Do KVVU's Station Ads Violate NFL #SuperBowl Policy?

UPDATE: On Twitter, the R-J's Howard Stutz says he saw one of the Station ads and they don't show gambling or building exteriors. Did Station cut ads specifically to be NFL-compliant?

According to this morning's Review-Journal, Station Casinos is launching a massive marketing campaign that kicks off with this newspaper wrap to your left and five 30-second, $72,000 spots during today's Super Bowl.

What the R-J didn't bother to explore is whether today's $360,000 TV buy violates the NFL's big ban on advertising of Vegas casinos during the Super Bowl nationally or in any local market. To wit, here's their policy, as of Dec. 2009:

We notified our network partners that we will not object to ads airing during our games for any tourism destination, including Las Vegas.

We consider it a reasonable modification of our policy that still protects our interests.

FOR BACKGROUND RE: PERMITTED ADS
Only tourism destinations (e.g., Nevada, Las Vegas, Lake Tahoe) are permitted. The prohibition of ads for specific hotels, casinos and other institutions that house gambling will remain in place. Ads may not contain any gambling references or imagery. For example, an ad for Las Vegas tourism with footage of slot machines, dice, cards, or a wide shot of Vegas strip and casinos would not be permitted. However, an ad for Las Vegas tourism with pictures of golf, swimming pools, and performers would be ok.

The content of the ads must comply with the networks’ standards and practices and also meet our standards for being suitable for a mass audience.

That doesn't say anything about advertising during local air time, but R&R Partners veep Rob Dondero told me last week for my AOL News piece on the topic that that, too, is forbidden. In fact, R&R, which manages the $70 million campaign for the Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Authority, said they did an end-run around the NFL's national Vegas/casino ban on advertising by buying time on local affiliates. The NFL got pissed, he said, and this year for the first time the local affiliates didn't even call to try to solicit Vegas business. (Local ad sellers frequently are unaware of the NFL's rules, Dondero said.)

This matters because KVVU will enjoy one of the largest Super Bowl viewerships in the nation, owing to the influx of some 300,000 tourists watching on the local feed across the city. Of course, they're here to gamble anyway so perhaps that's a lost cause and not worth the NFL's enforcement muscle. But keep in mind how furious NFL brass were last year when images of the Monte Carlo and the Strip sneaked into this spot:

I've got a call and email out to NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy to see if the Station buy breaks the rules. Will update as appropriate, but I suspect he's mighty busy today.

As for me, I don't need Station Casinos to encourage me; I'm off to place my annual Super Bowl bet at Boulder Station, as always. Still really torn; now thinking of going for the Packers and the under. Which is exactly opposite of what I planned on earlier this week. Ugh.

BREAKING: NFL spanks CBS over Kia-Vegas ad

[NOTE: Boy am I embarrassed. I somehow misread the R-J thing on the prostidude. Several times. And, evidently, so did some of you. Mea culpa. I'll leave this post intact so you can see what a dope I am. Apologies to Mr. Brean. Still not pleased with Weatherford, though. And looking forward to seeing how the R-J handles the NFL-CBS-Kia topic in tomorrow's paper, if at all. -sf]



I promised I'd get to the bottom of this and, sure enough, I did. Portfolio.Com just posted my piece on how the Vegas content got in and stayed in the Kia Sorrento ad that appeared during yesterday's Super Bowl. Much more than that, however, I landed this money quote from the NFL's Brian McCarthy:

“CBS sells the ads that appear in the game. We did not see this ad before it aired. The shots of the casinos did violate our policy and we have since addressed the matter with CBS.”

Ouch. Still waiting for CBS reaction and will update my story when I do.

Also waiting for the Vegas press to rip off my work or ignore it altogether as they've been doing a LOT lately. For instance, imagine my surprise to see this in Sunday's Review-Journal:


How odd that (a) Mandy Stadtmiller provided the first name of America's first legal manwhore while I provided the entire name and more biographical detail a week sooner but (b) Henry Brean apparently feels the New York Post is in general a more credible or worthy source than me. Mike Weatherford pulled this crap, too, last month, when he interviewed Bette Midler and asked her about possibly moving to the Wynn while pretending that my discussion with Steve Wynn about Bette in which the seed of this very idea was planted had never happened.

The only way I'll be getting any credit for this NFL thing is if Norm Clarke covers it again tomorrow. The rest of these folks are too insecure to acknowledge that they're not the only ones who matter in this media cesspool. By contrast, take a listen to my interview with Cirque CEO Daniel Lamarre or read my Cirque cover story, both of which include mentions of competing journalists and their Cirque-related scoops. That's just good journalism and it boosts credibility.

But let's end on a happy note, shall we? Thanks so, so much to MikeCH for answering me so quickly about this:


I could not recall what film this formation was from. Turns out, many, but the one on my mind was The Right Stuff, of course.

Did Kia End-Run #NFL With #Vegas Ad?

The NFL's Super Bowl advertising policy, revised last month, is crystal clear regarding Vegas and Vegasy imagery:

In all instances the ads should be for tourism destinations only. So TV/radio/internet/print ads for Las Vegas tourism or Vegas.com will be allowed. Ads for specific hotels or resorts are NOT permitted if they house any type of gambling.

Ads may NOT contain any gambling references - audio or video - or any gambling imagery. So by way of example, an ad for Las Vegas tourism with pictures of slot machines, dice, cards, or a wide shot of Vegas strip and casinos would NOT be ok. However an ad for Las Vegas tourism with pictures of golf, swimming pools, and performers WOULD be ok.

