- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Dom,
This is something I know a fair amount about, seeing as I attempted to put in such a rule when I was at PartnerLogic. This was back in 2006…remember?
Anyway, FWIW, this is what I think:
I honestly believe that quotas are fine, so long as they are stated in the T&C’s WHEN THE AFFILIATE SIGNS UP.
It is totally unethical to retroactively put them on, so that they affect affiliates who have been supporting your program through the good times (i.e. pre-UIGEA)
The problem the affiliate companies face is that the very people they want to stop paying are those for whom it is too late, ethically, to stop paying…
By implementing the rule now, they’ll prevent this from being as big a problem for them in the future, sure, but I get the feeling that the reason it is becoming prominent now is that affiliate programs are looking for short-term quick-fixes to revenue/profit shortages
Something I am learning as an affiliate more and more, is that short-termism ain’t fair. We put months and months of work, effort and planning into campaigns, and for an affiliate program to then decide willy-nilly that they have shifted the goal posts, is just not on
2 cents deposited!
Well, I for one will NOT be forgiving to a program that cheats me out of what I worked so hard to establish with them over so many years.
That player base did not come from nowhere, it came from hard work, my hard work over 8 years, and I do mean to get paid for it.
I will be very vocal in the entire affiliate and player community about this issue, and as most older programs know, generally I am very easy to work with, but I have a big mouth when I feel injustice has been done.
A little birdie tells me that several major programs are thinking of implementing this at this time, and I just want to be sure you all know the reaction you will get.
And I will not let it blow over. Time will not grow grass on that issue.
The time will come when you need US affiliates – and I will work with anyone and everyone who has treated us affiliates in a civil manner, and definitely not with anyone who has stolen from us.
Grand Prive will not be able to recruit US affiliates at any time as long as my fingers can type, nor will anyone else who steals from us.
You can install any new T&Cs you like, but you do have to honor the contracts you made with us. I will hold you to it, in a court of law if necessary.
Not to worry, I will shout it from every roof top I can find.
I am hoping the respective programs will read this and think twice before stealing from us.
Us affiliates are an illustrious bunch and may not always get along, but you betcha we can pull together when we are being cheated.
These quotas have started to trickle in, and we need to take a stand, guys.
Centrebet:
Keeping your affiliate account active within the program: we reserve the right to de-activate any affiliate account that has not delivered more than 5 new depositing accounts over any 3 month period. Governing Please note : This clause does not mean that your affiliate account will be closed if the minimum new depositing account requirements are not met, we merely reserve the right to cancel affiliate partnerships that may not deliver the required volume of business we require to continue providing an effective account management service.
AGD has declared Centrebet rogue as a result. What that clause means is that unless you deliver more players, they can stop paying you for your player base.
This is one place that has already installed this clause, retroactively. Vegas Affiliates says they will do it next week
There are others thinking about it – I hope to stem the tide here.
Sending even more players to a place when I can anticipate future extortion is just stupid and not good business sense. When such a clause is added after you already signed the contract with them, it’s theft as far as I can see.
Dom, I’m 100% with you on this one. Just when I thought that the “minimum player” was outdated relic, I see NEW programs come online that implement this.
These terms should never be ont he table at all, retroactively or otherwise. Even if the term did not affect me, I would NEVER promote a program that has them.. NEVER.. it clearly shows the mind set of the program administration.
I think programs that do this will find that existing affiliates might not dump them straight away, if they have existing players – but rather limit their exposure to meet the minimum player rule, then give top ad spots to fairer programs without this condition.
@dawaxman 206445 wrote:
quotas are fine, so long as they are stated in the T&C’s WHEN THE AFFILIATE SIGNS UP.
I agree with that, although I wouldn’t promote them if I saw that rule in there.
Most affiliates are businesses too, and it doesn’t make sense to enter into ANY contract where there is a controlling “partner” that has a get-out clause where the trigger is potentially outside your control. Can you control where you rank in Google and your traffic? Can you guarantee Google won’t drop you down? No. The easy option is to do nothing because it doesn’t affect you now. But one Google algo change and you could potentially lose everything for not being able to meet your contractual obligations. No good crying then, sometimes tough decisions have to be made at the right time.
