10 ms·
'Dumb Starbucks' mystery: Who's behind the faux coffee front in Los Feliz?
- vertr07 13y agoThis won't last.
- evan_ 13y agoI would bet money that this is a stunt for the Comedy Central show "Nathan For You", which is coming back for a second season soon and does all kinds of weird business-y stunts like this. In the first season he got a gas station to offer gas at a steep discount, but only after rebate- but you had to drop the form off in person at the top of a mountain: http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/zhbu8g/nathan-for-you-gas-station-rebate http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/zhbu8g/nathan-for-y... It increased business because people came for the low price, but only a handful of people actually decided to try to redeem the rebate. Those that did try to redeem it had to camp out overnight and solve riddles: http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/q9ibj6/nathan-for-you-gas-station-rebate---campout http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/q9ibj6/nathan-for-y... On another episode Nathan tried to help a Haunted House to create buzz by getting someone to sue them for being too scary: http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/nf0ws2/nathan-for-you-haunted-house-pt--1 http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/nf0ws2/nathan-for-y... He did this by making a couple think they'd contracted a disease and were being rushed to the hospital: http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/wvuntb/nathan-for-you-haunted-house-pt--2 http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/wvuntb/nathan-for-y...
- supercoder 13y agoPretty good guess
- swanson 13y agoIt would be so awesome if this is from "Nathan For You" - that show is hilarious, especially if you appreciate dry humor and have ever watched a season of The Apprentice :)
- the_cat_kittles 13y agothe wording of the letter sounds pretty natural if you read it in his voice, too
- lukeholder 13y agoUnfortunately all of those video links are blocked for countries outside the USA.
- d0ugie 13y agooh you, Dumb Viacom
- cskau 13y agoI'm able to watch them here in Japan though. Guess they're only selectively blocking.
- matznerd 13y agoYou don't have a method for watching videos that are blocked outside your region?
- sheraz 13y agoNegative. They are probably blocked in countries where Comedy Central does not have distribution. For example, they work in Sweden, where there is comedy central.
- joshmlewis 13y agoI don't think so, it would take a TON of capital to pull off something like this and after watching a few episodes I don't think it's feasible for the shows budget. All their stunts seem to be somewhat inexpensive in comparison to opening a store.
- mehwoot 13y agoIs it any different if you are doing this in bad faith? The picture posted mentions "Is this a real business? Yes it is. But for legal reasons, Dumb Starbucks needs to be categorised as a parody artwork". So they are clearly aware they are trying to get around copyright and this is probably pretty good evidence that they themselves don't really consider it as a parody artwork. But would that actually make a difference if/when this goes to court?
- terabytest 13y agoYou could probably do it in bad faith as long as you don't say it out loud. Maybe those guys are doing it in bad faith too. You'd never know.
- MWil 13y agoI'm reminded of the movie Velvet Goldmine. It's intended to be biographical (very easy to figure out of whom) but because they couldn't secure the rights they just switched a few facts here and there, changed names and voila - successful truth-based movie without any rights secured.
- judk 13y agoor Citizen Kane.
- lifeformed 13y agoMaybe their explicitly aware attempt to bypass copyright is a part of the parody itself.
- jarrett 13y agoIntent is one of the factors for trademark infringement. So it might matter a little. You could argue that the statement shows the proprietors' intent is at least partly commercial. On the other hand, that much would be fairly easy to prove just by reviewing the company's financial records, operating agreement, etc. So I'm not sure the statement gets you anything that wasn't already a slam dunk.
- hansef 13y agoThis is 4 blocks from me. I went to check it out but there was a line of around 150 people out the door and I bailed since I wasn't willing to invest the 90 minutes in line. There are already Yelp reviews: http://www.yelp.com/biz/dumb-starbucks-los-angeles http://www.yelp.com/biz/dumb-starbucks-los-angeles
- jonstewart 13y agoI used to do my laundry at that laundromat. All those people should walk up the street to Yuca's instead.
- 10feet 13y agoDo they have free coffee at Yuca's?
