Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I don't think anyone bought tickets because of the announcement of the coming "big announcement".
I know of at least one poster who did, and several more who were considering it and may or may not have. While I don't think there was a huge ticket rush, the worry that the announcement would be TOO big did influence a few people.
Yeah, you thought they would compete. If you're saying that the other festivals really do dictate what Superfly needs to do, are you saying you're going to go to one of them instead of Bonnaroo this year?
Every press release, statement, or anything really that uses non-specific language like "BIG ANNOUNCEMENT" is released with those responsible knowing full-well that there are some reasonable underlying assumptions that people will use when interpreting that language.
You can argue that superfly didn't imply something with the language used, but what superfly did or did not imply is irrelevant. Superfly could feel that a huge, steaming turd on the stage would qualify for the usage of exciting and your statement would still be true that in the end what happened is that 'you thought that superfly did not mean said steaming turd when they meant exciting announcement.'
What's relevant is a consensus on a reasonable interpretation on the statement "BIG ANNOUNCEMENT ON THURSDAY," because part of superfly's pr group's job is to determine what language to use in press releases; they are supposed to say it so that more people than not will interpret it the right way, and if they biff on that, then they justly deserve all the negative criticism that they are getting.
Now, considering the market and the knowledge that they know everyone has of it-- the "big" announcements from lollapalooza and coachella, the quality of the headliners thusfar, the quality of the act that WSP is replacing, the very common quacking usage of "BIG"-- I'd say that common consensus is that Widespread Panic, a band that has been there five out of seven years and is far from a big national band, is not worthy of "BIG" .... especially considering who was dropped in the same announcement.
It doesn't matter if superfly considers Widespread Panic big, what matters is if the targets considers it big based on their interpretation of big which rightly takes in to account all that the constituents know of the situation at that point. Superfly said something that, if competent and familiar with their audience, the writers I'm sure knew would generate this type of hype and now they are justly catching poop for it.... end of story.
edit: Look I'm not trying to say that superfly is guilty of misleading advertising, I'm only trying to say that they deserve any shit they get.
I don't think anyone bought tickets because of the announcement of the coming "big announcement".
I know of at least one poster who did, and several more who were considering it and may or may not have. While I don't think there was a huge ticket rush, the worry that the announcement would be TOO big did influence a few people.
yeah i stayed up just in case it was a must buy announcement. glad i waited.
Yeah, you thought they would compete. If you're saying that the other festivals really do dictate what Superfly needs to do, are you saying you're going to go to one of them instead of Bonnaroo this year?
Every press release, statement, or anything really that uses non-specific language like "BIG ANNOUNCEMENT" is released with those responsible knowing full-well that there are some reasonable underlying assumptions that people will use when interpreting that language.
You can argue that superfly didn't imply something with the language used, but what superfly did or did not imply is irrelevant. Superfly could feel that a huge, steaming turd on the stage would qualify for the usage of exciting and your statement would still be true that in the end what happened is that 'you thought that superfly did not mean said steaming turd when they meant exciting announcement.'
What's relevant is a consensus on a reasonable interpretation on the statement "BIG ANNOUNCEMENT ON THURSDAY," because part of superfly's pr group's job is to determine what language to use in press releases; they are supposed to say it so that more people than not will interpret it the right way, and if they biff on that, then they justly deserve all the negative criticism that they are getting.
Now, considering the market and the knowledge that they know everyone has of it-- the "big" announcements from lollapalooza and coachella, the quality of the headliners thusfar, the quality of the act that WSP is replacing, the very common quacking usage of "BIG"-- I'd say that common consensus is that Widespread Panic, a band that has been there five out of seven years and is far from a big national band, is not worthy of "BIG" .... especially considering who was dropped in the same announcement.
It doesn't matter if superfly considers Widespread Panic big, what matters is if the targets considers it big based on their interpretation of big which rightly takes in to account all that the constituents know of the situation at that point. Superfly said something that, if competent and familiar with their audience, the writiers I'm sure knew would generate this type of hype and now they are catching poop for it.... end of story.
Wouldn't false or misleading information occur if Superfly said "Bonnaroo cures cancer... come see us in 2008" -or- "We would love to announce the reunion of the original Beatles Line up at Bonnaroo 2008"?
I've seen tricky/misleading advertising and i'm fairly positive that this doesn't fall into that category.
