4 ms·

Nathan Fielder is behind Dumb Starbucks, gets shut down by Health Dept

38 points by staunch 13y ago

lisper 13y ago
The biggest problem with dumb-starbucks-as-parody is that it isn't very funny.
- k0mplex 13y ago
  i think it's hilarious. but i was there in person yesterday so maybe it's a "you have to be there" thing.
- adamnemecek 13y ago
  I mean it was not necessarily supposed to be funny in and of itself but in the context of the TV show.
cnlwsu 13y ago
Starbucks should be paying CC for this kind of publicity...
- mbreese 13y ago
  The real question is how will SBUX react to this... if they start rattling legal sabers, it could be bad. However, if they go along with the joke, then it could be great publicity. I hope they go along with the joke.
  - despideme 13y ago
    Given that this is Comedy Central (owned by Viacom), I'd imagine the idea was run past Starbucks' legal department before it was greenlit. I'd also wager there's a legal agreement governing what CC can and can't do, and even how Starbucks will or won't react.
    - mbreese 13y ago
      Oh, I doubt it. This is probably produced by an independent production team for CC. I don't know if CC legal would be notified before the fact of this or just prior to broadcast. In the OP, they had quoted Starbucks (PR?) saying that they thought "Dumb Starbucks" was misusing their trademarks.
      - jamesbrownuhh 13y ago
        Viacom is all about the money - I'd say there was a non-zero chance that they actually made Starbucks pay to be the subject of the sketch, and Starbucks PR are just playing along.
RRRA 13y ago
I'm surprised most people were not wondering why the McDonald of coffee was this popular anyway... Maybe this'll make them go to their local coffee shop instead, dumb or not! ;-)
CamperBob2 13y ago
Can somebody explain the joke behind the "Dumb"?
- gkoberger 13y ago
  By using the word "Dumb", it (in theory) becomes a parody. You couldn't call your store "Starbucks", however "Dumb Starbucks" (again, in theory) is a parody and therefore not a copyright violation.
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    Sure, but why that particular adjective? "Dumb" doesn't carry any cultural resonance or verbal alliteration when paired with "Starbucks." If he'd called it "Fourbucks", for instance, that might've been funnier.
    - recursive 13y ago
      I think it's intended to be the minimal parody required for legal parody status.
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
      I'm tempted to ask for an explanation of the downvotes, too, but I think I'll quit while I'm ahead.
    - evan_ 13y ago
      The joke isn't that he's making fun of Starbucks. The joke is that Nathan Fielder (or more accurately, the character he's playing) is so naïve that he thinks that the "Dumb Starbucks" plan will actually work. His character is supposed to be the dryest, least-witty person on the planet. He takes everything seriously, and when he does say something funny, it's funnier because he seemingly doesn't realize it. If it was funny, it would ruin the joke.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    This isn't actually relevant (although it's part of their schtick) because parody is not a defense to trademark infringement. Brands typically aren't covered by copyright because they're not substantial enough to qualify as a work.
cpqq 13y ago
Great publicity for his show. From the first season, he helps businesses who are failing or struggling to get a ton of business / foot-traffic. Probably a variation for Season 2, which is coming out soon. Looks like it's worked.
- GhotiFish 13y ago
  Maybe not so great, I still have no idea what show this is about. I don't think I'll ever care, either. edit: Wait, skimmed the article again. Nathan for you? pbtbtbtbtbt
emhart 13y ago
evan_ called it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7208379 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7208379
pstack 13y ago
Never heard of him, but what a dumb stunt. Ooh, so artistic. Edgy. Anti-establishment. Ooh.
- ng12 13y ago
  It's supposed to be kind of stupid. The guy used to write sketches for Demetri Martin's show to give you a sense of his comedy style. If you don't think it's funny, that's fine, but it's not supposed to be "anti-establishment" or anything of the like.
62910173645 13y ago
Fucking lame. Comedy Central provides product placement for fucking Starbucks. Gee, thanks for the situational advertising. Real funny. Ever listen to Howard Stern ramble on about some brand name product for an hour and a half while stuck in traffic? This kind of thing isn't an accident. It's deliberately manipulative.

