'Dumb Starbucks' mystery: Who's behind the faux coffee front in Los Feliz?

http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/02/09/42085/dumb-starbucks-coffee-shop-opens-in-los-feliz/

by tchalla • 12 years ago

191 99 12 years ago

scpr.org

vertr07• 12 years ago

This won't last.

gboudrias• 12 years ago

But it'll be hilarious for a few minutes.

dhughes• 12 years ago

No it isn't. Some hipster tried to be funny, and didn't.

evan_3• 12 years ago

I 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-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-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-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-y...

supercoder• 12 years ago

Pretty good guess

swanson• 12 years ago

It 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• 12 years ago

the wording of the letter sounds pretty natural if you read it in his voice, too

lukeholder• 12 years ago

Unfortunately all of those video links are blocked for countries outside the USA.

d0ugie• 12 years ago

oh you, Dumb Viacom

cskau• 12 years ago

I'm able to watch them here in Japan though. Guess they're only selectively blocking.

matznerd2• 12 years ago

You don't have a method for watching videos that are blocked outside your region?

sheraz• 12 years ago

Negative. They are probably blocked in countries where Comedy Central does not have distribution. For example, they work in Sweden, where there is comedy central.

joshmlewis2• 12 years ago

I 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.

evan_3• 12 years ago

I dunno, presumably all of the equipment is leased, they probably aren't paying the employees much more than minimum wage, I bet it's within the show's budget. (Especially if it ends up only being open for a day or two.) If the experiment is successful they should end up making money.

adamnemecek• 12 years ago

You saw the first season, maybe CC bumped up the shows budget for second season.

pionar• 12 years ago

Really, if you think about it, if you only plan on having it open short-term, and you have the money of Viacom (parent co. of Comedy Central) behind you, then capital is not an issue.

You're not going to buy the equipment, you're going to lease it. Paper cups are pretty cheap, and you're hiring people off Craigslist. Coffee's cheap too. And it looks like they're in an area that would be pretty cheap.

Cable shows like this are incredibly cheap, and that's why networks love them. A few hundred grand isn't chump change, but if they get a whole episode out of it, they're still making money.

jccooper• 12 years ago

I think the most expensive thing there is the sign. That's probably over $5k. Month's rent, depending on how bit the place is, maybe $2-4k. Couple days payroll, maybe $1k. Equipment lease I don't know, but maybe a few grand. More if they bought stuff, less if they found a closing Starbucks. Everything else (custom printed cups) maybe another $2k.

Total in my dumb estimate around $15k; maybe more depending on how elaborate the mockery is, or less if they tried to keep costs down. Anyway, in TV production terms, not much.

sixQuarks• 12 years ago

I would bet $100 this is Nathan For You. That's my favorite show, and this has all the hallmarks of his style.

thekevan• 12 years ago

Not only does the article seem to be Nathan, but I also wonder if you are.

evan_3• 12 years ago

It's true. Everyone in this thread is an actor, we're trying to get Dumb Starbucks into Y Combinator.

splatzone• 12 years ago

Almost certainly you're right, considering Tim Heidecker (an exec producer of the show) retweeted a pic

https://twitter.com/timheidecker

Loughla2• 12 years ago

Honest question - how does that man keep getting work?

Even when you approach from a meta-comedy standpoint - something that his supporters claim is his main focus, he is just juvenile and idiotic. I think he's honestly just an idiot who has gotten lucky enough to be in comedy during the time in history that marijuana is very, very mainstream.

taternuts• 12 years ago

Looks like they got a bigger budget for season 2

prezjordan• 12 years ago

Looks like you were right! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo_deCOd1HU

mehwoot• 12 years ago

Is 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• 12 years ago

You 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• 12 years ago

I'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.

judk3• 12 years ago

or Citizen Kane.

lifeformed• 12 years ago

Maybe their explicitly aware attempt to bypass copyright is a part of the parody itself.

jarrett4• 12 years ago

Intent 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• 12 years ago

This 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

jonstewart• 12 years ago

I used to do my laundry at that laundromat. All those people should walk up the street to Yuca's instead.

10feet• 12 years ago

Do they have free coffee at Yuca's?

Nilzor2• 12 years ago

Christ. Are people in LA that coffee-starved?

2772726262562• 12 years 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.

MichaelApproved3• 12 years ago

"Without an entity to claim credit for this activity,"

Your conclusions are premature.

judk3• 12 years ago

Starbucks 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• 12 years ago

Be carefull about what you are claiming as facts vs conculusions... most of those points are loosly related facts with fallacious or simplified conclusions.

Those facts support a broad range of possible solutions and can equally used to support a joke, publicity stunt, or almost any other option thats been discussed here

ctdonath• 12 years ago

Occam's Razor.

A business dominating a given industry is unlikely to engage in an advertising campaign (however guerrilla/viral) which (A) demeans its brand by referring to itself as "Dumb" and acting in a downright bizarre manner, and (B) there is nigh unto zero potential market share which would both be affected/informed by such a stunt and unaware of the business in question.

The parody might benefit Starbucks, but nonetheless Starbucks will now have to combat the "Dumb" prefix and weird storyline.

Were this to happen on/around April 1, I'd give you benefit of the doubt (Starbucks does promote some funny/odd notions on April Fool's Day, but even those have a strong sense of "hey, that's a darned good idea anyway").

ama729• 12 years 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• 12 years ago

Given 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• 12 years ago

Did 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.

paulgb2• 12 years ago

Weird 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/ [2] http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

nostromo• 12 years ago

What about all those cheesy parody t-shirts people sell for profit?

E.g.: http://i.imgur.com/AtIbWVe.jpg

Aren't those legal parodies of protected trademarks?

sabbatic13• 12 years ago

Selling 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.

jarrett4• 12 years ago

The commercial nature of the alleged infringement it doesn't necessarily determine the outcome. So you could have one case where the judge rules for the plaintiff because the use is commercial, and another where the judge rules for the defendant despite the fact that the use is commercial.

ben0x539• 12 years ago

Eh, if the starbucks spokesperson is quoted as saying "Its obviously not a Starbucks," they ~obviously~ don't have a case with regards to trademark infringement, since ~obviously~ consumers aren't being misled or whatever.

jarrett4• 12 years ago

You're speaking about the "likelihood of confusion" standard for trademark infringement, I presume.

If a company employee admitted to a fact that was damaging to the company's case, then that could be a real problem. The spokesperson's judgment of the "obvious[ness]" is just an opinion, though, rather than a factual admission. The courts aren't likely to take that opinion as gospel. In other words, that statement won't short-circuit the court's normal process of evaluating the evidence and determining whether infringement has occurred.

Given that, who would win? I don't know. I'm just saying that the spokesperson's statement doesn't automatically scuttle whatever case Starbucks might have.

Also worth nothing: Another possible claim would be trademark dilution, which, unlike infringement, doesn't require likely consumer confusion.

1stop2• 12 years ago

they so far have only been giving away the coffee... so there isn't a commercial aspect yet.

paulgb2• 12 years ago

Good point, I was responding directly to the wording of their FAQ which implies that they plan to sell coffee at some point.

pbhjpbhj• 12 years ago

Price (inc. zero price) is not he test for whether actions are commercial. Usually the test includes a measure of whether the actions are damaging to the commercial nature of the offended party in a suit.

delinka4• 12 years ago

I think these people are also being disingenuous about their classification of their "business," stating plainly that they are attempting to skirt trademark law by being some kind of art installation. Either it's a parody with permission from Starbucks (which neither party to the agreement is required to inform the public about) or they're going to be in trouble.

A bit more tangential to the topic, there are an awful lot of details missing from that Stanford link about Weird Al's work.

He can write completely different lyrics and publish them all he wants without getting permission or paying royalties. If he chooses to record his own lyrics (which he holds the copyright on) to the same tune as the lyric he parodies, then he becomes responsible for paying royalties on the musical composition only. Once a song has been recorded and published, U.S. law compels licensing to anyone else to also record and publish their version of that song at specified royalty rates to the original lyricist and the original composer (compulsory licensing.)

Weird Al does seek permission. This is simply a gesture of good will on his part. He is in no way required to seek this permission. He writes unique lyrics to which he owns the copyright, records them to the original tune (owing compulsory rates to the original composer), and he's completely legal without ever having to have sought anyone's permission. And "fair use" never enters the equation because copyright law already compels such licensing.

ErsatzVerkehr• 12 years ago

Dumb Starbucks is a parody of parody. A meta-parody.

b1daly• 12 years ago

Actually I think the compulsory license does not apply if it is a derivative work, you would need permission from the publisher.

joe_the_user• 12 years ago

One that you might note in your argument is how the store so far has not sold anything - it has merely given away coffee as part of a supposed "grand opening".

That makes the commercial infringement part less plausible.

Sure, the handout talks about selling stuff. The handout may not be what they use to defend themselves in court if it comes to that.

biot• 12 years ago

Though Weird Al could rely on fair use. In his own words [0]:

  "My parodies have always fallen under what the courts call
   “fair use,” and this one was no different, legally
   allowing me to record and release it without permission.
   But it has always been my personal policy to get the
   consent of the original artist before including my
   parodies on any album..."

[0] http://alyankovic.wordpress.com/the-gaga-saga/

rgarrett88• 12 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement

Good luck!

Glyptodon• 12 years ago

Movie studios pulling a stunt to try and destroy fair use.

Their FAQ even conflates trademark and copyright.

Nilzor2• 12 years ago

This. Why does everyone think it's a publicity stunt when this is the most obvious explanation based on their FAQ?

grizzles• 12 years ago

I'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...

matznerd2• 12 years ago

Seems like a prank that will be relatively short-lived.

codezero• 12 years ago

Fair 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• 12 years ago

A 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.

p_monk• 12 years ago

I 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 . The couple who owned it are chill hippy type people and I'm sure they know what's behind this.

jrockway2• 12 years ago

I'll believe that this is a parody, but one of Reddit-style legal analyses rather than Starbucks.

1stop2• 12 years ago

So 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• 12 years ago

WOAH! I work at SCPR/KPCC and my jaw dropped to see an article from it at the top of HN. Ok, proceed :)

sizzle• 12 years ago

I stream KCRW since moving out of the area, what are some good SCPR/KPCC programs to stream in your opinion? thanks!

ForHackernews• 12 years ago

Interesting 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.

judk3• 12 years ago

I feel dumber having read that.

joshmlewis2• 12 years ago

I 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• 12 years ago

I 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• 12 years ago

Banksy has setup a new residence.

cyanbane• 12 years ago

I was going to say Banksy also, but he is a lot more understated (and artistic). http://www.woostercollective.com/post/the-village-pet-store-...

kiallmacinnes• 12 years ago

I 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• 12 years ago

One 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• 12 years ago

Banksy.

teawithcarl• 12 years ago

According to codinghorror, Dumb Starbucks in LA is Banksy level art project.

http://t.co/zNKKe1S57x

headgasket• 12 years ago

this and cowclick made my day (wikipedia link in the flappyclick story thread). Thanks HN! Cheers,

mathattack• 12 years ago

I was thinking it was just Starbucks spoofing themselves, since the copyright infringement is too obvious.

'Dumb Starbucks' mystery: Who's behind the faux coffee front in Los Feliz?

Related Stories