Although im disappointed like a lot of people, changing headliners is a "Big" announcement. I believe that I am to blame for letting myself believe that Led Zeppelin or Clapton would be the "Big" announcement by listening to baseless evidence and made-up rumors.
The truth is, it didn't really matter how they broke the news to you that widespread would be replacing the allmans, you would still be disappointed.
I think you should let it go people. Bonnaroo is going to be great this year as it is every year. I've never had a bad time at bonnaroo and i definitely won't this year (knock on wood).
Post by the3penguins on Apr 17, 2008 15:46:51 GMT -5
Nice post benrs, you put it better than I did.
Incidentally, please stop smiting me whoever you are. If you disagree that the announcement was misleading, fine, talk about it, but I don't think I have done anything smite-worthy.
Wouldn't false or misleading information occur if Superfly said "Bonnaroo cures cancer... come see us in 2008" -or- "We would love to announce the reunion of the original Beatles Line up at Bonnaroo 2008"?
I've seen tricky/misleading advertising and i'm fairly positive that this doesn't fall into that category.
and I'd never say that it was misleading advertising (edit: sorry kidA, I should have looked more carefully), what they said was far too vague and even then I don't think they specifically tried to get us to believe that the addition would be something amazing. I think they tried to generate some hype among exactly the type of people that would catch an announcement like that a few days before the addition and it backfired (I realize inforoo isn't exactly representative of all of this population but I can say from talking in the real world with plenty of people about this it's a reasonable assumption to say there is a general feeling of dissapointment among those that saw it).
look all I'm trying to say is that superfly deserves any poop they get for this.
Post by experiencehaze on Apr 17, 2008 15:55:50 GMT -5
They should have just had WSP at one stage and JJ on the other. Because all the people who were bitching about Jack headlining seemed to me to be the people who prefered Panic.
A personal opinion of mine. I think whoever brought up the idea of Panic coming back again, after being at Roo so many times before, should be fired.
Because while there are so many bands that I would enjoy seeing every year, I would much rather be introduced to 40 new bands a year.
"I want you to notice When I'm not around You're so fücking special I wish I was special But I'm a creep I'm a weirdo What the hell am I doing here? I don't belong here" -Radiohead
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin
i think i'll try to get a petition together, and have the names of all the people that signed this petition, to be w/the people @ the gates and they get a refund and sent the quack home, don't think it's a popularity contest, it's all about the music, the main reason i "love" Bonnaroo is going to see the acts i've never heard of before, expanding my horizons!
and I'd never say that it was misleading advertising, what they said was far too vague and even then I don't think they specifically tried to get us to believe that the addition would be something amazing. I think they tried to generate some hype among exactly the type of people that would catch an announcement like that a few days before the addition and it backfired (I realize inforoo isn't exactly representative of all of this population but I can say from talking in the real world with plenty of people about this it's a reasonable assumption to say there is a general feeling of dissapointment among those that saw it).
look all I'm trying to say is that superfly deserves any poop they get for this.
i didn't say that you said that at all. what you said makes a lot of sense but the petition plainly states "We just request truth in advertising."
i'm just observing that the petition would suggest that superfly lied. either that or the argument of the petition is not valid.
i didn't say that you said that at all. what you said makes a lot of sense but the petition plainly states "We just request truth in advertising."
i'm just saying that the petition would suggest that superfly lied. either that or the argument of the petition is not valid.
Ah yea, you're right. I should have looked more carefully at exactly what Sköldpadda was responding to and instead typed that out semi-heatofthemoment.
My bad to both you and Sköldpadda.
Karma for your name btw.
That said I still agree with the petition in sentiment, although perhaps not 100% in semantics.
i'm just observing that the petition would suggest that superfly lied. either that or the argument of the petition is not valid.
I think "lied" might be a little strong. I don't think that Superfly decided, "Let's say we have a big announcement when we really don't, just to trick people!" What I'm saying is through carelessness or lack of forethought, they did trick people. They should have thought more carefully about the context of this "big announcement" (Prince, first time there has been a pre-announcement, Led Zeppelin speculation, etc) and realized that they would just end up disappointing people who had higher hopes. Thus, while they may not have meant to cause controversy, through carelessness it is still their fault.
i'm just observing that the petition would suggest that superfly lied. either that or the argument of the petition is not valid.
