Precambrian Posted August 13, 2015 Author Posted August 13, 2015 ESPNcricinfo has media accredition to the test series. That means they can make use of the facilities in addition to enjoying the complimentary things they enjoy being journalists. And heck, they sell this to earn their income. So morally, and in principle, and pretty sure from a legal pov, they have to adhere to the terms and conditions of reporting, which I am sure must include the use of title sponsor. Otherwise what use is being the title sponsor?
HippoSucks Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Oh please, spare us your silly excuses. How about this series then? http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-australia-2015-14/content/story/index.html?object=297768 It was a three match ODI series, not even test series. If they are using it arbitrarily, then that's called double standards, and that is what is being questioned here. For most of the bilateral series they do not write the sponsor name. If they didn't write it for this series as well, I do not see how it qualifies as double standards.
Precambrian Posted August 13, 2015 Author Posted August 13, 2015 For most of the bilateral series they do not write the sponsor name. If they didn't write it for this series as well' date=' I do not see how it qualifies as double standards.[/quote'] I have listed quite a lot of tourneys where they did. So what decides the use of sponsor name? Cannot hide behind the excuse that for 'some' tourneys they don't when they use sponsors names for others. So 'double standards'.
sensible-indian Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 I hope you understand what title sponsorship means. But brother its not a necessity to write the sponsor name no? For example, cricketnext just writes: Ashes India vs SL Zim vs NZ At the bar on top http://www.ibnlive.com/cricketnext/ Sure cricinfo is intentionally removing cricbuzz's name while allowing other sponsor's names but its not a legal necessity to have sponsor's name right? Or else even cricketnext would have done it for every series.
Precambrian Posted August 13, 2015 Author Posted August 13, 2015 But brother its not a necessity to write the sponsor name no? For example, cricketnext just writes: Ashes India vs SL Zim vs NZ At the bar on top http://www.ibnlive.com/cricketnext/ Sure cricinfo is intentionally removing cricbuzz's name while allowing other sponsor's names but its not a legal necessity to have sponsor's name right? Or else even cricketnext would have done it for every series. Thq question is that why then cricinfo is giving sponsor's name in some series, but not in others? That's double standards.
Donal Cozzie Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Cricbuzz is such a terrible website. Looks like something done up by a university student on Windows 98. Cant understand why its popular.
BeautifulGame Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Cricbuzz is such a terrible website. Looks like something done up by a university student on Windows 98. Cant understand why its popular. Its score updates are faster than cricinfo.Also the scorecards are more easier to view in app
BlueBee Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Cricbuzz is such a terrible website. Looks like something done up by a university student on Windows 98. Cant understand why its popular. Old CI was better, fast, easy on the eyes. The new one is bullshit
sensible-indian Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Thq question is that why then cricinfo is giving sponsor's name in some series, but not in others? That's double standards. Of course its double standards and its funny. But what they did was expected. I was just talking about the lawsuit comment by someone else.
sensible-indian Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Cricbuzz is such a terrible website. Looks like something done up by a university student on Windows 98. Cant understand why its popular. Download cricbuzz app and see.
Executioner Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 The Criccuzz app is good but the web is woeful to say the least. Feels like just another site
sensible-indian Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 The Criccuzz app is good but the web is woeful to say the least. Feels like just another site Are you THAT Executioner?
Sir john Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Cricbuzz is such a terrible website. Looks like something done up by a university student on Windows 98. Cant understand why its popular. its famous among indians only very easy app easy to use
nitinbwj Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 cricbuzz and rediff the fastest websites as far as i know.Cricinfo does not even load properly on mobile.
Anitha Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Cricbuzz is such a terrible website. Looks like something done up by a university student on Windows 98. Cant understand why its popular. App is used more than the website, and cricinfo app is unusuable
BeautifulGame Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 App is used more than the website' date=' and cricinfo app is unusuable[/quote'] Won't say unusable . Just slower to load live scores and scorecard community etc are cluttered around . Articles are pretty well organised to read tbh
straighttalk Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Microsoft will have to use Apple's name if its talking about a product sponsored by it. Doesn't it? This is not even an argument. Brilliant to learn that Cricbuzz has overtaken cricinfo. I think that is not how product sponsorship works in any area leave alone cricket. Yes it is business decision by cricinfo but theyvare fully entitled to it. Cricbuzz is not paying cricinfo.the are paying bcci and slc..so they are bound to advertize it...not cricinfo..which is an independent body. It is their right to mentuon or not mention any name in their website. There is nothinf morally ethically orblegally wrong in what cricinfo is doing.. Good job cricinfo..best cricket website all around
kosingh Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 cricbuzz and rediff the fastest websites as far as i know.Cricinfo does not even load properly on mobile. The simple text (rather than picture) oriented design is what a lot of people like.
Precambrian Posted August 13, 2015 Author Posted August 13, 2015 I think that is not how product sponsorship works in any area leave alone cricket. Yes it is business decision by cricinfo but theyvare fully entitled to it. Cricbuzz is not paying cricinfo.the are paying bcci and slc..so they are bound to advertize it...not cricinfo..which is an independent body. It is their right to mentuon or not mention any name in their website. There is nothinf morally ethically orblegally wrong in what cricinfo is doing.. Good job cricinfo..best cricket website all around Repeating myself, double standards refer to exercise of different and arbitrary criteria in applying rules. Can you deny then, its double standards when it comes to such application? That's all I am questioning. :) Cricinfo used ot be a great site. Nowadays its a pale shadow of itself. Anglo centric coverage, biased analysis, and some hacks covering India section.
zen Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 In business, the key issue is whether doing 'x' is legal or illegal. There are concepts such as dynamic pricing where a company can charge different prices based on factors such as the the purchase is being made from a Mac or a PC, your purchase history, etc. For some this could be double standards, for others a profit maximizing strategy. This "can" be seen as objectionable, if cricinfo had the sole rights to live scorecards and the sponsorship deal included that the sponsors name be included in such coverage too. As it appears, cricbuzz is offering live scores as well.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now