- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I just got hit by the minimum 1 new players each month rule at Hollywood Poker -and realised that it means we were getting less than expected payment value.
I wonder how many other affiliates are in the same situation.
Basically I noticed some casino revenue and though great – until I also noticed our share was set to zero percent – and was surprised.
So we ran a report for the period we’ve been promoting them and found that for $1,650 casino revenue we’d been paid just $36.00 – that’s about a 2% rate. Not what was expected at all.
Got a response from a Mr Mark Jared there who was happy to tell me what the situation was – basically because we’d not managed to get a RMP this during that period.
I responded that this was a pretty predatory rule – getting new players each period obviously does not affect the value that they get out of previously obtained players.
The emailed reply from Mr Jared said that’s the commission structure – that’s always been the commission structure. OR as he put it “This is the way the program operates, and has operated for quite some time. I assure you.”
So basically – no Casino payout for periods without a new FTD player – despite the value that they get from old players
:sarcasm:////////////////////////
So a big warning to affiliates out there – HollywoodPoker feel they have so many affiliates that they can invoke the fine print on this term … and confiscate the 20% casino share even though they can see from impressions and clicks and registrations that you are still an active affiliate.
Mr Jared then wanted to provide tips on how I could increase conversions for his program … and you can imagine I’m not really interested in a program that likes to use the fine print to avoid paying what is frankly a mediocre 20% share.
:crazy:WE ARE IMMEDIATELY DROPPING HOLLYWOOD POKER DUE TO PREDATORY TERM
I suggest small affiliates quickly check their stats – and consider doing the same.
////////////////////////
Our stats for posterity :
Clicks 558
Registrations 39
First Depositors 5
Real Players 5
# of Deposits 46
Deposit Amount $1,742.00
Poker Revenue $965.96
Casino Revenue $1,650.00
Bonuses $368.75
Poker Revenue-Share [20 %] $77.96
Poker Revenue-Share [25 %] $51.85
Casino Revenue-Share [0 %] $0.00
Casino Revenue-Share [20 %] $36.00
Affiliate 222758 Commission $165.81Not stellar I’ll admit – but then Hollywood poker is a mid-tier skin of a rapidly declining poker network (on-game).
:sarcasm:THAT SUCKS!! đĄ
I would also suggest that everyone stop promoting Hollywood Poker immediately.
I wish that AGD had time to look at poker programs as well… For all affiliates: Make sure you read the terms and conditions of ANY program.
If Hollywood Poker is willing to enforce this rule (if they have this rule AT ALL, really) – then get rid of them. This is proof that the Minimum Player rule is predatory.
First off, Gooner, let me say that I understand yours (and other affiliates) frustration entirely, and agree that this clause bears review and revision, which is currently underway. Understand that it was established when we first brought on a casino product, and had yet to reconcile it against our well-established Poker brand. Weâre working on a revised casino commission structure currently that works on similar tiered model as we use for Poker and offers a much fairer model than the one established by my predecessor.
I appreciate you bringing this issue to bear in a public forum, as it is clearly an area where we can improve and are now working to do so. Where I take issue, though is in the taking of my words out of context and the failure to contextualize your own, whereby you accused me personally of âinvoking a predatory clause,â accused myself and the program of not being forthright, and made accusations and demands with only a cursory understanding of the programs structure. There is no fineprint, just âprintâ and it is the responsibility of the affiliate to apprise themselves of this public information.
Having said that, said structure was designed to ensure affiliates continue to drive new traffic, growing both theirs and our business, and I while empathize how 1 FTD per period may be too challenging an expectation for smaller affiliates I donât think itâs unreasonable for affiliates to continue to drive new FTDâs and to develop relationships with their mgrs in order to accomplish the aforementioned. I offered to provide you with some strategies to increase your traffic/conversions out of a genuine desire to see you profit from our program, and in response to your statement that âall I can do as an affiliate is place a bannerâ (pp), which I fundamentally disagree with as an individual whose charge it is to assist affiliates to grow within our program. The offer stands and perhaps youâll reconsider our program with the revision of casino commissions. Our program is committed to the consideration of all affiliates, large and small, and I agree that the term with which you have issue needs to be adjusted. But in no way was it purposed to be a punitive or predatory clause.[FONT="]
[/FONT]@Hollywood Poker 139723 wrote:
But in no way was it purposed to be a punitive or predatory clause.[/quote] That is a predatory term no matter how you clarify it. Ask any affiliate. It’s called a Minimum Player Rule and it only serves the purpose of stealing an affiliate’s players. There is no valid reason for any program to have that term.
Hollywood, do you plan on removing the minimum player clause when you make your revisions?
Mark.
PREDATORY RULE.
