Henry H Perrit Jr.'s View on the Proposed Chicago Event Promoter License

An incredible supporter of the independent artist community Henry Perritt has asked everyone to help distribute his White Paper, "Why the Event Promoters Ordinance should be rejected".

Please read it, repost it and repost it again. ANY and ALL feedback welcome.

Why the Event Promoters Ordinance should be rejected
[27 May 2008]

• The proposed ordinance does not address any public need



• Often justified as a response to the 17 February 2003 stampede in the E2 nightclub, which killed 21 people, the proposed ordinance does not address the problems that led to that tragedy:



• Too many people (1100) were in a venue that could safely accommodate only 300



• The City of Chicago had not determined the safe capacity of the venue



• The City had not acted on known building and fire code violations



• The venue’s security staff did not respond appropriately



• The proposed ordinance does not strengthen the City’s inspection and enforcement resources, powers, and will to act; instead it indemnifies the City from liability



• The ordinances regulating places where food is offered for sale require periodic city inspections; neither the proposed ordinance nor the existing PPA requires inspections



• The proposed ordinance targets event promoters rather than venue owners, although circumstances leading to the E2 tragedy were within control of the venue manager and not third-party promoters



• Venue owners, not third-party promoters, are in a position to control everything that might jeopardize the health or safety of fans



• The proposed ordinance does not fit the realities of how some of Chicago’s best music is made and promoted



• The 2007 Chicago Music City report prepared by a group at the University of Chicago for the Chicago Music Commission concluded that music in Chicago generates a payroll in excess of $1 billion annually and fuels the overall economy in Chicagoland.
• Significantly, it concluded that Chicago offers more kinds of music regularly than anywhere else except Los Angeles and New York, mostly in small clubs



• Most of the small clubs are operated informally and present bands and other performers that operate on a financial shoestring, rarely earning more than a few hundred dollars for a performance, and rarely netting more than a few thousand dollars per year for their music



• These bands and performers and the venues in which they perform scramble to attract an audience, relying on the band’s circle of friends and an occasional part-time amateur street team to distribute flyers and generate word of mouth



• The proposed ordinance contains several provisions that would burden small venues and less-known bands disproportionately



• It defines the regulated activity ( § 1-157-010, definition of “Event Promoter”) to include advertising so broadly that it would include:
• Word of mouth generated by a band or its supporters
• Distribution of flyers or posters publicizing a performance
• Free notices of performances on websites such as MySpace music pages, while exempting paid newspaper advertising


• It imposes unnecessary insurance requirements on promoters who have no control over safety in venues and thus are unlikely to be liable for injuries



• It prohibits fans under the age of 21 from engaging in promotion activities, although younger fans other play a crucial role in encouraging turnout for performances



• It would intimidate fans and band members from promoting a performance by requiring them to be fingerprinted and to fill out burdensome forms and keep burdensome records



• Paradoxically, it would regulate promoters for events at small venues while leaving intact the existing exemption for the venues themselves (PPA § 4-156-305(c))



• It exempts instrumental performances by groups with fewer than eight pieces (§ 4-156-305(f)) while providing no such exemption for small groups performing other kinds of music



• It exempts large venues, where any risk to public health and safety is greatest



• The proposed ordinance is unconstitutional
• It violates the First Amendment by regulating speech in the form of advertising over-broadly


• It violates due process by excluding ex-felons who have paid their debt to society and persons convicted of petty theft; federal court cases require a rational relationship between regulation of entertainment and risks to public health and safety; there is no such relationship here



• It violates equal protection of minority groups by disproportionately burdening promoters from such groups



• The City of Chicago should be supporting and promoting its smaller venues and lesser-known bands, but the ordinance imposes burdens instead



• The City should publish and distribute to hotels and airports a directory of smaller venues and lesser-known bands



• - It should provide links on its websites to private websites that offer current information about scheduled performances



• - It should provide financial support to smaller venues and lesser-known bands

Henry H. Perritt, Jr.
Professor of Law
Chicago-Kent College of Law
Member of the Illinois Bar
hperritt@kentlaw.edu
(312) 906-5098

Benefit for Delilah at Delilah's.

