3 ms·

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 ste

by 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
Haydos585x2 8y ago
You're right. I think it's easy to blame Jerry Media for their role in marketing the product but nobody blamed Samsung's marketing agency for the phones exploding. Nobody blamed VW's marketing agency when the cars were caught cheating emissions testing.
- smileysteve 8y ago
  Another relation is that both Samsung Pr and Fuck Jerry minimized and deleted publicity (be it YouTube videos or instagram comments)
- krferriter 8y ago
  Those are pretty different. Samsung's battery issue was a defect that they issued full refunds and replacements for, it was not a case of false advertising or fraud. VW was fraud because they were promising emissions levels that were not accurate and they knew the numbers were lies. VW plead guilty to criminal charges, had executives evicted from the company, and was hit with massive fines in response. If FuckJerry knew that the things they were promising in their marketing were not accurate, they should be hit with fines as well and corporate criminal charges. These sorts of acts of fraud would never be allowed on TV or other advertising media. For some reason we give companies on social media a pass. Fraud and other financial crimes that happen on social media by businesses should be punished like they are on other media.
lozenge 8y ago
"what's the indication that they knew that McFarland was acting fraudulently?" It's in the documentary- According to the Hulu documentary, FuckJerry was aware of the problems in the festival’s production, but proceeded full steam ahead anyway. "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?" Why do you think the photographer knew anything before arriving at the festival? The ad was probably shot very early.
Alex3917 8y ago
> what's the indication that they knew that McFarland was acting fraudulently Even if they didn't know that McFarland was acting fraudulently, which I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, what they did was fraudulent and illegal on its own.

by danso 8y ago

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

Haydos585x2 8y ago

You're right. I think it's easy to blame Jerry Media for their role in marketing the product but nobody blamed Samsung's marketing agency for the phones exploding. Nobody blamed VW's marketing agency when the cars were caught cheating emissions testing.

smileysteve 8y ago
Another relation is that both Samsung Pr and Fuck Jerry minimized and deleted publicity (be it YouTube videos or instagram comments)
krferriter 8y ago
Those are pretty different. Samsung's battery issue was a defect that they issued full refunds and replacements for, it was not a case of false advertising or fraud. VW was fraud because they were promising emissions levels that were not accurate and they knew the numbers were lies. VW plead guilty to criminal charges, had executives evicted from the company, and was hit with massive fines in response. If FuckJerry knew that the things they were promising in their marketing were not accurate, they should be hit with fines as well and corporate criminal charges. These sorts of acts of fraud would never be allowed on TV or other advertising media. For some reason we give companies on social media a pass. Fraud and other financial crimes that happen on social media by businesses should be punished like they are on other media.

lozenge 8y ago

"what's the indication that they knew that McFarland was acting fraudulently?" It's in the documentary- According to the Hulu documentary, FuckJerry was aware of the problems in the festival’s production, but proceeded full steam ahead anyway. "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?" Why do you think the photographer knew anything before arriving at the festival? The ad was probably shot very early.

Alex3917 8y ago

> what's the indication that they knew that McFarland was acting fraudulently Even if they didn't know that McFarland was acting fraudulently, which I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, what they did was fraudulent and illegal on its own.