ago
      Not really. There is more than enough blame to go around, from the leadership to the naive customers. I wouldnt do businezs with any of them. Whether there is enough blame for prosecutions isnt my decision and, hopefully, those who do make that decision dont base it on tv shows.
    - rock_hard 8y ago
      Having watched the movie I can't say that they got away with anything...the blame got evenly distributed
- nodesocket 8y ago
  Except that Hulu paid Billy Mcfarland, whereas NetFlix didn't. I see Netflix as the more responsible party in terms of compensating bad actors in this case. With that said, I have a strong disdain for FuckJerry and their founder Elliot Tebele.
  - smileysteve 8y ago
    Mcfarland has been sentenced for wire fraud and his sentence includes restitution for Fyre festival; so it seems this complaint of hulu is nearly fungible (where Netflix seems to have offered direct restitution that may or may not have counted toward Mcfarland's debt)
- inostia 8y ago
  The "FuckJerry" people apparently had final cut.
  - arethuza 8y ago
    "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it" Churchill And indeed some of the awful screw ups that Churchill made at the start of WW2 (which bizarrely led to him being made PM) have been mostly removed from history - the Narvik campaign in particular.
- bksenior 8y ago
  I mean, Im not sure the meta-deception could be anymore apropos given the topic and response. I think the backstory takes a good story and makes it an accidental masterpiece.
- coenhyde 8y ago
  "Just another example of the plague that is social media" I'm not an advocate for Social Media. But i do not see Fyre Festival as a product of Social Media. Social Media was a tool that Fyre Frestival used very effectively. But if Instagram or whatever didn't exist i guarantee you Billy would have been running some other high risk fraudulent venture. It's who he is. Instead of social media as the tool, it may have been tv or radio. Heck, what about all the railway scams that existed back when we had only newspapers. Conmen will always find a way.
  - mr_toad 8y ago
    > Conmen will always find a way. During the south sea bubble vendors sold shares in the streets. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company#/media/File%3ABubble.folly.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company#/media/Fil...
    - a_bonobo 8y ago
      NPR had a very interesting article on scammers in the 1800s: https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-history-dept/2015/02/12/385310877/how-scams-worked-in-the-1800s https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-history-dept/2015/02/12/385... The first guy would be a perfect fit for GoFundMe.
  - sumo89 8y ago
    Agreed. However I see Billy as a product of the startup culture embracing failure. You have an idea for a company, convince someone else to finance it, the company fails and that person looses all their money. If that company succeeds then you're hailed as the next Steve Jobs despite the very real possibility you're a conman at heart like Billy. FuckJerry deserves all the backlash they get and probably more but we can't let them overshadow the type of culture that has allowed someone like Billy to be doing this for so long.
warp_factor 8y ago
We should stop calling "Documentary" what is essentially some form of entertainment with some predefined narrative that looks like it is a documentary. In this category for example: - Supersize me - Pretty much every Michael Moore movie
- grawprog 8y ago
  I've always thought of them as 'infotainment'. Slightly informational entertainment. I'm not a big fan of a lot of newer documentaries for that reason. Part of me kind of misses the old dry 60's/70's style documentaries with some boring old dude describing facts in a boring monotone way. There's been a few times I've just stopped watching some newer documentaries and just read a bunch of articles and information about the topic it was covering. I figure I probably learned more and got a more well rounded view in the same amount of time doing it that way.
  - caf 8y ago
    Part of me kind of misses the old dry 60's/70's style documentaries with some boring old dude describing facts in a boring monotone way. Are you sure you weren't being misled by the stylistic choices of those documentaries into assuming they hadn't made decisions about the narrative they wanted to present?
  - thatcat 8y ago
    BBC documentaries are the only exception - it seems that it requires public funding to avoid trying to make documentaries entertaining in a way that defeats the purpose of watching a documentary.
- CGamesPlay 8y ago
  I’m genuinely curious what your complaints there are, could you elaborate? What specifically disqualifies something from being a “documentary”?
  - warp_factor 8y ago
    Those are not complains, but enough in my opinions that they should be classified as "infotainments" (as was said in another comment below). The key things I see for being an infotainment: - A predefined narrative that sometimes disregards facts (or more precisely nitpicks facts to fit the narrative) - Focusing on extreme emotions and entertainment with shock pictures and statements. Simply said, look at actual documentaries of historical events or on some scientific//geographical//political topics. The difference is huge.
Reedx 8y ago
Perhaps an opportunity for HBO to step in and make the canonical Frye Festival documentary.
- simplicio 8y ago