Head on over to Delilah's tonight to help out a good cause. If you've ever been there and met Delilah the rottweiler and her savior Cookie then you know all the details.

Delilah's is located at 2771 N Lincoln Ave in Chicago. They're open from 4pm till 2am tonight. That gives you more than enough time to stop by and enjoy the night. Cookie will be djing and giving away just about anything you could imagine. Almost anything...

Stop in, have a pint or two and help out the most lovable Rot you've ever met.

No need.

I was slightly worried about attending the Event Promoters hearing tomorrow. It's at 10am and at 11am Mortal Decay is scheduled to arrive at my house. So it would have been a big scheduling crash.

Yes, they are arriving at my house. They're coming in from New Jersey and crashing at my house before and after the show. I wouldn't do this for just any band but I do for friends.

Remember to come out to Cobra Lounge tomorrow night. There's been some changes to the show again and it looks as of now that it's a 2 band show.

Gaius Acilius had to cancel due to their own scheduling conflicts.

After tomorrow's show, I have another in my head for August but that's still in the works. I believe the DJ nights at the Dirt Room are more than likely done for the summer. I'll probably start them back up once fall hits again and people want to be trapped indoors.

I'll keep you posted.

-Rev

Jim DeRogatis - Ordinance tabled (for now)

UPDATE: Promoter's ordinance tabled (for now)

Following a nearly unprecedented outpouring of concern from the Chicago music community and a meeting with activists and some of the top concert promoters and venue owners in Chicago, Ald. Eugene Schulter, chairman of the City Council License Committee, decided on Tuesday that he will not present the so-called "event promoter's ordinance" to the full council for a vote on Wednesday -- and that the committee will go back to work on fine-tuning the law.

Schulter and representatives of the city Department of Business Affairs & Licensing met with members of the Chicago Music Commission, Metro owner Joe Shanahan, Jam Productions talent booker Nick Miller and Double Door co-owner Sean Mulroney Tuesday morning, a day before the law was expected to be passed by the City Council.

Made aware of concerns in many corners of Chicago's arts communities, Schulter asked DBA for more facts and figures about the alleged "problem venues" and "underground promoters" that the ordinance was designed to curtail. Some of those who attended the meeting said DBA had to admit that it had no hard information and that it has not formally studied the extent of the alleged problem that the law was crafted to address; they had only the anecdotal evidence of the single tragic incident at the E2 Nightclub five years ago.

The law will return to committee for more work and public input before a council vote is considered again. Schulter told the meeting he expects that process will take at least a month.

"We are not sure when it will come out of committee for a vote, but we hope that Chairman Schulter will wait until he and the city have engaged the music community publicly and meaningfully so their concerns can be heard and hopefully incorporated into the eventual law," said Chicago Music Commission board member Bruce Iglauer.

"We are pleased that Chairman Schulter has responded to community concerns here, and we look forward to working with him, members of the Committee, DBA staff and other music community stakeholders to come up with a workable version of the ordinance."

Posted by Jim DeRogatis on May 13, 2008 01:00 PM

Email to my Alderman

Dear Alderman Levar,

My name is Reverend Derek Dennison. I've been living in your district now for close to a year. I've been living in Chicago for close to 8 years now. Before that I lived in a very small town near the town of Dixon Illinois, Ronald Reagan's boyhood town. I used to go to Lowell Park where President Reagan was a lifeguard and he even saved my Mother's life once. It was a very simple place to grow up, the laws and rules are all very simple and very enforced.

I came to this city for many reasons. I wanted to know what it would be like to live in one of the greatest cities in America. I wanted to explore possibilities and see what I could accomplish on my own. I wanted to live in a city where I was encouraged to express myself and not feel like I was being looked down on. Small towns have that ability of looking down on people for expressing themselves openly.

Before I came to Chicago, I used to organize and promote concerts and bands. These bands were of a wide variety. I did well there and because these events were popular people came to them and they enjoyed themselves. Seeing this was a reward all in it's own. I came to Chicago, in this aspect, because I wanted to have the ability to reach out to more people and more bands.

