Indoor Football Team Lets Fans Pretty Much Run Everything From A Phone App

from the the-crowdsource-goes-wild dept

We've talked a great deal about businesses connecting with their fans as a way to keep their interest in a product. The whole formula of CwF+RtB relies first and foremost on giving customers an emotional interest in seeing a particular business or product succeed. This generally involves treating the buying public well, engaging with customers in an open and honest way, making sure the product is great, and building advocates out of mere consumers.

But then one day the owner of an indoor American football team comes along and decides that basically the entire team should be run in a crowdsourced manner by the fans via a mobile application.

The Screaming Eagles claim to be the first fan-run professional football team in the United States. Using a free mobile app, anyone can vote on nearly all aspects of the new team's identity and function, including calling offensive and special-teams plays. The experiment did not begin swimmingly. On the Screaming Eagles’ first possession, voters decided on a pass play on third-and-10 from their own 5-yard line. Reed fumbled in the end zone, and Nebraska recovered for a touchdown. Five plays later, on fourth-and-15 from their own 1-yard line, the vote called for a field goal. (The field is 50 yards long.) The kick was blocked and recovered by Nebraska for another score.

But the influence of the fans was felt long before they managed to collectively poop the bed on the field. The fans were responsible for the uniforms the team wore in the game, the name of the team and its cheerleader squad, and even the choice of the music to which the team warmed up. And, like all good ideas that have ever existed, the owner of the team decided to do all of this because he played video games.

Sohrob Farudi, the chief executive of Project Fanchise, the team’s ownership group, said there was no eureka moment behind his decision to start such a fan-driven team; it was something he had considered for a number of years.

“I was always on my couch, playing Madden, making calls and wondering why I was spending money on beer and tickets to games,” said Farudi, who sold his cellphone resale and recycling company, Flipswap, in 2011. “Being so close to tech and mobile, I wondered, Why can’t a fan be involved?”

And now they are, in more ways than with any other team in the history of professional sports. There have been some rocky beginnings to all of this, including some fans' attempt to have the Utah-based team named The Stormin' Mormons. Still, Farudi appears committed to the concept, and even his coach and players are getting on board.

McCarthy, whose résumé includes head coach and coordinator positions on four other I.F.L. teams, said he has warmed to a system that, to outsiders, may look as if he is relinquishing control of his coaching duties.

“At the end of the day, it’s still my plays,” he said. “I set up our system, so it’s got my plays in it and what we’ve been working on.”

Nobody would suggest that this level of fan involvement will translate to the larger, more popular sports leagues and franchises. But aspects of it certainly can. And the Indoor Football League is obviously desperate for eyeballs, so it's quite interesting to see them try to attract fans by giving them a crazy amount of ownership over the product they'll be watching on the field. It seems obvious that allowing fans to have this kind of crowdsourced involvement in the team can only help to keep them engaged by giving them an emotional investment in the product. That's pretty clearly CwF-type thinking, with the curiousity of how the fans' gameplan might turn out to be a rather creative RtB. There are even benefits for different levels of fan involvement and purchasing.

Christian Williams, 29, of Melbourne, Australia, spent $450 during the team’s crowdfunding round to be named one of 10 co-founders of the franchise. He said in a phone interview Thursday that he had analyzed scouting reports and held conversations with the front office via Skype and email.

“I like the fact that I have been involved in the process all the way,” he said.

Again, not a model for everyone, but it's a cool concept for fan engagement. I imagine that engagement would only multiply if the team manages to start winning some games with the fans at the helm.

Filed Under: crowdsourcing, football, indoor football, plays, sports
Companies: screaming eagles

College Pulls Support For Students' Parodic Musical Because It *Imagines* Disney Might Sue It

from the wielding-IP-for-fear-and-profit dept

One of the "benefits" of being a notorious IP thug is that people are willing to do most of your work for you and head off any conceivable infringement before it even happens.

Yes, we're talking about Disney.

A student theatrical troupe at Evergreen College just had all support from the school pulled, along with use of its facilities, for creating a musical that dared to take a few hummable swings at Disney's body of work.

Eight students there spent the spring quarter writing, rehearsing, and preparing to perform publicly an original musical theater production entitled “The Quisney Project presents: O.U.T.: Once Upon a Time.” Informed by queer theory, the work is a critical and political commentary on heterosexuality norms in American society. Professors were involved in supervising and approving the project, which was scheduled to be performed this weekend in campus facilities...

The students’ musical production apparently incorporates several Disney songs, which the students use to criticize and parody Disney as – in their view – a company that perpetuates gender norms through its songs and movies.

So far, so good. But before it could get off the ground and without anyone but the administration scaring the hell out of itself with visions of white-gloved lawyers delivering complaints to federal courthouses, the school informed the troupe that, yes, it could put on a show, but there was no way Evergreen College would assist in that endeavor.