  Or to step in and make a documentary about the making of the dueling documentaries.
  - sodosopa 8y ago
    Three words: Silicon Valley, Bachanalia
- danso 8y ago
  There's enough material in both documents that a trim and merge of both would feel very comprehensive. My main complaint with both documentaries is that I would've liked to see more footage/interviews -- basically, more of a tick-tock recounting -- about the feeling of impending doom in the days, hours, minutes before the festival's date drew nearer and nearer. I've had some horrible all-nighters before deadlines in my life, but not on the scale of having just 48 hours to find food, housing, bathrooms, security, etc. for thousands of fans flying into a remote island.
  - baby 8y ago
    Watch "7 days out" on Netflix, it's exactly this but for the opening of a restaurant (at least on ep1). It's stressful as fuck.
  - mr337 8y ago
    Agreed. A lot of the docs focus on the upper management and having to deal with the issues at a high level. I feel like a lot of the in person horror of overnight was fully missed.
  - mayneack 8y ago
    I disagree. I'd consume several more hours of new Fyre content if it were available. If they've got more footage and people. Bring it on.
danso 8y ago
I dislike that FuckJerry was involved in Netflix's documentary and am happy to see them facing backlash over not just the Fyre Festival but their history of stealing jokes. But in regards to Fyre, I didn't really feel the need to see them face greater judgment (maybe that means their purported influence over the Netflix doc worked?). They were paid to shill and market for Fyre, but what's the indication that they knew that McFarland was acting fraudulently? How does their role make them significantly more complicit in the fraud than the photographer, who got paid for the viral glamorous Fyre ad he shot, and who ended up as a producer for Hulu's doc? Maybe it comes down to how much influence you think social media has, in this incident and in general? I liked the Hulu doc, but found its focus and commentary on social media influencers (including the criticism of FuckJerry) as not being interesting enough to merit the time and weight it was given. Yes, it's inarguable that Fyre seems to have gotten a lot of Instagram views. But how much effect did that have on McFarland's ability to basically run a Ponzi scheme? My impression was that McFarland had already talked himself into Manhattan financial circles, and the firms who invested millions in Fyre/Fyre Festival were fools, but not necessarily the kind swayed by social media hype (i.e. similar to the backers of Theranos). Undoubtedly, rich kids use and are influenced by social media. But McFarland already seemed to have enough of a network (he and Ja Rule had collaborated well before FuckJerry got involved) to convince enough rich kids to pay for tickets. To be fair, though, I don't use Instagram for anything except to check up on friends, so I'm admittedly ignorant about how influential Instagrammers can be. But Fyre seemed to be very much the result of McFarland's ambition and lack of morals, and his ability to convince naive people to work towards his goals against all logical odds. FuckJerry's support felt mostly tangential.
- roymurdock 8y ago
  the main issue is transparency fuckjerry was involved in marketing the failed festival, then also involved in creating an "objective" documentary on the whole fiasco obviously they have large incentives to cover up the extent of their knowledge and involvement in the scam we will probably never know how much the fuckjerry founder/team knew about the extent of the fraud the author is simply saying the documentary they produced is not an objective telling of the truth and is probably influenced by fuckjerry trying to manage optics after a large account it was profiting from went south a lot of people didnt know that (myself included) and its good to know who is paying for things and why - transparency
ceph_ 8y ago
I think there should have been clearer disclosure that the documentary was produced by Jerry Media, the same entity that it was covering as the promoter of the fyre festival. But overall I don't think it's a huge deal.
crispyambulance 8y ago
I saw the Netflix Fyre doc, and neither the festival nor the documentary struck me as a scam. The festival seemed like it was a tragic project run spectacularly into the ground by a sociopath with serious psychological issues. I mean, if it were "a scam" there would have been a "take-the-money-and-run" attempt. A scam is an intentional deception in order to gain profit at someone else's expense-- this wasn't that. Instead, things just crashed horribly around him, a lot of people got stiffed, the concert goers ended up at an expensive vacation from hell but the promoters didn't make money (though they did get some beach time with super-models before the horrific project-death-march started).
- freyir 8y ago
  They advertised luxury accommodations, knowing full well that people would be placed in FEMA tents. That, along with many other facts the lied about or failed to disclose, qualifies it as a scam.
- bluetidepro 8y ago
  What. How did you watch it and NOT think it was a scam? He (Billy McFarland) literally lied to the investors. He lied to people who were paying for the event. Lies on top of lies. He WAS intentional deceptive. Not sure how you missed that aspect after watching it? Yeah, he MAY have had an actual dream of a real festival during it, but that doesn't negate the fact that he still deceived and lied to many people involved with the project.