However, upon moving to a new city all the normal "new guy" inconveniences began again. It took me six years to finally be able to start doing little shows again. The city is much different than the smaller towns. Bands here want more money and a lot of venues here charge a room rental fee. Which means I have to pay any where between $300 up to $3,500 in order to do a concert where the three bands involved could cost anywhere between $300 and far beyond $5,000.

I now only do concerts as a hobby. I don't make the kind of money needed to survive in this business. I currently do a once a month dj night at the Double Door in Wicker Park and I have a free concert to be held this coming Wednesday at the Cobra Lounge on Ashland Ave. After these events I am putting together a benefit event in the name of a friend that died last year. All proceeds will go to a local music school that he attended in his name. The venue has said they would donate the space for the event.

If for some reason this license goes through this event won't be able to happen. In fact, I'll never be able to do another event inside the city limits. With the license fee being different for each size of venue I would have to get different licenses. Perfect example is that I've recently had an event that was originally slated for a venue with a 550 "non-fixed seat" capacity that had to be changed to a venue that had a 300 "non-fixed seat" capacity. This would be too costly for me to have to obtain different licenses due to different capacities.


Insurance

The insurance that is being demanded is also too high for me. If I put on an event at a venue that holds 500 people, the insurance could run me between $300 and $600 for that one night. That is also non-refundable. Which means I would have to add that cost into my ticket prices and make a $5 show now cost $10. Which in turn will stop people from coming to my event and myself becoming more poor than I already am.

I'm sure that I am not the only person that this insurance will effect in this way. All legitimate PPA licensed venues already have this insurance. The event occurs inside their property in which they provide the security and they control the capacity. So I wonder now, why do the promoters have to have this insurance? A promoter does not overrule the authority of the venue. The venue is not owned by the promoter. The venue has the final say about capacity and what actions to be done if there is a problem.

If E2 is the basis behind the insurance, may I ask this question. Why? E2 was a venue that had constant complaints and was even ordered closed by the city. They disregarded the city and stayed open. At that point they became criminals. The city should have made sure that the venue was closed and should have administered their own locks or chains to keep it closed. That is not the fault of all the promoters in Chicago, that was the fault of the City of Chicago.


Fingerprinting.

I personally do not have a problem with fingerprinting. The problem I have is if it holds someone back from receiving a license. Not everyone has a perfect record. People tend to mess up in life from time to time. It's one of the ways we learn. I'm sure every person in the world has said the wrong thing or has taken pens home from work. But if a person has had a bad record in the past should that stop them from doing what they like now? Or should this be taken away from them as well, leaving them with limited work options?


Fixed Seating Venues

Has anyone thought about how many "non-fixed seating" venues there are in this city? Metro, Double Door, Schuba's. Martyrs, Empty Bottle, Subterranean, The Blue Note, Quencher's, The Hideout, the Riviera, the Vic Theater, Congress Theater and many more. Do you think these venues are going to pay for these licenses or just give up and put in tables for customers to sit at. There won't be any Promoters left to fill these establishments with live music. There won't be any establishments that will offer dancing, live music, comedy acts or even prop theater.

Fixed seat venues like the United Center can afford these license but they are exempt because they threatened to take their business to suburban venues and other towns like Rockford and Pecatonica, Illinois. Now, if the license does pass as it stands, so will the independent Event Promoters.


Money

I've already touched on the different amounts that it may cost for a single event. Now let's look at how this could effect business.

If a "non-fixed seating" venue has to close it's doors to independent event promoters they could run the chance of losing a lot of money on a weekly basis. Most of these venues have bands or dj's on every Friday and Saturday night.

Let's say that on a busy night with a band the bar rings in a profit of $4,500. On a night without a band, that same venue that is open and serves alcohol and a limited amount of food could ring in a profit of $1,500 for the night. That's a difference of $3,000 in profit. Now, once the license is passed and the promoters can't afford the license where will all this extra profit come from? It won't be there and a lot of these smaller venues will close.

