[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]

you just seem to have some sort of agenda, imo.

i think there is room for both but i suspect they both won't be able to collect the huge advertising rates they are currently getting.

tc

[/ QUOTE ]

Taylor - his agenda is only that he is a bad poster. He is 2+2's yellow journalist, he only starts new threads with alarmist statements. Problem is his statements are often based on truth, but 95% of the time its old news that we have already discussed.

As for the "huge advertising rates" the magazines are both collecting, that is an industry fallacy unfortunately. They primarily operate like an affiliate network, getting paid based on new member acquisition. Since neither magazine has courted national consumer advertisers they have no other major revenue stream besides foreign media (I am 98% positive they are both losing money on newsstand and subscriptions). At this stage its not a profitable solution, and I would expect that unless buyouts occur or reckless cash injections we will start to see one if not both titles fold within the next 2 years at the latest. I don't know about Bluff's investors, but I know Cardplayer had an injection of 3 mil just prior to the UGIA passing so they have small cushion to ride it out, sell to a foreign entity, or rethink their business model. Funny thing is letting BLUFF have the coverage at the WSOP might be a better move for Cardplayer in the long run than most people assume - it seems that it will keep them from wasting money on non-performing assets (unless there is licensing revenue from WSOP coverage that I am not privy to). There has been a few threads in books discussing the state of the poker magazine industry, feel free to search them if your interested.