  - tomhoward 8y ago
    The parent’s main point was they really did intend to put on a festival, rather than just disappear with the cash. Yes they deceived and lied to a lot of people; no one disputes that. But they still did seriously intend to run a festival, as ridiculous an idea as that was.
- xxxanony 8y ago
  Are you kidding? It absolutely was a take the money and run. It was obvious weeks out that they were not going to be able to deliver on what they sold and instead of issuing refunds and cancelling the event, they took the money and ran, and continued to hire folks to build the thing without any money to pay them.
throwaway-1283 8y ago
Yes it was, and fortunately celebrities are now speaking out against FuckJerry's rampant plagiarism (stealing jokes) on their main Instagram account, which will hopefully pressure advertisers to stop working with them.
duxup 8y ago
It will be interesting to see how this kind of thing plays out. Neflix made a deal with the folks behind Goop... they're basically anti science hucksters. Where documentary that honestly approach's its subject with some sense of objectivity, and pure salesmanship starts and ends is an interesting question. I always assumed documentations sometimes have a point of view, I mean we all do. But there are some that straight up are on a fundamental level, BS, straight advertising.
the_cat_kittles 8y ago
its accidentally very good because you can see all these people thinking they are successfully covering their asses. in reality they are just admitting that they were stupid / unscrupulous enough to work on the the festival. its also very interesting to me, because its this documentary (and the hulu one) that have really established billy mcfarlane as a infamous celebrity now. im pretty sure the only thing stopping him from his bullshit is being in jail, so i wonder if this whole thing is going to play out like a real life version of "the producers". i.e. he ends up ahead because now he is a bonafide celebrity.
legitster 8y ago
I remember yelling at the screen during Fyre "Then you should have cancelled it!" everytime someone said something would have gone wrong. The fact that they waited until people were already on the island before the staff revolted speaks just as ill of the staff. They could have done that the entire time! One of the thing that screamed out to me was how collectively lacking the entire organization was in business experience. Everyone was so young and only knew one or two jobs before this one - of course they would blindly follow. This is where people with a few more failures under their belt should have been able to stomp the breaks a lot sooner.
- smileysteve 8y ago
  Seriously, to the FyreMedia staff, ~"We didn't know when we'd get paid, or in what amount, and often it was just in a bag of cash." I can't think of many better reasons to leave a company, especially when you include their doubts about the festival. In sum; I might not get paid, I'm getting paid sketchily in all cash, and I think my company/CEO is failing.
  - freewilly1040 8y ago
    Easy to say, but don't underestimate the ability of a master manipulator with (at least temporary) access to capital. He had the skills to manipulate and the power to sift through people to find those most vulnerable to it.
sjjshvuiajhz 8y ago
I think the key question is: would any other marketing company have done the same as FuckJerry, attempting to do the job they were hired for given McFarland’s ability to trick people into thinking the festival was going to be a good experience? Or did FuckJerry know that the people they were marketing to were not going to get the fun time they expected? This article’s detailed logs of who had what job title when on the production of each movie don’t seem to get at the relevant issue of fault. The alleged crimes here are the production and promotion of the festival, not the production of movies created by people trying to assign blame after the fact. McFarland has been conclusively shown to be a con-man (eg. spammed the Fyre attendee email list selling tickets to nonexistent celebrity meet-and-greets while he was out on bail). We should take narratives that benefit him at the expense of people he lied to with a big lump of salt, given his ability to manipulate.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  > would any other marketing company have done the same as FuckJerry Are you asking if ANY company would have done the same, or if EVERY company would do the same? If it's the latter, there are many marketing agencies out there that want to market products that actually exist, and understand that marketing a scam is a potential PR nightmare, in addition to being unethical. Such companies will cancel a contract as soon as it becomes clear that the product cannot be delivered as advertised.
  - sjjshvuiajhz 8y ago
    It seems like McFarland had an incredible ability to make people think he could overcome the issues with the festival and make it a success, which is why so many people worked day and night to try to pull it off. Are we supposed to believe the marketing agency should have predicted its failure and quit when so many people on the ground at the island didn’t?
    - AlexandrB 8y ago