Once these venues close an average of 20 - 25 employees will be out of work. As of March the unemployment rate was 5.5.%. Where do you think it will be when an average of 20 venues with an average of 20 - 25 employees has to close their doors? That's roughly 400 to 1,300 more people in the unemployment lines. If they can even obtain unemployment help since most of these employees work for a minimal wage and survive mainly on tips.

I don't know about you but I don't want to be bothered by even more homeless people.


Culture

Independent Event Promoters bring in live music from all over the world. Personally I've brought bands in from Peoria, Michigan, New Jersey, and Boston. There are bands that come from all over to play this city because of the cultural diversity and opportunities. There are bands that move here because, "If you can't make it in Chicago, you can't make it anywhere."

Besides bands, let's think about the little prop theaters that make up Chicago's acting profession. These venues range in different sizes. They also range in different money brackets. Most of these venues charge an entrance fee in hopes that they make enough money to pay the rent for that month. They don't have the extra money to pay a license fee. Their actors rarely make money and some events sponsor benefit nights to obtain the money they need for props and costumes. These types of prop theaters will have to close down.


Let's not forget about the very basic element that should be a major part of your decision.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - Amendment 1, U.S. Constitution, Ratified on 12/15/1791


I understand that this license is not directly trying to prohibit our right to peaceably assemble. However, it is selecting who has the right to decide where and when. If you do not have a license you can not put together the options for a group of people to peaceably assemble. Doesn't it make more sense to give everyone the option and if it becomes unruly to ticket and arrest the people involved no matter if they organized it?

In fact, if the city were more stringent on the laws and ordinances we already have would I even be spending the 2 or more hours writing this letter to you? I can say that I have witnessed a house party be raided. In fact, I even called it in to the local district. I was standing outside when the people came out and were let go without a ticket or even a smack on the wrist. This same place was raided three times in under six months. Each time the minors that were attending the event were not arrested. They were ushered out of the building and let go onto the streets.

Perhaps, if the city was more strict on the element that is giving independent Event Promoters such a bad name you wouldn't be reading this now. Maybe these people would be in the kind of trouble they should be in and I wouldn't be sitting here worrying if I can continue to plan a benefit show in the name of a friend that has passed on.

In closing, I have learned and experienced a lot of things from living in this city thus far. I've learned that taking the time to voice my opinion can possibly help to shape the future. I've learned that life can be much more tough than it appears. I've learned that if local government can't find reasons to listen to their public that the local government can change in time.

I also know that this isn't the only place to live. No matter how much I like it some where, if my options are limited due to a license or work I can always move away and take my abilities with me. Just like the thousands of other people that do what I do.

Thank you for your time. Please think strongly against the Event Promoter's License. It could be very hazardous to Chicago's culture and it's people.

-Reverend Derek Dennison

Comment on Chicago's Music Promoters License

I entered a comment on Jim DeRogatis' blog. I have a feeling it might get rejected due to one word I used. So I'll post it here and if it is rejected I'll remove the word and repost it.

---------------------------------------------------------

I can personally say that if this goes through I am through with putting on events in Chicago.

I am not a "big fish". I am not a voice that can reach into the pockets of those that would be interested. I do not rely on events to pay my way. If I did, I'd be doing illegal house parties, raves and loft parties.

I put on 2 or 3 concerts a year and I do a monthly dj night. If I wanted to make money off of shows for a living I'd never have tried to do it in this city to begin with. Too much competition and way too much money involved.

I don't rely on ticket sales to pay bands. I rely on having the money on hand before the night of the show.

Not a single event have I ever made enough money to even go so far as to pay my rent. I usually take all the money made at the door and split it between the bands. I might keep enough to pay for a cab ride home if needed.

I can say that I pay money out of my own pocket at the end of the night to make sure the bands get what was needed.

I will say now that if I have to pay for a license because the city doesn't want to enforce the laws and ordinances they already have, I won't.

Maybe I'll continue to do shows outside of the city limits. That's still to be seen.

Why do I do shows that cost me money? Everyone needs a hobby and because I like to offer the opportunity to bands to come in and show people what they can do. To open themselves up to a new area and hopefully gain new fans.

Everything I do, I do inside a licensed and insured establishment.

I do not promote or organize illegal house parties or raves. However, if the laws were stronger against people that held these illegal activities maybe the city wouldn't have to cover their asses and make everyone pay for a license to an ordinance that allows blame to fall on the venue and the promoters rather than the venue and the city.

Maybe the city should offer a "per head" ticketing system for people that organize and promote illegal loft parties, raves, and such inclined events. Every person at such an event is a $20 fine. And maybe they should enforce the underage and curfew policies for anyone that is underage at these events. But that might take too much man power and too much time. And this isn't about who's at the event. It's about who's putting it together and telling people about it. No need to ticket the underage kids because they didn't put together the event. They just showed up and got drunk. Even though they know they're not supposed to drink until they're of legal age.

After all, the city wants to determine who the good guys and bad guys are so wouldn't the fact that these events aren't in legal establishments do that?

I think it's funny how all of a sudden, the big venues like the Rosemont and United Center threatened to take their business out to the burbs if this passed. Now all of a sudden, they're exempt from it and they no longer care.

The biggest reason such venues said this was simple. They have a lot of people from other states that book events there. Circus', carnivals, monster trucks, concerts and such. Accordingly, all these outside promoters from other states and cities would have to buy this license. Even though they do not reside within the limits of the city of Chicago.

These promoters plainly said that they would take their events to other venues such as the Metro Centre in Rockford IL. The city doesn't want that to happen so now these larger venues are exempt. Thus, the outside promoters do not need the license.

The only thing I can offer to everyone, that is a small time player like myself, is this.

Search out venues that are outside of the city limits but close enough for trains and buses. As soon as the word is given that the license has become legitimate, cancel all the shows you have, even if they happen before the 5 month limit, and try to reschedule them outside of the city.

If everyone does this it might send a message to the city.

Highly doubtful, slightly possible, but it will save you the money instead of paying for a license that basically keeps the city out of court for not enforcing the laws and ordinances it already has.

City of Chicago's Event Promoter License & Me

Ok, so what's the big deal about the Event Promoter License that the City of Chicago wants to enforce?

Here's the deal. I consider myself an Event Promoter. I might only put on 2 concerts a year and 1 dj night a month but that's considered an Event Organizer/Promoter.

So now, if this license passes I have to pay $2,000 a year in order to do what I like to do, at this point, as a hobby. Even though my events are within legitimate venues that have all the permits and licenses that are required. Even though I haven't made any money at all doing this in the past 2 years. In fact, I've given money away for these things to happen.

Technically, this effects every person that puts together any type of an event. A dj night, a concert, an art opening, any type of event that charges a cover at the door.

Well, they did change the terms of the license since last year.

Last year this license went all the way across the board. It effected every single person that ever put on a show. Here's one of the major ways it changed.

The license fee before was $2,000 for every 2 years, for everyone. For the little people like me all the way to the charity organizations and up to major organizations like, everyones friends, JAM Productions.

Here's how the license fees changed.

License fees, payable every two years, would range from $500 to $2,000, depending on the size of the venues in which the promoters operate. The city, non-profit organizations promoting their own events and promoters at "fixed-seating" venues with at least 500 seats, such as the United Center, would be exempt.

So here's a quick thought. Last year the license got shot down. You know why? Because places like the United Center, JAM Productions, the Rosemont and all the other major players said they'd take their business to the burbs. An action like that would culturally crush the city of Chicago. Not to mention the amount of money the city would lose out.

So now the city is listening to the major players and they decided that they shouldn't have to pay for this license. Even though, out of all the people that will be effected, the major players are the only ones that could afford such a ridiculous fee.

Here's another thing that I noticed from the Tribune's article. It's in regards to the E2 incident that happened almost 5 years ago.

Months after the stampede, an independent panel that reviewed the disaster and emergency response concluded that inadequate city inspection procedures and lack of city agency coordination allowed the club to stay open months after a court ordered it shut.

So wasn't it the city's fault that all this happened? Oh yea, the city doesn't do anything wrong.

If you want more information on this please follow these links.

