Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="OzExorcist, post: 1246443, member: 23910"] I think people have some very wrong ideas here. [B]All forms of media (written and otherwise) [U]are[/U] allowed access to cover the WSOP.[/B] Harrah's aren't stupid. I'm pretty sure there are only two things that are exclusive - the video broadcasting rights for each event and the blogging coverage provided for the WSOP website. They both [B]need[/B] to be exclusive, for obvious reasons. Other than that though, media outlets are free* to come along, write about the WSOP, take photos of the WSOP, interview players, interview the organisers, live blog hands, film Phil Hellmuth's entrance and bracelet ceremonies and whatever the hell else takes their fancy. The only things they can't do are update the official WSOP website or provide television coverage. As for the sponsors being "nice" to Card Player... first of all, who are we talking about. Jack Link's beef jerky? Pretty sure it's no big loss to Card Player. None of the major poker sites sponsor the WSOP. Harrah's itself and its advertising for the WSOP may be an issue, but they're covered under my second point. Which is this: we're talking about [B]business[/B] here and in business, the numbers rule. Card Player is either an attractive advertising vehicle based on its circulation figures and asking price for ads, or it's not. Very few companies would let something as stupid as [I]"oh but that magazine's editor dissed the WSOP a little bit"[/I] be the major deciding factor in a business decision like that. Same goes for their regaining the rights to provide the WSOP website live blogging in the future. The relationship will be soured a little, but at the end of the day if Card Player demonstrate that they're able to provide better service than PokerNews for a better price... well, like I said at the start, Harrah's aren't stupid. There'll certainly be personal repercusssions from this for Shulman for a long time to come (especially if he actually wins and makes good on his promise). Especially since the major reason his magazine lost the blogging rights is because by all accounts they were crap at it. But for his magazine, I think the repercussions will amount to little if anything. He gets a short term bump in reader interest and long term, business is business. The above stands even if what he's [I]actually[/I] butthurt about is the way Harrah's treat the players at the WSOP, BTW. Reading between the lines, I strongly suspect it's the Day 1D lockout and the alleged preferential treatment of guys like Patrik Antonius or Sully Erna that he's talking about... not much you can do there though. Jeffrey Pollack maintains to the best of his knowledge that nobody got that treatment and even if it did happen, Shulman is a big boy and can surely see why something like that would happen. Plus Harrah's is already promising to fix the whole issue for next year. /long post :p [SIZE=1]* there may be some specific exemptions or restrictions. But we're speaking generally here.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us