      What the people on the ground at the island wanted most was to get paid. Sounds like Fyre would have been a boon for the local economy and I think they assumed they would get paid even if the festival tanked, which is not unreasonable when someone shows up flashing lots of cash. FuckJerry, on the other hand, had far more insider knowledge as well as the financial freedom to walk away from the project. They did not. I think the only group that could be considered "true believers" like you describe are the Fyre employees.
DonHopkins 8y ago
I can only hope the next Fyre festival is in a more dangerous location, with volcanos, quicksand, and brat eating tigers.
gammateam 8y ago
haha I thought about this too, they are milking this so effectively! they get to make their own meta-memes about it too! every startup spending two hour meetings on a hashtag that nobody will use needs to learn from this instruction manual.
aaron695 8y ago
Both are a scam. Fyre Fraud at least tips you off you're being scammed. It starts off saying how people loved the whole debacle essentially because of schadenfreude. Then serves up schadenfreude for 96 mins. Neither is 'true', watch both to get a still false version but better than any one. Fyre did cover up FuckJerry's involvement though, which was really bad. But I will say after 3 hours of schadenfreude the Fyre interview with Maryann Rolle, the caterer who lost her life savings, blew me away as a person. Neither touches the fact the bloggers and people who went to a top 10 famous festival (Up there with Woodstock I/II and the first Burning Man) kinda got a good deal. They are more part of history than any bands on an island would have achieved. So there is no schadenfreude and Billy McFarland probably has a mental illness. Reality is complex.
joaomacp 8y ago
Ah, so that's why I've been seeing lots of videos and posts about Fyre... I thought it was weird, as the incident was so long ago. I had no idea Netflix had a documentary coming. I guess I was successfully targeted with undercover marketing, making it seem like this was an issue having popular discussion.
jorblumesea 8y ago
It's mind blowing that the agency, FuckJerry, that did the marketing for Fyre was contracted to make their own documentary about the festival. Seems like a huge conflict of interest and it shows when you watch it. I get that this isn't Frontline, just seems nuts when you think about it. Sure, let's have the same semi shady agency make their own take exonerating themselves.
- asdff 8y ago
  It is an entertainment piece, not a historical report after all.
  - 908087 8y ago
    That's not a very good excuse for what has happened here, particularly since the "entertainment piece" was presented as a documentary.
_bxg1 8y ago
Netflix has become an increasingly sketchy company. I've been more and more turned off by their aggressive UX patterns designed to push you into watching more content, not to mention their self-professed battle against sleep (https://www.fastcompany.com/40491939/netflix-ceo-reed-hastings-sleep-is-our-competition https://www.fastcompany.com/40491939/netflix-ceo-reed-hastin...). I picked the Hulu documentary because I felt in my gut that it would be more trustworthy. Looks like I was right.
DonHopkins 8y ago
"An earlier version of this article stated that McFarland had reached an agreement with Jerry Media to appear in Fyre in exchange for revenue to pay McFarland’s debts. The agreement stipulated the revenue would pay back ticket-holders who had been scammed." Uuuh, how about paying the poor workers who were scammed out of their time and labor but didn't deserve it, before paying the rich lazy assholes who got what they deserved for being so shallow and gullible?
justtopost 8y ago
This is making me question my increasingly unused subscription. I might just cancel to express how little I want my money going to frauds like goop, fyre, fuckjerry, and the other moral leeches endemic of our time.
908087 8y ago
It's almost impressively sleazy that the dirtbags at that "influencer" marketing agency were able to double dip on this scam while simultaneously gaining the ability to spin things in order to make themselves look better.
AimForTheBushes 8y ago
The true Fyre Festival documentary is 10 minutes long and can be found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBPg5ftCMv8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBPg5ftCMv8
Animats 8y ago
Now for a documentary about the scam of making the documentaries.
deepakkarki 8y ago
For those interested, Swindled has a good podcast episode on the Fyre Festival. http://swindledpodcast.com/podcasts/season-2/episode-04-the-fyre-festival/ http://swindledpodcast.com/podcasts/season-2/episode-04-the-... And I highly recommend rest of their episodes too! http://swindledpodcast.com/ http://swindledpodcast.com/ - A true crime podcast about white-collar criminals, con artists, and corporate evil.
sigi45 8y ago
For 400 people a whole documentry. We know how to drag things along
rv-de 8y ago
i don't see why an advertising agency should be held accountable for a failed product or event. they just advertise.
- detaro 8y ago
  If the allegations are true, they should be held accountable for advertising for something they knew would go wrong, and for hiding criticism that would expose that.
  - rv-de 8y ago
    how should they know that? even after watching the documentary I can totally see why people believed it is possible. I mean - technically it is possible - just very hard to pull off. and with that hyped up "can do" mentality all over the place I know why people unintentionally fail to think critically.