Chicago City Council panel OKs licensing plan for event promoters
Chicago's promoter's ordinance: What the city wants, the city gets?
Jim DeRogatis' Blog
Chicago Music Commission's site
Rules inspired by E2 stampede approved


If you are an event promoter please contact your Alderman and express your concerns BEFORE Wednesday May 14th.. If you don't then don't feel bad that you have to leave the city to do the events that you like to do.

The floor at this meeting is not open to the public. It's a hearing for the Aldermen to vote on whether or not to impose the license.

This site will help you find out who your Alderman is and how to contact them.

http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/alderman/find.html

Go there, find them and contact them. Let them know your concerns and let them know how it will effect you.

If you can, appear at the hearing. Maybe if enough people show up to boo down the license they'll listen.

The hearing is on Wednesday May 14, 2008, at 10:00 a.m.

The City Council meets in the Council Chamber located on the Second Floor of City Hall, 121 North La Salle Street.

Chicago Music Promoters Ordinance Round 2

PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY

The Chicago City Council has fast-tracked its new version of a measure first introduced last year to greatly impede independent promoters attempting to hold events in the city. Under the proposed law, independent promoters would have to acquire a promoter's license at a cost of up to $2000 every two years, obtain liability insurance for every event thrown, even if the presenting venue already has liability insurance, be fingerprinted and background checked, and maintain extensive records of each event. The ordinance allegedly is intended to prevent disasters like the one that occurred in the E2 nightclub several years ago, but really would just put many small indies (not to mention non-profits that rely on events for fundraising, like CHIRP) out of business.


Jim DeRogatis has been following the story closely, so you can read further here:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/derogatis/

FYI, the ordinance exempts non-profits from certain portions of the rules (although not the extensive record keeping), but requires a group to have been in existence for at least three years, or to "be qualified for" 501(c)3 status. CHIRP, while non-profit, has only been around since August 2007, and is still being advised on 501(c)3 issues, a process that often takes more than a year from application to approval. This means events ranging from our Record Fair to dance parties at Town Hall Pub to speaking events by media activists might be out of our reach under the new ordinance...and if we cannot throw those events to raise money, there is no way to fund our organization.


If you value live music in Chicago (and the work of the Chicago Indie Radio Project), it's important that you make your voice heard. Call your alderman and ask him or her to oppose the Promoter Ordinance. Be polite. Tell him or her you support live music in Chicago, and feel this ordinance would kill many great events. Say you want venues to be safe, but this ordinance goes too far.


Your voice makes a difference. Place a call to your alderman's office today.


This page will help you find your alderman and give you his or her phone number -- quick and easy! It only takes a couple of minutes.

http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/alderman/find.html

And if you're able, come to the city council meeting on Wednesday, May 14 at 10AM in City Council chambers, and speak out against the measure.

Smoking Ban Policy

So we decided to try something a little different at work pertaining to the Smoking Ban problem. Yes, I did say problem. Maybe not so much for you but for the doorstaff it is.

Here's what the problem was.

The bar is at capacity and there's a line of people waiting to get in. Smokers would come out to smoke and we would hold their place inside, not letting anyone in.

Now here's where the problem was.

Sometimes the smokers would stay outside for 5 minutes, 10 minutes or even half an hour at times. This meant their place was being held in the bar but there was no one there and we couldn't let anyone from the line in until that smoker, or another patron, leaves.

Then, some of the smokers would walk away after they smoke. This leaves an empty spot in the bar and their place would be held even though they were gone. Simply put, we don't know your leaving when you walk away and we can't see you.

Here's the solution that we came up with.

The bar is at capacity and there's a line of people waiting to get in. Smokers that come out to smoke must now receive a wristband to re-enter.

Once the smoker receives their wristband they can go smoke. When the smoker walks out, a person from the line gets to go in. When the smoker is ready to re-enter they wait in the smoker's line on the left. When the next person walks out, the smoker gets to go back in.

There are a few reasons besides capacity that we wanted to do this.

There were times when there would be 20 - 25 people standing outside smoking. This left 20 - 25 empty places in the bar. This tends to make the bar look empty and gives people in line more ammunition for arguments with the doorstaff as to why they can't go in. Looking from the bar's point of view, it also meant there's 20 - 25 people not buying anything.

Hopefully this will solve a lot of different problems. It should reduce arguments at the door and it should help the staff inside. The only side effect problem from it that I can see right now is people trying to smoke inside because they don't want to wait to get back in.

Anyone caught smoking inside is to be removed. Even those smoking in the bathrooms.

Next problem to address.

People that camp out at tables and booths but only drink water and don't order anything. There are people waiting to get in that will order drinks and TIP. Don't waste our space.

Cancellation.

Just got an email today from Gaius Acilius. Turns out there's some scheduling complications and they won't be able to play the show on the 14th.

Now begins the mass emailing to find a filler in under a weeks notice.

Red Bull makes a killing.

If you haven't heard about the $708,250 settlement that Red Bull won you should read about it on the Chicago Tribune site. Click THIS

So here's the low down in case you don't know. Red Bull has associates that go into bars and clubs and they actually pay these people to hang out and drink. (Well, they don't tell them to drink but what else are they going to do with the drink?.) Here's the stipulation. You have to order drinks that have Red Bull in them. You order the drink, ask if they use Red Bull and then ask to see the can. Here's the different problems.

Let's say you ask if they use Red Bull and these possible things happen.

• The bartender says "We use something that's like Red Bull." WRONG!
  

Here's the problem. Red Bull is trademarked. If you give something out other than Red Bull your infringing on the trademark and falsely providing something else. Even though Red Bull does taste like a lot of other energy drinks when mixed with vodka or any other alcoholic beverage.

• The bartender says "Yea" because it's easier than explaining and the club is packed and super busy. WRONG!

Bars and clubs get busy. Bartenders rely on tips. They get better tips from faster service. There isn't a single person that walks up and says "Give me a vodka and energy." People do say "Give me a whiskey an coke." So, should bartenders stop every customer and make them specify exactly what they want?

• The bartender says "Yes" and then uses the gun. WRONG! Red Bull does not produce a product that comes out of a gun.

Any of these could be big problem. Trademark infringement could be used in any of these cases. When a certain product is offered and another is used in it's place.

So what happens if the bartender won't show the can to the associate?

Technically. Nothing. You see, no one is supposed to know that the associate works for Red Bull. It's a covert operation, they're sent to spy on the businesses that actually buy the overpriced product. However, the associate is supposed to take note that the can wasn't shown. Which can bring up paranoia that it's not actually Red Bull being used. Thus giving Red Bull a reason to want to investigate.

But what about these associates? They get paid to go to bars and clubs and order drinks. What do they do with these drinks? I wouldn't assume that Red Bull would want their employees to drink while on the clock. I'm sure Red Bull would want an accurate description of the night. I'm sure they would need to know what the bartenders wearing, what music is playing and even what night or any other specific details. Can this all be 100% guaranteed if the associate has any liquor content?

What if these associates were driving the fancy Red Bull cars? Wouldn't they be driving inebriated? I can't see an associate ordering the drink and then just tossing it out. That would be a waste of money and alcohol.

Red Bull isn't the first company to have a product who's name is synonymous for a certain product. How many people use a facial tissue to blow their nose rather than a Kleenex? Do you use an elastic bandage or a Band-aid? Have you ever ordered a soda and received a Coke? Have you ever said coke and meant cocaine?

Red Bull, you can fight it but it's the truth. Your not going to change how people think of you unless you want them to think badly of you. You've become a part of the English Slang Dictionary. You are now the fastest way to order a mixed alcoholic beverage that contains an energy drink.

People in bars and clubs everywhere will use your trademarked name because it's easier than asking the bartender what kind of energy drink they have. Honestly, I'd say 85% or more of the people don't care if it's Red Bull or Red Rooster or Monster or Rock Star. It's an energy drink and nothing more.

Trademark laws are more focused on the well being of the consumers and not the creators. To protect the consumers from purchasing something that isn't what it's advertised as. So will Red Bull use this settlement to give back to the consumers? I'll say doubtful. Unless they use it to get more lawyers to sue more clubs. Then more clubs quit using Red Bull and they're company slowly starts to go under, also doubtful.

One can imagine though.