The public shows negative attitudes toward FIFTY FIFTY regarding contract dispute, “The CEO even sold cars & watches to produce them”
As of July 2nd, the public is still discussing the controversy surrounding the girl group FIFTY FIFTY on various online communities and Youtube content videos. Raising doubts about the members’ demand and positions, netizens wondered, “Does it make sense for a group that just debuted less than a year ago to ask for payments?”, “Considering the short period of their activities, what did the company disappoint them?”, etc.
Earlier, FIFTY FIFTY members applied for an injunction to suspend the effectiveness of their exclusive contract with Attrakt through their legal representative. Pointing out the agency’s attitude, the members’ lawyer stated, “We have raised issues regarding various circumstances in which Attrakt violated the contract, such as non-transparent settlements and difficulties in carrying out activities despite disclosing their poor health conditions, among other obligations stipulated in the contract.”
FIFTY FIFTY is a rookie girl group that debuted in November last year. Releasing the English version of “Cupid” earlier this year, the group attracted significant attention in the global music market, and even entered the US Billboard’s Main Chart “Hot 100”. Despite poor recognition in Korea, FIFTY FIFTY is doing well in the US only with music listeners and high streams. As a result, their earrings heavily rely on overseas copyright royalties. However, it takes several months for the revenue to reach the domestic copyright associations due to the prolonged settlement period depending on the local situation. In this situation, it is reasonable to question the members’ request for payments from the agency.
In the meantime, Attrakt CEO Jeon Hong Joon previously revealed via a media outlet the difficulties he had faced during the production process, saying, “Since we didn’t have enough money to release the physical album, I even had to sell my watches and cars”. Knowing the agency’s efforts and sacrifices, the public began to pour criticism and disappointment towards the members’ stance in this situation.
In Ji Woong, a former K-pop idol trainee and dance trainer, uploaded a video on his Youtube channel to point out the problem, saying “It was the fault of the outsourced producer who reached out to the members and caused interference before their contract expires”. He also emphasized the responsibility of CEO Jeon Hong Joong, who allowed the members to consider the outsourced producer their representative. In response to the video, netizens commented, “The fact that idols who debuted less than a year ago sued the company and raised issues of settlements based on their trust in an outsourced producer would damage their image”, “I don’t think the agency CEO is at fault”, “The company CEO believes that he is not at fault, claiming that there is no violation of ethical standards that lead the members to break the contract”, etc.
In fact, it has been revealed that CEO Jeon Hong Joon maintained a close relationship with FIFTY FIFTY members even before their debut and personally participated in planning and producing the album. Therefore, the album tracks selection and promotions were greatly influenced by CEO Jeon’s ideas. However, as the members, who have just started to make their name known to the public, took legal action against the company, it would be difficult for them to receive positive public opinion.
On June 23rd, Attrakt claimed that external forces attempted to approach FIFTY FIFTY members and lured them into violating their exclusive contract with the agency. The controversy intensified when Attrakt identified The Givers CEO Ahn Sung Il as one of the external forces. In response, Ahn Sung Il’s side stated, “Our company did not engage in any interference with the group’s contract. We only did our best as the bridge between Attrakt and the members.”
Source: Naver