It is a predatory rule. It is a rule that means you do not pay affiliates a share of revenue earned from players that they referred to you.This is a very common usage of the phrase “predatory” within affiliate circles – and bearing in mind that your program has such a clause included I’m surprised you haven’t heard it levelled before.
This clause may be well posted in your terms – but I certainly hadn’t noticed or known about it. That was obvious from my initial contact to you.
MISQUOTE
Now I didn’t say “all I can do as an affiliate is place a banner” did I?
Naughty. You’re misreading your mail.What I said EXACTLY was “We can do little to boost the HollywoodPoker.com signup rate â all we can do is send clicks of interested poker players.” … you go and check the email for correctness.
As you can see – what you THINK you read was not at all what I ACTUALLY said.
OUR EFFORTS :
Don’t pretend that we’re a banner farm that did not give HollywoodPoker exposure – we were an active affiliate (if admittedly somewhat ineffective in your case).We do (or that should be did) host a full page review of Hollywood poker.
http://www.goonersguide.com/poker_hollywood_poker.htmlWe covered your bonus details on it’s own page
http://www.goonersguide.com/hollywood_poker_bonuses.htmlWE listed you with details in our main poker page.
http://www.goonersguide.com/poker_room_guide.htmlThese were all updated at least once a month to stay current. We WERE actively informing 1000’s of poker players of your brand.
We managed 39 signups in that time – which was a disappointing result for both yourself and ourself — but this clause and your response added insult to injury.
FUTURE WORK :
Having heard that you were going to insist in keeping the 0% penalty rate in place – because “This is the way the program operates …” you can imagine that I was not very interested in continuing working at that rate.I don’t work for fun – or for ZERO PERCENT – just as you probably insist on getting paid a salary each month too.
CLAUSE CHANGE:
It is good to hear that your considering changing that clause – that wouldn’t be a tacit admission that it is actually wrong – and “predatory” would it?
:wink-winkBut we’ve got off on the wrong foot- frankly I don’t like your attitude – and don’t really want to work with you.
:sarcasm:If you decide to retrospectively change the terms – please deposit any funds we may have earned into a local animal charity such as The American Society for Prevention of Cruetly to Animals (ASPCA) or some such.
Many Thanks.
And FINALLY the whole purpose of this post was to bring the clause to the attention of other affiliates who have possibly been affected in the same way too
Be careful out there guys !!
BIG thanks for that post. Now my stats make sense. And I’ll be dropping Hollywood poker as fast as I can.
Man ….. how often do i have to say this? they wouldn’t have that player had you not sent them? so predatory requirements of players sent per month … is unacceptable.
here is proof!
I can’t say it plainer than that!
In answer to your question, Engineer, effective in October, we are shifting to a tiered commission model. The clause will no longer be operative. As mentioned before it is overdue for an update in light of our increase in casino traffic and offerings and we agree that it does not adequately serve the interests of affiliates that market our casino product as heavily and effectively as poker.
Gooner, thanks to you for bringing this matter to the forum and to others for posting on this thread. I primarily wanted to clarify that we did not ‘invoke’ anything predatory with regards to your account. I appreciate your clarifications here in that regard. I put the “(pp)” to indicate when I paraphrased, you’ll note. Our new model will be structured such that it rewards a higher percentage for higher FTD’s, but without a minimum player per period stipulation in consideration of the aforementioned point of the minimum being too great an expectation for many affiliates. We want to nurture and expand our affiliate partnerships toward mutual profitability, and in full consideration of the matter, such a stringent clause impedes that goal with regard to commission on casino.
Gooner, I would like to follow your lead on this, so please, is it a thumbs up or thumbs down?
Hello NoBluff,
Don’t look to me for a lead mate – I don’t like the spotlight ..
I much prefer to just exchange views with independantly minded affiliates.We’ve terminated our relationship with Holllywood poker – as they’re keeping the previously confiscated funds in line with their “predatory” term.
:flush:I note that the offending term has now been removed going forward – so at least the thread has been useful for other affiliates.
:hattip:Too little time too much to do! I need help in directing my efforts towards affiliate programs that are A+++ instead of wasting precious time on programs that turn around and bite you in the butt. I am certainly open to the problem you encountered as I am currently a low volume (traffic) affiliate so I would rather send my traffic to a place that continues to earn money.
@TheGooner 139271 wrote:
So we ran a report for the period we’ve been promoting them and found that for $1,650 casino revenue we’d been paid just $36.00 – that’s about a 2% rate.
Now you know how it feels to work as a rake back affiliate :roflmao:
Thanks for the warning!
@Casinolisten 141211 wrote:
Now you know how it feels to work as a rake back affiliate :roflmao:
Thanks for the warning!
Haha, now you know what it is like working as a non-rakeback poker affiliate – you introduce the player online, train him, and then he goes to rakeback. :tongue:
