Can the WSOP Save Bluff Magazine?

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]

A 4 year deal like the one Bluff signed with the WSOP is worth $15,000,000+ (as in over the 4 year term, whoever has this deal with Harrah's will make $15mil +), and I'm positive of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you so positive? As currently shown the deal is a black hole for Bluff, the greatest value would in the transfer of the deal to a third party company. Of course we are still operating in a vacuum, time will tell if they actually find ways to monetize this deal.

[yeahright]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

TT, I would really like to sit down and have lunch with you sometime, maybe at this years WSOP.

You are a respected poster on this forum and I don't think it's right for you to make posts such as this. Without being rude, you are almost 100% incorrect in every aspect of your post.

I can tell you a couple things as fact. One, Bluff has never taken a penny from affiliate deals. Two, CP didn't "let" anyone have the WSOP rights. CP was not even included in the debate, for many reasons.

I can discuss any of these things with you. Please understand what your saying is not correct at all.

If you think WSOP rights are "non-performing" assets, you're really, really off base.

$15mil+ is not off at all.

TT, do you know anyone in the poker business? If you did, it wouldn't be hard to get a better understanding of the value of things like live final tables via the web, chip count updates, etc.

If you knew any of that, you would have never made your first post.

PM if you're interested in a lunch.

[idrinkcoors]

[ QUOTE ]
bluff has focused more on internet play (although CP is adding more)

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. I love Bluff's focus on internet tournaments, and things like their top 10 internet tourney players. I think CP's recent inclusion of internet tourney reporting may be a direct result of Bluff's reporting. What is also interesting to me is that Party Poker still has huge ads in Bluff.

[yeahright]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bluff has focused more on internet play (although CP is adding more)

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. I love Bluff's focus on internet tournaments, and things like their top 10 internet tourney players. I think CP's recent inclusion of internet tourney reporting may be a direct result of Bluff's reporting. What is also interesting to me is that Party Poker still has huge ads in bluff .

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean Poker has ads in CP....yeah, that's because Party doesn't pay for those ads. CP is a Party affiliate, they aren't getting paid for the ad anyway, so they might was well leave it in.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]

I can tell you a couple things as fact. One, Bluff has never taken a penny from affiliate deals. Two, CP didn't "let" anyone have the WSOP rights. CP was not even included in the debate, for many reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you work for bluff? I'd be happy to come in and audit the advertising insertions, because you either don't know the industry or you just made a false statement. For a period of time for example Party Poker wouldn't place print advertising without performance incentives (aka affiliate coding, the deal may not be an affiliate deal as we know it). I have had meetings with the media agencies representing some of the poker rooms, perhaps you were not aware that I am a magazine publisher... I have far greater insight on this subject than you have guessed.

[ QUOTE ]
I can discuss any of these things with you. Please understand what your saying is not correct at all.

[/ QUOTE ] I'd be happy to meet with you if you work for Bluff and your in a position of authority on the business such as Publisher, CFO, Associate Pub - etc. I don't want to meet with editors, thats a waste of both of our time.

[ QUOTE ]
If you think WSOP rights are "non-performing" assets, you're really, really off base.

$15mil+ is not off at all.

[ QUOTE ]
TT, do you know anyone in the poker business? If you did, it wouldn't be hard to get a better understanding of the value of things like live final tables via the web, chip count updates, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

as I said in my post, "unless there is licensing revenue from WSOP coverage that I am not privy to", this is an example. It still comes across as a non-performing asset unless you can monetize the deal through advertising revenue . Problem is I highly doubt Bluff will be bringing in even 10 mil through direct WSOP association at 15k (give or take) a page. Of course as I stated I am not privy to the terms of the deal so it may be more lucrative than it currently seems, time will tell - there is no way for us armchair quarterbacks to know without being on the inside but if they only duplicate Cardplayer's offerings (I assume thats not the plan of course) then it would probably be a fiscal bust from the outside looking in.

PS: I never claimed CP didn't "let" anyone have the WSOP rights, re-read my statement - you took it out of context. I'm fully aware that WSOP was not happy with CP's performance last year, and was not considered.

[wisehandpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Cardplayer is the only QUALITY magazine out there. You can actually learn more and improve your game by reading it. Can the same be said for Bluff or All-In? I think not.

[/ QUOTE ]

this has to be spam, right?

[yeahright]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I can tell you a couple things as fact. One, Bluff has never taken a penny from affiliate deals. Two, CP didn't "let" anyone have the WSOP rights. CP was not even included in the debate, for many reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you work for bluff? I'd be happy to come in and audit the advertising insertions, because you either don't know the industry or you just made a false statement. For a period of time for example Party Poker wouldn't place print advertising without performance incentives (aka affiliate coding, the deal may not be an affiliate deal as we know it). I have had meetings with the media agencies representing some of the poker rooms, perhaps you were not aware that I am a magazine publisher... I have far greater insight on this subject than you have guessed.

[ QUOTE ]
I can discuss any of these things with you. Please understand what your saying is not correct at all.

[/ QUOTE ] I'd be happy to meet with you if you work for Bluff and your in a position of authority on the business such as Publisher, CFO, Associate Pub - etc. I don't want to meet with editors, thats a waste of both of our time.

[ QUOTE ]
If you think WSOP rights are "non-performing" assets, you're really, really off base.

$15mil+ is not off at all.

[ QUOTE ]
TT, do you know anyone in the poker business? If you did, it wouldn't be hard to get a better understanding of the value of things like live final tables via the web, chip count updates, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

as I said in my post, "unless there is licensing revenue from WSOP coverage that I am not privy to", this is an example. It still comes across as a non-performing asset unless you can monetize the deal through advertising revenue . Problem is I highly doubt Bluff will be bringing in even 10 mil through direct WSOP association at 15k (give or take) a page. Of course as I stated I am not privy to the terms of the deal so it may be more lucrative than it currently seems, time will tell - there is no way for us armchair quarterbacks to know without being on the inside but if they only duplicate Cardplayer's offerings (I assume thats not the plan of course) then it would probably be a fiscal bust from the outside looking in.

PS: I never claimed CP didn't "let" anyone have the WSOP rights, re-read my statement - you took it out of context. I'm fully aware that WSOP was not happy with CP's performance last year, and was not considered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize you have publishing experience, but you don't understand this business, that is obvious.

I can promise you I know the industry and I did not make a false statement.

I think part of your problem is you're only seeing Bluff as a magazine and not as media company.

Bluff doesn't measure its revenue by ad page only. The magazine makes up half of the revenue, maybe.

This isn't stuff we need to discuss in a forum. We'll have a launch at the WSOP.

[Aceshigh7]

[ QUOTE ]
. Cardplayer is the only QUALITY magazine out there. You can actually learn more and improve your game by reading it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This must surely be Mr. Shulman posting here.

I completely disagree with you. If you mean you enjoy more than half the pages in the magazine taken up with advertisements for California cardrooms, sure then cardplayer is the better magazine.

Bluff has fewer ads and better articles.

Cardplayer USED to have great strategy articles. Those are few and far between these days. The writers have changed alot and most of the ones they have these days just plain suck.

[CaryDarling]

My issue with CP is that it seems to focus mainly on tournaments...lately I've found Bluff to have some pretty decent articles about cash games...there is room for both hopefully.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]


This isn't stuff we need to discuss in a forum. We'll have a launch at the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

all (actually to anyone who cares about this topic, all 5 of us [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] )- yeahright and I have taken this conversation to PM, we are discussing meeting during the WSOP. I think we both agree that as a magazine by itself the WSOP deal cannot be monetized to provide equivalent revenue, but as yeahright has pointed out there are numerous side-media deals in place which are expected to produce positive fiscal results. As always I welcome change with Bluff and it's competitors, I want them to adjust to the new environment and survive the downswing in advertising revenue that has already started - my POV is really tough love. Taking yeahright's statements to me at face value without the oportunity to investigate further it looks like Bluff has found a major part of the solution.