314 points by danso 8y ago

rotrux 8y ago

Opinion: Yes. Just less of a malignant one.

hkon 8y ago

It sure is entertaining.

bluetidepro 8y ago

Yeah, I was pretty annoyed after I watched the Netflix documentary on this to find out it was produced by the same people at "FuckJerry." That's also why they had so much better "inside" footage compared to the Hulu one. I watched them both, and from a visual/entertaining stand point, the Netflix one was far superior, but the Hulu one was much more informative and critical of all parties involved. Clearly this article explains that neither were innocent, though. I just feel like Netflix was pretty sketchy not to include a disclaimer at the start or end of theirs to explain that the people at "FuckJerry" were a producer of the doc. The whole thing, from the festival itself to the documentaries, is incredibly fascinating. Just another example of the plague that is social media. In years to come, I expect we will only see more stories of this level of social media marketing manipulation. It's scary.

bluetwo 8y ago
I do agree they should have disclosed this at the top. They promoted the thing and it could be argued hold some responsibility for the failure.
acomjean 8y ago
I’ve only seen the Netflix one. Although nobody looks good in the documentary, the involvement of one of the parties in the production is certainly troubling. There is no way to make it even seem objective if they were involved. I’m discounted.
- bduerst 8y ago
  Same, but my understanding is that in the Netflix doc, some of the people on the agency side were claiming that they had no knowledge or involvement, which is in question because they could have made the doc to distance themselves from the mess.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
    Then again, Hulu paid an undisclosed amount of money to Billy McFarland for an interview on a documentary after he scammed a whole bunch of people. Noone can throw the first stone here.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - mtrpcic 8y ago
      To be fair though, Billy basically didn't answer any questions during that interview (at least that were put into the final cut). Nearly every question asked of him was met with awkward silence and pursed lips, or canned "I have no knowledge.." or "I can't comment on.." responses. I don't know that his interview added any bias in terms of what was shown in the film.
      - eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
        Yep, he didn't truly seem remorseful either. He was more interested in protecting himself from any further legal issues. I don't think it was ethical to pay for his interview whatsoever.
      - neaden 8y ago
        Doesn't that make it worse? They paid him money and didn't really get anything out if it means he just scammed someone else.
      - spatley 8y ago
        Which is likely a deliberate editing choice. Billy was paid to do the interview and then the director showed all that awkwardness to illustrate the depth of the grift.
jngreenlee 8y ago
>only see more stories of this level of social media marketing manipulation Yes. See the news about Burning Man and the Humana Camp. Mobile right now can't grab the links easily but I will try to come back with them.
liquid153 8y ago
Could you elaborate on what "FJerry" is for the uninformed.
- bluetidepro 8y ago
  It's a social media marketing agency [1] (the article mentions they are trying to rebrand though as "Jerry Media" [2]) that lead all the social media marketing for the festival. They also mainly known for having a very popular Instagram account [3] where they have been in trouble in the past for reposting memes or content without giving credit to the creators. Basically people pay them to post content or spread content through their social media "influencer" network. [1] http://fuckjerry.com/ http://fuckjerry.com/ [2] http://jerrystudios.com/ http://jerrystudios.com/ [3] https://www.instagram.com/fuckjerry https://www.instagram.com/fuckjerry
  - dmix 8y ago
    Was going through their instagram and noticed one of their obviously paid posts pushing the Hinge dating app: https://www.instagram.com/p/BqDzdzLBJti/ https://www.instagram.com/p/BqDzdzLBJti/ I tried looking up the girl in the tweet to see if even that part was real and the username (https://twitter.com/dontcallortext_ https://twitter.com/dontcallortext_) doesn't exist, nor does searching "Simone Axing". So I'm guessing the entire tweet was manufactured for marketing purposes. I guess fake tweets interspliced within other stolen content is modern marketing 101.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      >> modern marketing 101 No, it's false advertising and misleading business practices, if not plainly illegal. The regulations just haven't caught up to this because politicians are terrible at understanding how this works and the public doesnt care.
      - asdff 8y ago
        Famous people endorsing snake oil has been a thing since famous people and snake oil, instagram is just the latest way to serve it up.
sandworm101 8y ago
That fuckjerry was involved doesnt really matter imho. I dont really care who specifically was to blame. The lesson is that the entire situation was allowed to happen. The individual personalities are secondary to the larger story. What matters is what physically happened. Blame and who made what decision doesnt matter to the lessons we should all take from the overall event. So some internal bias doesnt really alter my opinion of the doc.
- sct202 8y ago
  It doesn't bother you that they could splice out any footage that would make themselves look worse? Or cut in footage out of context that would make themselves look better?
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    Not really. There is more than enough blame to go around, from the leadership to the naive customers. I wouldnt do businezs with any of them. Whether there is enough blame for prosecutions isnt my decision and, hopefully, those who do make that decision dont base it on tv shows.
  - rock_hard 8y ago
    Having watched the movie I can't say that they got away with anything...the blame got evenly distributed
nodesocket 8y ago
Except that Hulu paid Billy Mcfarland, whereas NetFlix didn't. I see Netflix as the more responsible party in terms of compensating bad actors in this case. With that said, I have a strong disdain for FuckJerry and their founder Elliot Tebele.
- smileysteve 8y ago
  Mcfarland has been sentenced for wire fraud and his sentence includes restitution for Fyre festival; so it seems this complaint of hulu is nearly fungible (where Netflix seems to have offered direct restitution that may or may not have counted toward Mcfarland's debt)
inostia 8y ago
The "FuckJerry" people apparently had final cut.
- arethuza 8y ago
  "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it" Churchill And indeed some of the awful screw ups that Churchill made at the start of WW2 (which bizarrely led to him being made PM) have been mostly removed from history - the Narvik campaign in particular.
bksenior 8y ago
I mean, Im not sure the meta-deception could be anymore apropos given the topic and response. I think the backstory takes a good story and makes it an accidental masterpiece.
coenhyde 8y ago
"Just another example of the plague that is social media" I'm not an advocate for Social Media. But i do not see Fyre Festival as a product of Social Media. Social Media was a tool that Fyre Frestival used very effectively. But if Instagram or whatever didn't exist i guarantee you Billy would have been running some other high risk fraudulent venture. It's who he is. Instead of social media as the tool, it may have been tv or radio. Heck, what about all the railway scams that existed back when we had only newspapers. Conmen will always find a way.
- mr_toad 8y ago
  > Conmen will always find a way. During the south sea bubble vendors sold shares in the streets. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company#/media/File%3ABubble.folly.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company#/media/Fil...
  - a_bonobo 8y ago
    NPR had a very interesting article on scammers in the 1800s: https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-history-dept/2015/02/12/385310877/how-scams-worked-in-the-1800s https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-history-dept/2015/02/12/385... The first guy would be a perfect fit for GoFundMe.
- sumo89 8y ago
  Agreed. However I see Billy as a product of the startup culture embracing failure. You have an idea for a company, convince someone else to finance it, the company fails and that person looses all their money. If that company succeeds then you're hailed as the next Steve Jobs despite the very real possibility you're a conman at heart like Billy. FuckJerry deserves all the backlash they get and probably more but we can't let them overshadow the type of culture that has allowed someone like Billy to be doing this for so long.

