Seven Other Media Odds & Ends

A few other thoughts and stuff from what I've seen around the press this week...

1. It's a publicity stunt, people: I thought the El Cortez room design contest was cute, too, and we mentioned it on The Strip. But, seriously, folks, it's a very clever pr gambit. Everyone seems to think it's news and that there's some bigger truth to be gleaned from it. It's not and there isn't. Look for every hotel to copycat this because, damn it's good for free advertising.

2. Musta missed that: So the NFL came down from the heavens just before Super Bowl kickoff to force its Fox affiliate here to kill $360,000 in Station Casino ads, and the local media was silent. Not even in Steve Bornfeld's TV column. More proof that if I cover or break something, our MSM ignores it. Shameful, unprofessional and shortsighted.

3. Musta missed that, too: So Steve Wynn goes off and tells the world how delighted he is that the Chinese meddle in and micromanage his business and nobody in the Vegas MSM even reports it. Again, Mr. Wynn, who believes Barack Obama is a Socialist, sings the praises of a dictatorship that can actually, tomorrow, confiscate his enterprise. That's not even worth putting on the record?

4. Ravella's reverie: There's a new owner/operator in Lake Las Vegas, and they opened up this week. Great. But, still, I found this passage from the R-J pretty funny:

[Ravella owner] Dolce reached out to the six restaurants in the adjacent MonteLago Village, developing a system that gives Ravella guests preferred dining reservations and the ability to charge meals to their rooms.

The charge-to-your-room part is smart, but seriously, when has it ever been difficult to get a seat at a restaurant in the ghost town known as MonteLago?

5. And nobody said, "Huh?": The R-J had a piece up on Saturday about the fiscal and ridership woes of the Las Vegas Monorail and this is part of it:

The number of people who boarded the train last year fell 13 percent compared with 2009 to 5.2 million, just more than half of what the monorail carried during its first full year of operations in 2005. Ticket sales also declined 13 percent, to $23.2 million.

Advertising, which brought in $2.3 million as recently as 2007, dropped to $190,000.

Now, I'm no ad genius, but they've still got 5.2 million riders on the system and millions more who see the train snaking along its tracks every day. They can only get $190K in ad revenue from that? Huh? WTF?

6. Steve Sebelius, Nazi? Actually, I'm greatly enjoying Steve's new political column in the Review-Journal. It really feels like, relieved of the pressure to oversee the CityLife staff and production, he's doing better, more interesting and better-written pieces that feel far less predictable than what I found in CityLife. I'm particularly impressed that the R-J is giving him -- a liberal! -- the most prominent position in its Sunday Opinions section, one previously occupied by former publisher and failed Reidslayer Sherman Frederick.

Still this, at the bottom of his column today, made me giggle:

7. Equal Embarrassment Time: OK, the R-J isn't the only ones with some typographical challenges this week. This, from an ad in my own Las Vegas Weekly, is a little embarrassing:

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.

The #NFL v #Vegas & More!

Yes, I've been vacating. Sort of. In actuality, our eight-day London sojourn was packed with assignments that I'm busy this weekend fulfilling along with expense forms and other various and sundry things related things.

But it's not as though I've been completely neglecting my Vegas duties. Here's some recent stuff to gnaw at while I concoct a fun blog about the London trip:

* My Las Vegas Weekly column this week examines how Vegas is no longer just where old show-biz talents go to die, it's also a Mecca for formerly prominent 1990s tabloid sensations. OK, so it's not as explosive a piece as last week's Twitter Twerps drama. They can't all be.

* I contributed to Desert Companion's Best Of issue with entries naming the region's best vet (as informed by Petcast co-host and current Knight-Wallace fellow Emily Richmond), best new political activist and best beat reporter.

* With the Super Bowl once again upon us, I revisited the ongoing drama between the NFL and Las Vegas for AOL News. Rob Dondero from R&R Partners seems convinced that sooner or later the team will overrule the NFL's ban on Vegas-related advertising if only because they want our money for stadium billboards and the like.

This brings me to the most pressing question: Who to lay my Super Bowl bet on? I'm inclined to go Pittsburgh and the under, anticipating a low-scoring game. Who's with me?

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.