- salgernon 13y agoThe coffee is only free if your time is worth nothing. Anyone waiting in line is doing so for social reasons.
- MartinCron 13y agoYes. Waiting in line is part of the experience. It's not something I would do, but I'm not arrogant enough to look down at those who are doing it.
- peterwwillis 13y agoI am.
- MartinCron 13y agoI respect your honesty, I guess.
- Nilzor 13y ago
- 2772726262562 13y ago...so, Starbucks paid some guerrilla marketing company millions of dollars to stage an absurd publicity stunt. Supporting Facts: 1. All publicity is good publicity. 2. All branding is identical, verbatim, (e.g. no use of small, medium, large; instead branded sizing parlance is used) forcing the customer to closely inspect the imitation for flaws. This forces a level of psychological engagement in the customer that would not occur in regular, legitimate establishments. 3. Starbucks, for all it's popularity, rarely experiences negative press. Thus, their brand can easily tolerate examples of light trolling. 4. Dubious "news" coverage offers vectors for market penetration into sectors that represent the Lowest Common Denominator, without cheapening Starbucks' brand. In other words, they can speak to an audience that they'd rather not be associated with, without having to directly engage them. They can inject their brand's presence into the daily lives of people who would not ordinarily pay attention to their usual modes of advertising. 5. Without an entity to claim credit for this activity, this parody only serves to provide increased exposure to Starbucks. A well executed parody without an author will provide no alternate context to the premise of the joke. If there is any meaning or theme to the parody, the audience can barely guess at what it should be, if the intent of the performer cannot be discerned. 6. Hypothesis: The "Dumb" shop will only stay open for as long as the minor local news publicity lasts. It's there only to make people use the word "Starbucks" as frequently as possible, in as many sound bites as possible, trigger some water cooler conversation for about a week (word of mouth buzz), and then die.
- MichaelApproved 13y ago"Without an entity to claim credit for this activity," Your conclusions are premature.
- judk 13y agoStarbucks is already waay more top of mind than this, does plenty of other advertising, and this project is way out of line from their carefully managed brand image of warm/comfort/happy/love
- bcohen5055 13y ago
- ama729 13y ago> If we have any lawyers that read our site, your comments below would be appreciated. "These guys are working for free, why wouldn't you?"
- dotBen 13y agoGiven the article doesn't shed any light on who is behind this enterprise/stunt/whatever, I'm curious why they used the term "Successful Troll". The use of either word in their own right is curious as I don't see what here constitutes this to be particularlly "successful" or how Dumb Starbuck's assertion of "fair use" motivation equates to "trolling"
- wpietri 13y agoDid you read the article? They say explicitly that they are using the Starbucks name and logo for "marketing purposes", and that they don't even think Starbucks is dumb. Saying something you don't even believe just to get a reaction is classic trolling. And it's "successful trolling" because they definitely got a reaction. They don't even assert a fair-use motivation. Their motivation is marketing a business; they explicitly admit that the fair-use stuff is a fig leaf.
- paulgb 13y agoWeird Al does not rely on fair use, he seeks permission from the rights holder[1]. I don't think their reading of fair use is correct here. They talk about the copyright doctrine, but the trademark doctrine is entirely separate. Unlike the copyright doctrine, under the trademark doctrine, the commercial aspect of this works against them: "In general, however, the courts appear to be more sympathetic to the extent that parodies are less commercial, and less sympathetic to the extent that parodies involve commercial use of the mark"[2] (disclaimer: ianal) [1] http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/ http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/ [2] http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
- nostromo 13y agoWhat about all those cheesy parody t-shirts people sell for profit? E.g.: http://i.imgur.com/AtIbWVe.jpg http://i.imgur.com/AtIbWVe.jpg Aren't those legal parodies of protected trademarks?
- sabbatic13 13y agoSelling a t-shirt with a parody logo of a company isn't the same as a company presenting itself with a parody logo of an another company in the same space.
- rgarrett88 13y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement Good luck!