warp_factor 8y ago

We should stop calling "Documentary" what is essentially some form of entertainment with some predefined narrative that looks like it is a documentary. In this category for example: - Supersize me - Pretty much every Michael Moore movie

grawprog 8y ago
I've always thought of them as 'infotainment'. Slightly informational entertainment. I'm not a big fan of a lot of newer documentaries for that reason. Part of me kind of misses the old dry 60's/70's style documentaries with some boring old dude describing facts in a boring monotone way. There's been a few times I've just stopped watching some newer documentaries and just read a bunch of articles and information about the topic it was covering. I figure I probably learned more and got a more well rounded view in the same amount of time doing it that way.
- caf 8y ago
  Part of me kind of misses the old dry 60's/70's style documentaries with some boring old dude describing facts in a boring monotone way. Are you sure you weren't being misled by the stylistic choices of those documentaries into assuming they hadn't made decisions about the narrative they wanted to present?
- thatcat 8y ago
  BBC documentaries are the only exception - it seems that it requires public funding to avoid trying to make documentaries entertaining in a way that defeats the purpose of watching a documentary.
CGamesPlay 8y ago
I’m genuinely curious what your complaints there are, could you elaborate? What specifically disqualifies something from being a “documentary”?
- warp_factor 8y ago
  Those are not complains, but enough in my opinions that they should be classified as "infotainments" (as was said in another comment below). The key things I see for being an infotainment: - A predefined narrative that sometimes disregards facts (or more precisely nitpicks facts to fit the narrative) - Focusing on extreme emotions and entertainment with shock pictures and statements. Simply said, look at actual documentaries of historical events or on some scientific//geographical//political topics. The difference is huge.

Reedx 8y ago

Perhaps an opportunity for HBO to step in and make the canonical Frye Festival documentary.

simplicio 8y ago
Or to step in and make a documentary about the making of the dueling documentaries.
- sodosopa 8y ago
  Three words: Silicon Valley, Bachanalia
danso 8y ago
There's enough material in both documents that a trim and merge of both would feel very comprehensive. My main complaint with both documentaries is that I would've liked to see more footage/interviews -- basically, more of a tick-tock recounting -- about the feeling of impending doom in the days, hours, minutes before the festival's date drew nearer and nearer. I've had some horrible all-nighters before deadlines in my life, but not on the scale of having just 48 hours to find food, housing, bathrooms, security, etc. for thousands of fans flying into a remote island.
- baby 8y ago
  Watch "7 days out" on Netflix, it's exactly this but for the opening of a restaurant (at least on ep1). It's stressful as fuck.
- mr337 8y ago
  Agreed. A lot of the docs focus on the upper management and having to deal with the issues at a high level. I feel like a lot of the in person horror of overnight was fully missed.
- mayneack 8y ago
  I disagree. I'd consume several more hours of new Fyre content if it were available. If they've got more footage and people. Bring it on.

danso 8y ago

I dislike that FuckJerry was involved in Netflix's documentary and am happy to see them facing backlash over not just the Fyre Festival but their history of stealing jokes. But in regards to Fyre, I didn't really feel the need to see them face greater judgment (maybe that means their purported influence over the Netflix doc worked?). They were paid to shill and market for Fyre, but what's the indication that they knew that McFarland was acting fraudulently? How does their role make them significantly more complicit in the fraud than the photographer, who got paid for the viral glamorous Fyre ad he shot, and who ended up as a producer for Hulu's doc? Maybe it comes down to how much influence you think social media has, in this incident and in general? I liked the Hulu doc, but found its focus and commentary on social media influencers (including the criticism of FuckJerry) as not being interesting enough to merit the time and weight it was given. Yes, it's inarguable that Fyre seems to have gotten a lot of Instagram views. But how much effect did that have on McFarland's ability to basically run a Ponzi scheme? My impression was that McFarland had already talked himself into Manhattan financial circles, and the firms who invested millions in Fyre/Fyre Festival were fools, but not necessarily the kind swayed by social media hype (i.e. similar to the backers of Theranos). Undoubtedly, rich kids use and are influenced by social media. But McFarland already seemed to have enough of a network (he and Ja Rule had collaborated well before FuckJerry got involved) to convince enough rich kids to pay for tickets. To be fair, though, I don't use Instagram for anything except to check up on friends, so I'm admittedly ignorant about how influential Instagrammers can be. But Fyre seemed to be very much the result of McFarland's ambition and lack of morals, and his ability to convince naive people to work towards his goals against all logical odds. FuckJerry's support felt mostly tangential.

roymurdock 8y ago
the main issue is transparency fuckjerry was involved in marketing the failed festival, then also involved in creating an "objective" documentary on the whole fiasco obviously they have large incentives to cover up the extent of their knowledge and involvement in the scam we will probably never know how much the fuckjerry founder/team knew about the extent of the fraud the author is simply saying the documentary they produced is not an objective telling of the truth and is probably influenced by fuckjerry trying to manage optics after a large account it was profiting from went south a lot of people didnt know that (myself included) and its good to know who is paying for things and why - transparency

ceph_ 8y ago

I think there should have been clearer disclosure that the documentary was produced by Jerry Media, the same entity that it was covering as the promoter of the fyre festival. But overall I don't think it's a huge deal.