Sunday Media Musings for Tourists

I caught up on some of the media I had missed this week this morning and wanted to point out a few things:

* NFL fans ought to bookmark this Review-Journal link so they know which bars to go to to watch their games with like-minded fans. I've used this in the past on the podcast as a Top Secret Tourist Tip of the Week, a very useful guide that more tourists ought to use. Cool interface, too. When I say bookmark it, though, I mean it, because you'll never find it again on that ridiculous website if you don't.

* If you want to hear something truly, positively weird, listen to the first five minutes or so of KNPR host Dave Berns' "State of Nevada" interview on Wednesday morning with comic Bill Cosby. Honest to God, I have no idea what Cosby is saying and Berns' valiant efforts to make sense of it was fruitless, too. But since it's Cosby, there's something fascinating about it anyway. I'm not all the way through this interview yet, but already I know it's going to be a thrilling mess.

* I just noticed that Life Magazine's website now offers a pretty photo album of 26 Cirque du Soleil photos. They call it "Cirque du Soleil's Freakiest Acts" and, really, it's not, but the photography is terrific, colorful and fun. Downside: Only three Vegas images -- I think just one of an actual moment in one of their six-going-on-seven shows -- and none of its best, most eye-popping and "freakiest" show, Ka.

* Two Las Vegas Weekly pieces (other than my own column, natch) are of great tourist interest this week. First, Dr. Dave Schwartz of UNLV and DieisCast.Com stands up for you (and us) against the presumption that people who love Vegas and gambling are stupid. Then Richard Abowitz writes glowingly about RateVegas.Com's Hunter Hillegas' groundbreaking Vegas Mate iPhone app. Buy it at the iTunes store or win a subscription by being right and being picked in my show's biweekly trivia questions, by the way. And unlike that Monte Carlo-Hotel 32 thing we debunked recently, this is a real app.

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.

Caan: NBC Sacrificed "Las Vegas" for the NFL

On this week's episode of "The Strip," actor James Caan confirmed a long-held suspicion of mine that the doom of the successful TV soap "Las Vegas" was the move to Friday nights to sate the NFL. NBC had just paid big bucks for Sunday Night Football, but the NFL nonetheless managed to bar the not-so-mighty network from promoting the show during Sunday's games.

"Their thoughts were that we’re not allowed to even mention Las Vegas according to the NFL," Caan told me. "Like God forbid somebody should gamble. I mean, I didn’t know that people gamble on football! So they put a show there they could promote, Sunday night for Monday and moved us to Friday, which is like a death sentence."

There's much more in that interview, including Caan's complaints about the creative problems with the show and his explanation for why he appeared on it in the first place. Plus, he disses his own new film, "Get Smart," and he offers his thoughts on "Honeymoon in Vegas" co-star Sarah Jessica Parker's status as a star.

Click here to hear it or right-click here to download the show and listen whenever you want. Or subscribe via iTunes here or via Zune here:

Here are this week's show-notes links:

Download the Deutsche Bank look at Vegas building progress here
James Caan's Wikipedia page is here
Watch him make Kathy Bates "eat it!" on YouTube here
Find out all you want to know about CineVegas here
See the site for Xanadu The Musical here
Find our chat with Mel Brooks here
Read the R-J piece on their room tax poll here
Hear the disastrous George Wallace show here
Read about whores giving people gas here
The LV Weekly's take on the Hank Greenspun flick is here
See our coverage of the I-Bar's Microsoft Surface tech here
Read Steve's USA Today piece about Fontainebleau's Apple plans here

VMAs, NFL, US Open and That HBO Iraq Thing

All of those things above would normally have my rapt attention. But instead, I'm still on Fossett watch, which is entering its seventh day. What on earth could I possibly still be writing about?

Well, you know those six plane wrecks they have found in the Nevada hills while looking for Fossett? Each has a story. And I found one that may be related, a family missing their relative for more than 43 years. I'll link to that when the piece runs tomorrow. It is an incredible tale.

Meanwhile, the technology involved continues to intrigue. Amazon has some sort of exercise they're doing where they're taking new Google Earth satellite images of the search area and handing out squares of them to thousands of online volunteers to scour in hopes that people out there will spot something useful. Wow.

But first, time for breakfast. Catch ya later.