Evergreen State College’s administration was supportive of the project initially. However, after consulting with a state attorney, the administration apparently changed its tune, writing the students in late May to advise them that the musical could not be performed on college property in its present form. Their concern? Potential secondary liability for copyright infringement.

The theater troupe had consulted its own legal representation as well -- the Washington Lawyers for the Arts -- and arrived at a completely different set of conclusions. Here's just part of its resolution sent to Evergreen's administrators.

Whereas the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (92-1292), 510 U.S. 569 (1994) that 2 Live Crew’s song “Pretty Woman” did not infringe Acuff-Rose’s copyright of “Oh Pretty Woman” and did constitute fair use because the parody commented on and substantially transformed the meaning of the original;

Whereas fair use is determined on a case-by-case basis;

Whereas in making determinations of fair use, the relevant provision of federal copyright law (17 U.S.C. §107) instructs us to consider:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and;
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Whereas fair use in educational settings is wider in scope than in commercial settings such as that addressed in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose;

Whereas the students who wrote the script, as well as the faculty who reviewed it, concur that in its use of parody “The Quisney Project presents: O.U.T.: Once Upon a Time” significantly alters the meaning of original melodies and lyrics, and offers critical commentary upon the original...

The musical would seem to be on solid ground, or at least as solid as fair use can ever be. But Evergreen, despite never having heard from the feared rights holder, much less consulted with anyone specializing in IP law (the State Attorney? Really?), stood firm, distancing itself as far as possible from members of its student body.

We therefore insist that the performance cannot go forward as it has been planned to date. There are alternatives to a public, on-campus performance of the script as we have it. These have been discussed with most of you, but none, so far as we know, adopted. We cannot allow college staff time or resources of any kind to be dedicated to the performances planned for this week. This includes any recording, publication, or broadcast by college staff.

As we have stated consistently, our decision is determined solely by copyright concerns and should in no way be taken as a negative judgment on the artistic and academic merit of the play or on the work of the Quisney Project.

It may not be a negative judgement on the content, but it's a very cowardly move. Backing down from actual legal threats is one thing. Scaring yourself into conceding before the battle lines are even drawn is just ridiculous. Disney's thuggish rep precedes it and it's getting compliance without even asking.

As the WLA post shows, the show's songs and content have substantial fair use protection built in. But if a college is willing to drop back and punt on first down just because it's heard of Disney suing infringers, it sends the message that it's unwilling to put up a fight to protect fair use in other academic arenas as well.

Evergreen should have thrown its support behind the program. Given the subject matter, any legal action taken by Disney would appear to be more motivated by stifling criticism than protecting IP rights. That would have been a lose-lose move and one it most likely would never have attempted. But now we'll never know because Evergreen College surrendered preemptively.

Filed Under: copyright, parody, plays, quisney project, threats
Companies: disney, evergreen state college

Universal Music Prevents Popular Play From Showing In Stockholm, Despite Not Having The Legal Rights

from the copyfraud... dept

As the major record labels and their lawyers and lobbyists run around the globe demonizing anyone for any sort of copyright infringement, we keep hearing stories of how they falsely claim rights over music for which they do not hold them. We recently covered the story of Edwyn Collins and his inability to offer free downloads of a popular hit song -- because Warner Music Group put in a copyright claim on the song. Reader Marius points us to a similar situation, over in Sweden. Despite theaters in Sweden being covered by a license agreement on musical performances by STIM, the Swedish performing rights collection society, apparently some music publishers claim that theaters still owe more money.

In one case, Universal Music (I assume its publishing arm...) threatened a theater because a popular play (that had toured without incident all over Europe) included a part where a Simon & Garfunkel record was playing in the background. The theater owner actually wrote a letter to Paul Simon to find out what his complaint was -- and received a response saying that Universal does not represent Paul Simon's music in theater contracts. Now, it's possible that there was some misunderstanding (language, cultural or legal), but this sort of thing seems to be happening more and more. When the theater owner informed Universal of this, Universal apparently retracted its demands for payment -- but the theatre company putting on the performance had already decided not to risk doing the play.

It's difficult to see how anyone comes out ahead in such a scenario. The Swedish public doesn't get to see the play or hear the music. Paul Simon doesn't get to attract new fans. Universal Music doesn't get anything other than a lot of ill will from the theater community. Why even bother at all?

Filed Under: licensing, music, paul simon, plays, sweden
Companies: universal music

Connecting With Fans Via Live Theater As Well...

from the it's-happening-everywhere... dept

For many years, my wife and I have held a season subscription to the plays at the American Conservatory Theatre (ACT) in San Francisco. They put on some really great shows -- a mix of new and old (including at least one play by either Tom Stoppard or David Mamet pretty much every season, which is great, since those are probably my two favorite playwrights). This latest season kicked off with a bang a few weeks back with an amazing adaptation of Noel Coward's Brief Encounter, done by the Kneehigh Theatre group from the UK. Having attended dozens of plays at ACT over the years, I can't remember any that I thought was quite so amazing or that made me want to run out and tell lots and lots of people to go see it. It's the most imaginatively staged play I've ever seen, and you have to have a serious psychological disorder not to smile through most of it (despite the serious subject matter: marital affairs). I think the opening line to the SF Gate review summed up my thoughts exactly:

Every so often a theater piece comes to town that is so brilliantly conceived and executed, so entertaining on every level, that you want everyone you love or even like just a bit to see it. Kneehigh Theatre's "Brief Encounter," the opening show in the American Conservatory Theater's new season, is that kind of experience.

You kind of have to see the play itself to understand what's so creative about it, but as a hint, before the play even starts, the actors show up in different parts of the theater and start playing instruments and singing songs -- totally unannounced (and many in the crowd ignored it) right up until the play starts. Then, during intermission, they ended up doing something similar in the bar area (downstairs, not upstairs), before mingling with the crowd as everyone made their way back to the theater. Considering most of the actors are on-stage close to the entire time during the play, it's noteworthy that they then end up extending things both before the play and during the intermisison. It really is a neat way for the actors to more closely "connect" with the fans at the show.

Anyway... that, by itself, obviously isn't the sort of thing we post around here, but when I saw the news that the engagement had been extended for another week (the second time already) due to popular demand, I wanted to send that news to a few friends who I knew would enjoy the show, and did a quick search to find that SF Gate review (separately, I believe the play is heading to NY and then Minnesota in the coming months, for folks in either place). In doing so, I came across a blog post from a dramaturg who works at ACT talking about how the artistic department of ACT is trying to get much more involved in meeting people at the theater and improving the overall experience:

An idea I had over the summer, the SHOP puts the creators of Words on Plays (my supervisor and me) in the theater to personally sell our product and discuss it--as well as the play itself and the theater more generally--with our patrons. Part of our theater's mission is to encourage conversation; we're taking this tenant literally. Previously Words on Plays was sold at the merchandise counter, but that counter is remaining unmanned this season because of low sales. So our timing was good.

The idea is to get more in touch with the fans coming to the theater and build a stronger relationship, while still offering "reasons to buy" (the whole RtB part...). While it sounds like direct sales of the book weren't a big deal, it is still helping more people connect with the theater overall and come back to see more plays (a bigger moneymaker than any book...):

Our patrons are most familiar with our theater's hospitality and fundraising staffs. Certainly not a bad thing, but what if this model was exchanged for one in which representatives from the artistic staff were always present to discuss what the patrons are really there to think about--the art?

This is how smaller theaters have to do it because everyone is doing everything. The artistic director is the ticket taker. The playwright is the one who knows where the fire extinguisher is. And it's lovely. Every show you are being welcomed in by a family.

This is where my thinking started. I would stand at my booth selling my product and furthering conversation about the show. But I think I may have been thinking too small. Last night I sold five copies. Commendable but negligible. But I also sold at least two couples on November, our next show, by simply telling them how funny a script it is. I spoke to another gentleman about his time in England. I made a handful of people laugh when I directed them to the new location for the hearing devices: "Why don't you put a sign up?" "Because then I wouldn't get to talk to you."

Indeed. Over the last few months, we've been seeing how the whole CwF + RtB concept isn't just working for musicians, but authors, movie makers, photographers and many other content creators as well. Most of these experiments are still early, but you get a sense that actually building real connections with fans is really working for those who truly put their hearts into it. And, oh yeah, if you're in San Francisco, you really should go check out Brief Encounter...

Filed Under: act, brief encounter, connect with fans, cwf, plays, reason to buy, rtb
Companies: american conservatory theatre, kneehigh theatre

Jeremy Piven Sends Cease & Desist To Stop Play From Mocking Him

from the is-your-ego-that-fragile? dept

I've been a fan of the actor Jeremy Piven for years, but apparently he's a bit quick on the legal trigger. His lawyers have sent a cease-and-desist letter to a playhouse that has been showing a mocking play called "The Piven Monologues." Apparently, Piven had pulled out of a planned gig on Broadway in a revival of David Mamet's excellent play "Speed the Plow" (a role that Piven would be great in, actually). Piven claimed he couldn't do it because of "mercury poisoning" from eating too much sushi -- an odd excuse to be sure. Mamet supposedly was heard to comment: "My understanding is that he is leaving show business to pursue a career as a thermometer," leading some playwrights to put together a quick play more or less mocking and parodying the whole situation. Piven's lawyers are claiming that it's defamatory, but it's difficult to see how anyone would take anything in such a play seriously, as it's obviously a spoof. But, in these days of aggressive litigation and people thinking they get to control every use of their own brand or name, is it any surprise that Piven would lawyer up?

Filed Under: defamation, jeremy piven, mocking, parody, plays, spoof