
Fyre Festival Was a Huge Scam. Is Netflix’s Fyre Documentary a Scam, Too? - danso
https://newrepublic.com/article/153095/fyre-festival-huge-scam-netflixs-fyre-documentary-scam-too
======
bluetidepro
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.

~~~
acomjean
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
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
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.

~~~
mtrpcic
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
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.

------
danso
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.

~~~
Haydos585x2
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.

~~~
krferriter
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.

------
warp_factor
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

~~~
danso
Every documentary that's not just raw livestream footage has a narrative. It
is inherently inextricable to the work of editing and storytelling.

~~~
MattyRad
Since you bring up raw livestream footage, a quality example of a documentary
which is just livestream footage is Jesus Camp. It's quite fascinating because
the people who were filmed believe they are accurately represented (which they
explicitly say in follow up interviews). But usually people that watch the
film are horrified of the interviewees dogma.

It's an interesting example of genuinely truthful documentarionism.

~~~
rjf72
This seems like a really great litmus test. Documentaries usually tell a story
of some event. If people that were on either 'side' of that event are
relatively content with their representation then it's going to be a solid
documentary.

Feels like in some ways that documentaries are increasingly reflective of the
division in society. There are documentaries on topics I agree with that I
find absurd simply because they misrepresent the 'opposing' side to be a
mixture of radicals, idiots, and the misinformed. The notion of mutually
respected disagreement seems to be increasingly absent in society.

Though even in things like Jesus Camp it falls into another fallacy. One group
of outliers is implicitly taken to be representative of a larger group of
individuals. My 'Jesus Camp' mostly involved messing with people while they
were sleeping - dipping their hands in warm water, shaving cream on the hand
then feather on the nose, etc. There were some sermons at the 'Tabernacle' and
confession type stuff, but I have nothing but positive memories of it - even
though I'm far from religious now a days.

~~~
boomlinde
_> If people that were on either 'side' of that event are relatively content
with their representation then it's going to be a solid documentary._

I don't believe that there are many people that would make particularly good
judges of accuracy in their representation, and there are many divisive issues
that just naturally make one side come out worse when the arguments are
organized and laid out side by side.

Instead, I find the opposite problem concerning: when flawed and obviously
fallacious arguments are sugar coated and presented as legitimate alternatives
to arguments that make sense, or when facts and falsehoods are presented as
though they are both a matter of opinion and debate. This may be done in an
attempt to appease to either side of an issue but IMO only serves to further
the division.

When I'm pro-skub and you're anti-skub, and skub has been proven to be harmful
and the supposed benefits of skub have been proven to be hogwash, telling us
that the facts are a matter of perspective and that both our opinions are
valid is only going to further any division there might be between us. On your
end because you understand it as a fact and not as an opinion, and on my end
because now I simply think it's a matter of opinion and that my opinion is at
least as valid as yours.

 _> Though even in things like Jesus Camp it falls into another fallacy. One
group of outliers is implicitly taken to be representative of a larger group
of individuals._

IMO the film was very clear about what it intended to depict. It focuses on a
specific summer camp during one summer, events surrounding it and even more
specifically on a few kids involved in it. That you take it to be
representative of a larger group of individuals than those depicted in the
film is not something I would blame the filmmakers for, but on the other hand
perhaps a mistake that a lot of people would make easily.

~~~
trentlott
Right - how do you document some subgroup without one one trying to make it
into a generalizable truth about something.

------
duxup
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.

------
sjjshvuiajhz
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.

~~~
asdff
It could be as simple as FuckJerry having two things in hand: 1) footage and
access to insiders 2) the failure of the festival making headlines and
probably getting more attention than if it went off without a hitch

The logical solution isn't to just sit on these two things and write the whole
project off as a loss, it would be to try and make at least some revenue off
of the whole thing. I think any business in their position would have done the
same.

~~~
Traster
It might be logical for FuckJerry to try to exploit the situation that they
have already exploited once. It's not logical for Netflix to do business with
them. From Netflix's point of view: It's reputational risk - you know these
people were involved int he fraud and now you're going to publish their
'investigation' into it. Maybe FJ could have sold the footage and maybe sold
the interviews, but anything involving them in a editorial role is propaganda.
It has to be. They're not going to expose their business for the sake of one
documentary.

------
throwaway-1283
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.

------
jorblumesea
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
It is an entertainment piece, not a historical report after all.

~~~
908087
That's not a very good excuse for what has happened here, particularly since
the "entertainment piece" was presented as a documentary.

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

~~~
danso
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.

~~~
mayneack
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.

------
ceph_
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.

------
rotrux
Opinion: Yes. Just less of a malignant one.

------
legitster
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
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
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.

------
DonHopkins
"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?

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

------
justtopost
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.

------
AimForTheBushes
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)

------
deepakkarki
For those interested, Swindled has a good podcast episode on the Fyre
Festival.

[http://swindledpodcast.com/podcasts/season-2/episode-04-the-...](http://swindledpodcast.com/podcasts/season-2/episode-04-the-
fyre-festival/)

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.

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

------
crispyambulance
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).

~~~
xxxanony
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.

~~~
baby
It was not that obvious to me. I think it was malicious, yes, and it was
insane, true, but I can see how they could have thought that they would be
able to make it. By make it I mean, charging enough money, and getting people
to have an OK experience. Probably they thought people would just lie like
they're use to do on instagram anyway.

------
joaomacp
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.

------
_bxg1
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-
hastin...](https://www.fastcompany.com/40491939/netflix-ceo-reed-hastings-
sleep-is-our-competition)).

I picked the Hulu documentary because I felt in my gut that it would be more
trustworthy. Looks like I was right.

------
sigi45
For 400 people a whole documentry.

We know how to drag things along

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

~~~
detaro
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
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.

------
908087
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.

------
gammateam
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.

------
hkon
It sure is entertaining.