The content of the ads (audio and/or visual) must be “family friendly”. Any suggestive ads or those showing or suggesting inappropriate activity (e.g., alcoholic excess, sexual adventures), or those that imply general misbehavior (e.g., “What happened in Vegas Stays in Vegas”) will not be approved.

So, then, how did THIS happen?




Granted, this was a car ad, not a tourism ad. But it made Monte Carlo look pretty darn cool, which is a bit of a triumph, and MGM Mirage had to have signed off on that. So did a Vegas casino SNEAK an ad on to the Super Bowl broadcast via Kia? Is this some brilliant end run?

Fascinating. I will get to the bottom of this.

Our #SuperBowl Bets for 2010

It's SUPER BOWL SUNDAY, as documented by moi for AOLNews.Com with a behind-the-scenes look at the oddsmakers! And if you don't care about that, listen the incredibly fun chat with Animal Planet's Puppy Bowl VI referee Andrew Schechter in a special edition of The Petcast by clicking here or right-click here to save it for later.

So, as usual, I ran out to Boulder Station after recording The Petcast and The Strip last night to lay down a total of $100 on the games. I did win about $80 at the blackjack table while I debated my bets, so I'm pretty much covered. My main bet was $60 on Indianapolis to cover a 5-point spread AND for the total number of points in the game to exceed 57:

In other words, I'm expecting a Colts blowout.

Also, I partook in some stupid prop bets that are pretty much shoo-ins and, thus, are almost not worth the paper they're printed on:

That is, I bet there would be no overtime for which I can win a whopping 1.1 percent premium and that there'll be no 2-point conversions, for which I will get a 20 percent premium. I didn't realize the lousy payouts when I bet them; I just thought it would be fun to bet one or two of these and these seemed like ridiculously safe choices. Hence, the lousy payout, alas.

And, yes, contrary to my answer to Miles on the show on Saturday, I did end up laying some money for a pal in New York. When we recorded the show, I didn't know he'd want to, but I probably should have.

My friend and I actually picked somewhat opposite bets. He agrees with the over -- he put $50 on that -- and he put $50 on New Orleans to cover the 5-point spread. Here are his tickets, for those of you who think I would just take his money and not actually lay the bet. Horrors!


Not sure why the first ticket, betting on the "over," seems to say "SAINTS OVER 57.5" because it's not a parlay bet, it's just a bet on the overall game. And I checked; I bet it right. Must be something with how these things are written.

Saddest thing: I want the Saints to win. Or I did before I made my bets. Now I need to decide where to watch the game. Likely: My house with my dogs. Loser.

Good Super Bowl signs, re: #Vegas

[UPDATE: AOLNews.Com just posted my piece on Vegas and Super Bowl betting.]

We don't get uplifting Vegas economic news much, so let's enjoy it while it lasts, shall we?

The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority projects Super Bowl XLIV -- a.k.a. The Big Game/Super Party for those afraid of lawsuits -- will fill up 83 percent of the city's 148,941 rooms, up 5.9 percent from last year even though there are now about 8,000 more rooms now. Of course, without those extra rooms this weekend's occupancy would've been 88 percent, according to my calculations. But still.

Interestingly, the NFL will hate Vegas anew for projecting the non-gaming economic impact at $89.7 million because that pretty much debunks a 2007 study claiming a $463 million economic bonanza for the Miami area from hosting the 2007 game. Y'see, only about 100,000 people go to a Super Bowl city each year, about a third of the predicted number of people who will be in Las Vegas this wet weekend.

How could 100,000 people spend $463 million but 278,000 spend just $89.7 million? Some illicit accounting, that's how. The answer, per reporting by the Palm Beach Post's Jeff Ostrowski, is that the South Florida figures are literally bogus x 10, most likely jacked up by NFL forces to encourage Miami to plunge $250 million into a stadium upgrade if they want another go at the event.

This, from Sarah Talalay of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, makes the point perfectly:

University of South Florida economics professor Philip Porter said the game's impact is neglible. He said he examined data from the Florida Department of Revenue showing expenditures in Miami-Dade County were $3.318 billion in February 2006 and $3.308 billion in February 2007.

"If the Super Bowl generated $463 million each year," Porter said, "the NFL team owners would build a stadium in the desert, host their own game and keep all that money."

Of course, it wouldn't be our desert. No, no, can't have that.

This year's Super Bowl bet

Alrighty. I've plunked down $70 on Pittsburgh to win by at least 7 and for the combined point total to be under 46.5 for the Super Bowl or, as the Vegas-hating NFL has forced the casino folks call it, the Big Game. $25 of that is allegedly my nephew's, should he actually send along the money after we lose. Right, Zach?

Anyhow, both have to occur for us to win. If they do, we get $182. Or 2.6x our bet. Woo hoo. If I hadn't bet, I absolutely, positively wouldn't have cared what happens.

A record-setting betting line today in Vegas

We rarely deal with gambling too much here or on the podcast and I generally never place bets on any games other than the Super Bowl, but this weekend's Patriots-Eagles match-up has drawn unusual interest because the Patriots are favored by bookies for a record-setting number of points, 23.5 the last I saw on the news. So my brother-in-law, Tom, in New York has called upon me to go place a $100 wager for him on the Pats. I'll probably toss $50 on there myself just to make it interesting. Isn't Miles gonna be excited that we have to watch football tonight! But, hey, at least I get to employ a totally gratuitous picture of Tom Brady on the blog. So there.