I think "lied" might be a little strong. I don't think that Superfly decided, "Let's say we have a big announcement when we really don't, just to trick people!" What I'm saying is through carelessness or lack of forethought, they did trick people. They should have thought more carefully about the context of this "big announcement" (Prince, first time there has been a pre-announcement, Led Zeppelin speculation, etc) and realized that they would just end up disappointing people who had higher hopes. Thus, while they may not have meant to cause controversy, through carelessness it is still their fault.
So to clarify, "We just request truth in advertising" means don't use vague adjectives such as "big" to market to the consumer?
The word "truth" doesn't test the facts of the statement in question?
I just don't get the uproar and how the uproar coincides with this great music festival. No hard feelings though.
oh gosh... I can only imagine how long (or soon) it is until we get another thread from kramer this year...
If he comes around this year we will help him out of sight of the board. Way too much fighting last year. He reminds me of Chris McCandless. I'm sure many would disagree, but that's just my opinion.
Post by Britney's_Fears on Apr 18, 2008 7:13:10 GMT -5
I was frustrated that they added Metallica and got away from the jamband roots that founded Bonnaroo. And then when they added arguably one of the best jambands out there (WSP) well, man that really got me P.O.ed I mean why couldn't they resurrect Jimi Hendrix from the dead and have him play? Or get Pink Floyd back together to rehearse for 56 days before playing Roo?
What is Superfly thinking not doing this?
Why didn't we get Prince like Coachella? And why didn't we get all the guys that played Roo last year like Rothbury so we could hear them two summers in a row like Panic?
And everyone knows NIN and RATM beat the hell out of Metallica and Pearl Jam.
I'm burning my ticket TODAY. (wait I don't have it yet) Well when it comes I'm burning it, I don't even want the $262 back.)
Frustrated? Hell yeah. Think I'll masturbate some. That always helps.
people got pissed about tallica... so they added a huge jam band... AND claypool now everyone is bitching about that... i am beginning to think that nothing will make some of you happy...
we have everything from tallica, to willie, to wsp... what is the fuggin' problem?
bonnaroo will be amazing this year, just like every other year... i find this whole endeavor very selfish and poorly thought out.
don't let the few people on the lineup you don't like eclipse the spirit of bonnaroo, OR this board, please...
well i havent read throught this thread. because i dont really care, but..... i think it would do much more good to start petitioning the bands and not superfly. superfly will never change because they are making money. start petitioning bands or god forbid, boycotting bands, and they wont play roo anymore. the days of shutting down superfly by boycott or petition are gone. you can onlyhave an effect through the finances. and we dont go to roo anymore. your not gonna stop radio fans from going and spending money. those poor souls dont know any better. but we can influence our bands to quit playing that sh!tshow. and thats what we should do. not through petitions but through not giving them money. i know its easier said then done. but in all reality the new roo will end up like new woodstock and it will shut itself down. damn i cant wait!!!!!!
Here's the thing - Superfly is a promoter. It's their job to build up hype and excitement. Still, they never said "Stay tuned for a legendary artist addition!!" They just said a "big announcement." Well, so they do announce something big - a change of headliners - the addition of two bands that A LOT of people in the Bonnaroo community (it seems some people forget that includes people not on this message board) are most certainly really excited about. Sorry if it didn't live up to your overblown expectations that were based on hearsay and rumors...that's not their fault, it's yours. To whine about that is pretty weak, IMO.
Last Edit: Apr 18, 2008 9:22:20 GMT -5 by sunnyd - Back to Top
Here's the thing - Superfly is a promoter. It's their job to build up hype and excitement. Still, they never said "Stay tuned for a legendary artist addition!!" They just said a "big announcement." Well, so they do announce something big - a change of headliners - the addition of two bands that A LOT of people in the Bonnaroo community (it seems some people forget that includes people not on this message board) are most certainly really excited about. Sorry if it didn't live up to your overblown expectations that were based on hearsay and rumors...that's not their fault, it's yours. To whine about that is pretty weak, IMO.
well put, I to am baffled at this bizarre self induced backlash
Post by the3penguins on Apr 18, 2008 9:56:57 GMT -5
What's funny to me is that the posts in this thread are mostly disagreeing with ideas and feelings behind the petition, yet it is approaching 100 signatures. Are people more likely to post to a topic when they disagree than when they agree, or has the hostility expressed by some scared away people who were disappointed and angry from identifying themselves?
;D
