- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
We had a rather big winner at one casino last month.
The affiliate balance was reset to zero at the end of the month, as per T%C’s.
However, this month the player is losing it back. We received an email from the affiliate manager that advised us they cannot afford to take a double whack…
Quote:The majority of it comes from a player win from last month and we will therefore have to calculate your earnings on a manual basis this month as the XXX affiliate program does not offer me the flexibility to discount this at the moment.I would like to hear other opinions on this. I can absolutely understand that paying commission on played-back winnings has to suck. However, it’s the principle of the thing. By not doing so, the negative balance is, in fact, being carried over.
I read the T&C’s and it stated clearly that balances would be reset to zero. It does not address this particular event (Player playing back the winnings after the winning month).
I just wanted to hear opinions. I understand that many programs reserve the right to carry over negative balances. However such programs have a clause in the T&C’s, such as this one at Gambling Wages:
Quote:“Negative balance: GW reserves the right to review all Negative Balances on a case to case basis for determination of pay amounts. GW also reserves the right to withhold partial or complete payments in cases of Fraudulent Player Actions, Chargebacks, and other specific instances, where intervention is required.”The program I’m talking about has no such clause. I believe the solution would be for them to pay up past and present disputes and add a clause to their T&C’s to avoid future confusions.
The way I feel about this is that it’s a good working model to have no negative carry overs, yet still not pay commissions on past winnings. I know we affiliates love when that happens, but it’s easy enough to see that it’s a very risky scenario for the casinos.
But it must be stipulated in the T&C’s.
The program I’m talking about has no such clause. I believe the solution would be for them to pay up past and present disputes and add a clause to their T&C’s to avoid future confusions.
Agreed, although affiliates who joined under the “no neg carryover” clause will be at a disadvantage, they signed up for this and now it is negated. If they have loyal players at this program, they are stuck with a broken contract.
The program needs to talk this through with existing affiliates and find a solution.
The program I’m talking about has no such clause. I believe the solution would be for them to pay up past and present disputes and add a clause to the T&C’s to avoid future confusions.
I agree. To avoid breaking their current T&Cs, they should pay up, and then they should add a clause to their T&Cs indicating that they reserve the right to review situations like this in the future.
I wouldn’t like such a clause, and I would probably think twice about promoting a program that has a clause like this — but, the clause does need to be there for me to make an educated decision about whether to promote the program.
What would have happened if your player had simply cashed out? Would you be expected to repay the negative balance? At least he is playing it back — now the program will earn 65-70% of $X instead of 0% of $X.
My suggestions on this to aff programs:
1. Take the time to work this into your terms and conditions so as not to surprize your hard-working affiliates and ruin a relationship
2. Set a level that you are comfortable with if you are not willing to take the knock
3. be open and honest about the situation if it does arise and offer a solution that is amiableWe do not carry negatives over as we will take the knock and have decided to write it off as a marketing expense – it can be huge at times – a number that is never published that can even throw a program into a loss so webmasters do need to be aware of the impact that negatives can have.
My 2c..
As an affiliate we are a dissadvantage, As I am sure they do have a clause they can end a relationship at any time.
Ie you make 42,000 on recouped winnings, they see the amount is more than your value they drop you if its an issue?
I have yet to see true contractual terms from affiliates, ones that do not alter from your sign up date without concent.
I’m amazed that people play it all back. Crazy. But the programs know the risks when they offer no negative carryover. Players almost always play it all back.
The affiliate manager in this case was upfront and sent an email to say what they wanted to do. I really appreciate that. Believe it or not, there are some who would simply make the player disappear (to that black pit where whales go)!!! :whoa: That’s why I’m not mentioning the program. I believe we will be able to come to an understanding.
The affiliate program needs to honor their terms and conditions, here, period. They don’t get to just change the rules without your permission just because one of their players got lucky last month.
Well, I understand you don’t want to name the program because you are trying to work something out, but I for one want to know who it is. Why would I work with a program that steals from me, against their own stated terms and conditions. And that is exactly what is going on, theft.