crispyambulance 8y ago

I saw the Netflix Fyre doc, and neither the festival nor the documentary struck me as a scam. The festival seemed like it was a tragic project run spectacularly into the ground by a sociopath with serious psychological issues. I mean, if it were "a scam" there would have been a "take-the-money-and-run" attempt. A scam is an intentional deception in order to gain profit at someone else's expense-- this wasn't that. Instead, things just crashed horribly around him, a lot of people got stiffed, the concert goers ended up at an expensive vacation from hell but the promoters didn't make money (though they did get some beach time with super-models before the horrific project-death-march started).

freyir 8y ago
They advertised luxury accommodations, knowing full well that people would be placed in FEMA tents. That, along with many other facts the lied about or failed to disclose, qualifies it as a scam.
bluetidepro 8y ago
What. How did you watch it and NOT think it was a scam? He (Billy McFarland) literally lied to the investors. He lied to people who were paying for the event. Lies on top of lies. He WAS intentional deceptive. Not sure how you missed that aspect after watching it? Yeah, he MAY have had an actual dream of a real festival during it, but that doesn't negate the fact that he still deceived and lied to many people involved with the project.
- tomhoward 8y ago
  The parent’s main point was they really did intend to put on a festival, rather than just disappear with the cash. Yes they deceived and lied to a lot of people; no one disputes that. But they still did seriously intend to run a festival, as ridiculous an idea as that was.
xxxanony 8y ago
Are you kidding? It absolutely was a take the money and run. It was obvious weeks out that they were not going to be able to deliver on what they sold and instead of issuing refunds and cancelling the event, they took the money and ran, and continued to hire folks to build the thing without any money to pay them.

throwaway-1283 8y ago

Yes it was, and fortunately celebrities are now speaking out against FuckJerry's rampant plagiarism (stealing jokes) on their main Instagram account, which will hopefully pressure advertisers to stop working with them.

duxup 8y ago

It will be interesting to see how this kind of thing plays out. Neflix made a deal with the folks behind Goop... they're basically anti science hucksters. Where documentary that honestly approach's its subject with some sense of objectivity, and pure salesmanship starts and ends is an interesting question. I always assumed documentations sometimes have a point of view, I mean we all do. But there are some that straight up are on a fundamental level, BS, straight advertising.

the_cat_kittles 8y ago

its accidentally very good because you can see all these people thinking they are successfully covering their asses. in reality they are just admitting that they were stupid / unscrupulous enough to work on the the festival. its also very interesting to me, because its this documentary (and the hulu one) that have really established billy mcfarlane as a infamous celebrity now. im pretty sure the only thing stopping him from his bullshit is being in jail, so i wonder if this whole thing is going to play out like a real life version of "the producers". i.e. he ends up ahead because now he is a bonafide celebrity.

legitster 8y ago

I remember yelling at the screen during Fyre "Then you should have cancelled it!" everytime someone said something would have gone wrong. The fact that they waited until people were already on the island before the staff revolted speaks just as ill of the staff. They could have done that the entire time! One of the thing that screamed out to me was how collectively lacking the entire organization was in business experience. Everyone was so young and only knew one or two jobs before this one - of course they would blindly follow. This is where people with a few more failures under their belt should have been able to stomp the breaks a lot sooner.

smileysteve 8y ago
Seriously, to the FyreMedia staff, ~"We didn't know when we'd get paid, or in what amount, and often it was just in a bag of cash." I can't think of many better reasons to leave a company, especially when you include their doubts about the festival. In sum; I might not get paid, I'm getting paid sketchily in all cash, and I think my company/CEO is failing.
- freewilly1040 8y ago
  Easy to say, but don't underestimate the ability of a master manipulator with (at least temporary) access to capital. He had the skills to manipulate and the power to sift through people to find those most vulnerable to it.

sjjshvuiajhz 8y ago

I think the key question is: would any other marketing company have done the same as FuckJerry, attempting to do the job they were hired for given McFarland’s ability to trick people into thinking the festival was going to be a good experience? Or did FuckJerry know that the people they were marketing to were not going to get the fun time they expected? This article’s detailed logs of who had what job title when on the production of each movie don’t seem to get at the relevant issue of fault. The alleged crimes here are the production and promotion of the festival, not the production of movies created by people trying to assign blame after the fact. McFarland has been conclusively shown to be a con-man (eg. spammed the Fyre attendee email list selling tickets to nonexistent celebrity meet-and-greets while he was out on bail). We should take narratives that benefit him at the expense of people he lied to with a big lump of salt, given his ability to manipulate.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
> would any other marketing company have done the same as FuckJerry Are you asking if ANY company would have done the same, or if EVERY company would do the same? If it's the latter, there are many marketing agencies out there that want to market products that actually exist, and understand that marketing a scam is a potential PR nightmare, in addition to being unethical. Such companies will cancel a contract as soon as it becomes clear that the product cannot be delivered as advertised.
- sjjshvuiajhz 8y ago
  It seems like McFarland had an incredible ability to make people think he could overcome the issues with the festival and make it a success, which is why so many people worked day and night to try to pull it off. Are we supposed to believe the marketing agency should have predicted its failure and quit when so many people on the ground at the island didn’t?
  - AlexandrB 8y ago
    What the people on the ground at the island wanted most was to get paid. Sounds like Fyre would have been a boon for the local economy and I think they assumed they would get paid even if the festival tanked, which is not unreasonable when someone shows up flashing lots of cash. FuckJerry, on the other hand, had far more insider knowledge as well as the financial freedom to walk away from the project. They did not. I think the only group that could be considered "true believers" like you describe are the Fyre employees.