38 points by staunch 13y ago

lisper 13y ago

The biggest problem with dumb-starbucks-as-parody is that it isn't very funny.

k0mplex 13y ago
i think it's hilarious. but i was there in person yesterday so maybe it's a "you have to be there" thing.
adamnemecek 13y ago
I mean it was not necessarily supposed to be funny in and of itself but in the context of the TV show.

cnlwsu 13y ago

Starbucks should be paying CC for this kind of publicity...

mbreese 13y ago
The real question is how will SBUX react to this... if they start rattling legal sabers, it could be bad. However, if they go along with the joke, then it could be great publicity. I hope they go along with the joke.
- despideme 13y ago
  Given that this is Comedy Central (owned by Viacom), I'd imagine the idea was run past Starbucks' legal department before it was greenlit. I'd also wager there's a legal agreement governing what CC can and can't do, and even how Starbucks will or won't react.
  - mbreese 13y ago
    Oh, I doubt it. This is probably produced by an independent production team for CC. I don't know if CC legal would be notified before the fact of this or just prior to broadcast. In the OP, they had quoted Starbucks (PR?) saying that they thought "Dumb Starbucks" was misusing their trademarks.
    - jamesbrownuhh 13y ago
      Viacom is all about the money - I'd say there was a non-zero chance that they actually made Starbucks pay to be the subject of the sketch, and Starbucks PR are just playing along.

RRRA 13y ago

I'm surprised most people were not wondering why the McDonald of coffee was this popular anyway... Maybe this'll make them go to their local coffee shop instead, dumb or not! ;-)

CamperBob2 13y ago

Can somebody explain the joke behind the "Dumb"?

gkoberger 13y ago
By using the word "Dumb", it (in theory) becomes a parody. You couldn't call your store "Starbucks", however "Dumb Starbucks" (again, in theory) is a parody and therefore not a copyright violation.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  Sure, but why that particular adjective? "Dumb" doesn't carry any cultural resonance or verbal alliteration when paired with "Starbucks." If he'd called it "Fourbucks", for instance, that might've been funnier.
  - recursive 13y ago
    I think it's intended to be the minimal parody required for legal parody status.
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    I'm tempted to ask for an explanation of the downvotes, too, but I think I'll quit while I'm ahead.
  - evan_ 13y ago
    The joke isn't that he's making fun of Starbucks. The joke is that Nathan Fielder (or more accurately, the character he's playing) is so naïve that he thinks that the "Dumb Starbucks" plan will actually work. His character is supposed to be the dryest, least-witty person on the planet. He takes everything seriously, and when he does say something funny, it's funnier because he seemingly doesn't realize it. If it was funny, it would ruin the joke.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  This isn't actually relevant (although it's part of their schtick) because parody is not a defense to trademark infringement. Brands typically aren't covered by copyright because they're not substantial enough to qualify as a work.

cpqq 13y ago

Great publicity for his show. From the first season, he helps businesses who are failing or struggling to get a ton of business / foot-traffic. Probably a variation for Season 2, which is coming out soon. Looks like it's worked.

GhotiFish 13y ago
Maybe not so great, I still have no idea what show this is about. I don't think I'll ever care, either. edit: Wait, skimmed the article again. Nathan for you? pbtbtbtbtbt

emhart 13y ago

evan_ called it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7208379 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7208379

pstack 13y ago

Never heard of him, but what a dumb stunt. Ooh, so artistic. Edgy. Anti-establishment. Ooh.

ng12 13y ago
It's supposed to be kind of stupid. The guy used to write sketches for Demetri Martin's show to give you a sense of his comedy style. If you don't think it's funny, that's fine, but it's not supposed to be "anti-establishment" or anything of the like.

62910173645 13y ago

Fucking lame. Comedy Central provides product placement for fucking Starbucks. Gee, thanks for the situational advertising. Real funny. Ever listen to Howard Stern ramble on about some brand name product for an hour and a half while stuck in traffic? This kind of thing isn't an accident. It's deliberately manipulative.