Randy wrote:The affiliate program needs to honor their terms and conditions, here, period. They don’t get to just change the rules without your permission just because one of their players got lucky last month.agreed – put it in the terms and let the affiliate decide to promote you or not – but be open about it and don’t shock anyone – the repurcussions can hurt bad :nervous:
pokermonger wrote:Well, I understand you don’t want to name the program because you are trying to work something out, but I for one want to know who it is. Why would I work with a program that steals from me, against their own stated terms and conditions. And that is exactly what is going on, theft.
I agree with pokermonger. Are you afraid to reveal the program because you believe it will hurt you in the negotiations? If so that is as bad as what they have already done.The idea of no negative carry over is that the casino has a much larger volume than the affiliate, and is a lot more able to absorb the ups and downs.
I do promote places that carry over – until I hit a negative that heavily impacts my earnings with that program. Then I drop them.
And this, too, is unwise, since I still then have players there and all the income goes into a deep dark hole.
I understand that a lot of programs still do carry over negatives and so far I have regretted it every time when I promoted one of them.
I am waiting to see what will change with various programs by year end, but then I am doing some serious weeding, and bundling and negative carryovers will permanently bite the dust, even if it means I lose a player base.
The ones who bite the bullet for me on occasion will be all the better off for it, and deservedly so.
As far as changing terms on affiliates, have programs such short memories?
pokermonger wrote:… I for one want to know who it is. Why would I work with a program that steals from me, against their own stated terms and conditions. And that is exactly what is going on, theft.We’re going through the appropriate channels to reach a resolution, and not just in regards to this one case. We are requesting a revision of the T&C’s if they are to continue this practice.
Believe it or not, there are some who would simply make the player disappear (to that black pit where whales go)
Oh I believe it and I know of the pit you speak of, what amazes me is the programs that continue to let these whales fall into that pit even AFTER they know your well aware that your whales seem to just fall in the pit at this same program, over and over. Gee then they wonder why your not promoting them heavy anymore…..
Fergie wrote:The way I feel about this is that it’s a good working model to have no negative carry overs, yet still not pay commissions on past winnings. I know we affiliates love when that happens, but it’s easy enough to see that it’s a very risky scenario for the casinos.But it must be stipulated in the T&C’s.
You’ve been listening to double speak too long Fergie – and now you’re starting to repeat it.
:notify:The concept of NO NEGATIVE CARRYOVERS means that it’s implementation is designed to pay out to affiliates when customers win one month and lose the next.
THe only time when NO NEGATIVE CARRYOVERS doesn’t do this would be the case is when a player wins big and then quits – and never ever plays again.
What did the affiliate program THINK it was promoting – when it proudly said it had NO NEGATIVE CARRYOVERS ????
If the wishy-washy term of not pay commissions on past winnings was added then you would NOT have NO NEGATIVE CARRYOVER anymore. Indeed in reality nearly all negatives would carry unless the players quit.
I would expect the program to specifically state :
– the dollar limits that the casino would apply this to a customer
– how long that customers win would be applied against future losses.Then the program could implement it going forward -but they’d have to ANSWER – yes we do carry over negatives – and be straight up about it.
Additionally – given the horror that some affilaites recoil from programs that have negatives (eh Dominique? ) :woo-hoo: – the program would risk losing affiliates during the switch and also whenever an affilaite got into a big negative hole.This would mean that the program is stuck with the same problem as the money is paid out – and the affiliate leaves.
So effectively this might mean that in future all commisions due to an affiliate were not paid out immediately but actually held for a period (3-6 months?) in order to have funds to claim against.
To my mind the implementation of this “clause” is not a simple one to do properly – and certainly does not seem to exist in their current T&Cs.
I’ll agree that a high percentage payout and no negative carryover is risky to a program – but a contract is a contract – and they need to honour the exisiting one… and then publicly change the terms – and remove the reference to no negative carryover.