DonHopkins 8y ago

I can only hope the next Fyre festival is in a more dangerous location, with volcanos, quicksand, and brat eating tigers.

gammateam 8y ago

haha I thought about this too, they are milking this so effectively! they get to make their own meta-memes about it too! every startup spending two hour meetings on a hashtag that nobody will use needs to learn from this instruction manual.

aaron695 8y ago

Both are a scam. Fyre Fraud at least tips you off you're being scammed. It starts off saying how people loved the whole debacle essentially because of schadenfreude. Then serves up schadenfreude for 96 mins. Neither is 'true', watch both to get a still false version but better than any one. Fyre did cover up FuckJerry's involvement though, which was really bad. But I will say after 3 hours of schadenfreude the Fyre interview with Maryann Rolle, the caterer who lost her life savings, blew me away as a person. Neither touches the fact the bloggers and people who went to a top 10 famous festival (Up there with Woodstock I/II and the first Burning Man) kinda got a good deal. They are more part of history than any bands on an island would have achieved. So there is no schadenfreude and Billy McFarland probably has a mental illness. Reality is complex.

joaomacp 8y ago

Ah, so that's why I've been seeing lots of videos and posts about Fyre... I thought it was weird, as the incident was so long ago. I had no idea Netflix had a documentary coming. I guess I was successfully targeted with undercover marketing, making it seem like this was an issue having popular discussion.

jorblumesea 8y ago

It's mind blowing that the agency, FuckJerry, that did the marketing for Fyre was contracted to make their own documentary about the festival. Seems like a huge conflict of interest and it shows when you watch it. I get that this isn't Frontline, just seems nuts when you think about it. Sure, let's have the same semi shady agency make their own take exonerating themselves.

asdff 8y ago
It is an entertainment piece, not a historical report after all.
- 908087 8y ago
  That's not a very good excuse for what has happened here, particularly since the "entertainment piece" was presented as a documentary.

_bxg1 8y ago

Netflix has become an increasingly sketchy company. I've been more and more turned off by their aggressive UX patterns designed to push you into watching more content, not to mention their self-professed battle against sleep (https://www.fastcompany.com/40491939/netflix-ceo-reed-hastings-sleep-is-our-competition https://www.fastcompany.com/40491939/netflix-ceo-reed-hastin...). I picked the Hulu documentary because I felt in my gut that it would be more trustworthy. Looks like I was right.

DonHopkins 8y ago

"An earlier version of this article stated that McFarland had reached an agreement with Jerry Media to appear in Fyre in exchange for revenue to pay McFarland’s debts. The agreement stipulated the revenue would pay back ticket-holders who had been scammed." Uuuh, how about paying the poor workers who were scammed out of their time and labor but didn't deserve it, before paying the rich lazy assholes who got what they deserved for being so shallow and gullible?

justtopost 8y ago

This is making me question my increasingly unused subscription. I might just cancel to express how little I want my money going to frauds like goop, fyre, fuckjerry, and the other moral leeches endemic of our time.

908087 8y ago

It's almost impressively sleazy that the dirtbags at that "influencer" marketing agency were able to double dip on this scam while simultaneously gaining the ability to spin things in order to make themselves look better.

AimForTheBushes 8y ago

The true Fyre Festival documentary is 10 minutes long and can be found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBPg5ftCMv8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBPg5ftCMv8

Animats 8y ago

Now for a documentary about the scam of making the documentaries.

deepakkarki 8y ago

For those interested, Swindled has a good podcast episode on the Fyre Festival. http://swindledpodcast.com/podcasts/season-2/episode-04-the-fyre-festival/ http://swindledpodcast.com/podcasts/season-2/episode-04-the-... And I highly recommend rest of their episodes too! http://swindledpodcast.com/ http://swindledpodcast.com/ - A true crime podcast about white-collar criminals, con artists, and corporate evil.

sigi45 8y ago

For 400 people a whole documentry. We know how to drag things along

rv-de 8y ago

i don't see why an advertising agency should be held accountable for a failed product or event. they just advertise.

detaro 8y ago
If the allegations are true, they should be held accountable for advertising for something they knew would go wrong, and for hiding criticism that would expose that.
- rv-de 8y ago
  how should they know that? even after watching the documentary I can totally see why people believed it is possible. I mean - technically it is possible - just very hard to pull off. and with that hyped up "can do" mentality all over the place I know why people unintentionally fail to think critically.