- Glyptodon 13y agoMovie studios pulling a stunt to try and destroy fair use. Their FAQ even conflates trademark and copyright.
- Nilzor 13y agoThis. Why does everyone think it's a publicity stunt when this is the most obvious explanation based on their FAQ?
- grizzles 13y agoI'd like to know who the backers of it are. If I was some big corporation that wanted to get rid of the parody exception, this is exactly what I'd do...
- matznerd 13y agoSeems like a prank that will be relatively short-lived.
- codezero 13y agoFair use doesn't work preemptively. It's only good when presented as a defense in a court. Even then ere are a lot of caveats and precedent that exists, so simply calling it a parody probably won't work in a court.
- vezzy-fnord 13y agoA very ambitious example of culture jamming, I'll say. I just hope it it's grassroots and not an astroturf. That'd be disappointing, although evan_'s explanation seems plausible.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- p_monk 13y agoI live on this street. For the last 2 years it was a restaurant called Gastronomico. They started as a food truck, which still is operating and tweeting here: https://mobile.twitter.com/thegastrobus https://mobile.twitter.com/thegastrobus . The couple who owned it are chill hippy type people and I'm sure they know what's behind this.
- jrockway 13y agoI'll believe that this is a parody, but one of Reddit-style legal analyses rather than Starbucks.
- 1stop 13y agoSo can a company just call itself 'crapple' and sell hackintosh computers, and claim they are 'making fun of apple'? Could they still use Apple logos, and trademark names? e.g Crapple Macbook, Crapple iPhone, etc. ?
- jmeekr 13y agoWOAH! I work at SCPR/KPCC and my jaw dropped to see an article from it at the top of HN. Ok, proceed :)
- sizzle 13y agoI stream KCRW since moving out of the area, what are some good SCPR/KPCC programs to stream in your opinion? thanks!
- ForHackernews 13y agoInteresting theory from the comments: > This is too expensive for a practical joke. It looks more like an legal trick funded my the entertainment industry delegitimize "fair use" in Intellectual Property legislation. They'll probably take this to court, deliberately lose the case, and then leverage this case as a precedent in future lawsuits concerning fair use of music, video, etc.
- judk 13y agoI feel dumber having read that.
- joshmlewis 13y agoI recently worked with a restaurant that is brand new. The work and money that goes into a new restaurant is pretty crazy, especially custom cups, signage, etc. So whoever did this definitely had to have capital, some legal help, graphic help, and a host of other services to throw it together.
- quackerhacker 13y agoI guess it's a little bit difficult for them to cause monetary damages to Starbucks if they continue to provide FREE coffee. Although, I can't see the fair use law protecting them once they begin to charge, creating this amount of buzz as an initial marketing plan...and possibly changing the business name later, if that's the plan, ingenious. Great allocation of marketing capital.
- gscott 13y agoBanksy has setup a new residence.
- cyanbane 13y agoI was going to say Banksy also, but he is a lot more understated (and artistic). http://www.woostercollective.com/post/the-village-pet-store-and-charcoal-grill-opens-in-new-york-city http://www.woostercollective.com/post/the-village-pet-store-...
- kiallmacinnes 13y agoI wonder will the "Its obviously not a Starbucks" comment hurt Starbucks' case against Dumb Starbucks. Usually, these things get brought to court as an attempt to trade off the "real" brand...
- damian2000 13y agoOne possibility is that local restaurants and cafes got together to bring in customers to the general area. Already saw a comment on yelp from a local cafe who has seen their business rise dramatically.
- piratebroadcast 13y agoBanksy.
- teawithcarl 13y agoAccording to codinghorror, Dumb Starbucks in LA is Banksy level art project. http://t.co/zNKKe1S57x http://t.co/zNKKe1S57x
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- headgasket 13y agothis and cowclick made my day (wikipedia link in the flappyclick story thread). Thanks HN! Cheers,
- mathattack 13y agoI was thinking it was just Starbucks spoofing themselves, since the copyright infringement is too obvious.