I know Centrebet says it won’t necessarily be enforced, but it’s mere presence is a problem. Things move on, casinos change hands, management changes, recessions happen…all sorts of factors can affect a relationship. A clause likes this gives whoever is control, now or in the future, the right to excercise the option whenever it suits them.
If you are serious about your business, you don’t accept contractual clauses like this, period. Retroactive application is clearly unethical, but also tells you a lot about who you are dealing with and how they regard you. “Partner”? Or “Means To An End”?
Side Note: Andy and AGD is doing a fantastic job :hattip:
Simmo!;206456 wrote:Can you control where you rank in Google and your traffic? Can you guarantee Google won’t drop you down? No. The easy option is to do nothing because it doesn’t affect you now. But one Google algo change and you could potentially lose everything for not being able to meet your contractual obligations.Very good point, and one I didn’t even consider when i was on the other side…
You are 100% right!
Marc
Nice to “see” you again btw Marc. I think the last time we were a little distracted by a blonde bunny girl at the Ice Bar
On the topic of quotas, I think there are two reasons casinos implement this, for one or the other, maybe both. In some instances, and probably with this one judging from the very swift response I got from Centrebet just now (which incidentally said this wouldn’t be applied retroactively), I think the basic premise is to ensure an affiliate continues to promote them. It’s about “intent” – if I am trying to do the right thing, but unable to for a factor outside my control, I wouldn’t want to think I could be penalised further. Why would I accept those conditions when really, I have a choice in where I direct traffic?
But quotas are the wrong way to go about it as this thread hopefully demonstrates. A fairer way is to offer X commission while the casino is still being promoted, dropping to X% when the affiliate removes it. Even then that requires a fair balance, but if it’s an upfront term that is clearly stated, that seems fair to me. And any % reduction certainly should not be applied to players referred previously to the date of implementation.
To me the issue is very simple:
A contract is a contract. The entire world economy is based on the fact that a written or verbal contract is binding. If that was not so, there would be no way for anyone to trade and each of the world’s citizens would have to raise their own food and build their own shelter. No one could trust anyone.
So the world agrees that a word is a word and a handshake is a handshake.
Including a clause that a contract can be changed at any time is common practice to discourage lawsuits, but in reality it would never stand in any court. Contracts are binding, period.
If a casino wants to add a clause that imposes a quota, they have the legal right to do so. But not retroactively, it must not affect existing contracts.
Going forward, new affiliates do need to read the T&Cs before signing a contract, as cumbersome as that may be. We have AGD to check with, and that makes it a lot easier. I would not recommend to any affiliate to enter into a contract that has a clause imposing a quota.
Simmo’s point about all of us experiencing periodic setbacks due to google fluctuations is a great one to illustrate how one could potentially lose everything due to a snafu when a quota is in place.
Quotas are not acceptable, and breach of contract is downright illegal.
Re Centrebet, they posted a response in their CAP forum and it looks like they are reconsidering. I hope they do, they have otherwise a decent reputation. No reason they should shoot themselves in the foot like this.
But there is more to come, watch this thread!
Quotas are not acceptable, and breach of contract is downright illegal.
I agree and there are more new trends in changes coming as well such as things called “High Roller Clauses” times are changing and programs are getting down right dirty with these changes as of late. AGD is working very hard to get all of these changes posted public and warnings are going out as fast as we can get them done.
So, if you have a player base of 100 players, and they all deposit, say up in the thousands, per month…..you lose all that revenue if you do not bring in 5 “new” depositing players per month?
HAHAHAHA, i think these programs have to be on drugs! How could they possibly believe this is good business? It will just come back and bite them on the ass. I only wish that there was a way to reach out to those 100 players of mine that still deposit, and i will lose income with them because of this new rule, and get them to stop depositing!….because i would be the only one getting hurt in this “new” T&C. The casino still gets there money, the player still gets to play and win or lose….but me, the affiliate gets ****.
We have got to come up with a way to intercept depositing players, and their money before they reaches the “casino”.
I wish we could get some of the “biggest” affiliates to join together, open up their own casino company, and affiliate program, where each software type is represented, so we would have a microgaming casino, a rtg casino, a rival casino..etc….and then all of us affiliates would sign up as affiliates to this “one” company, and screw over every casino, poker, bingo program that is screwing us over now.
It would be fantastic….imagine, a gambling company run by the best gambling affiliates, with all us other affiliates as its partners, and then dropping ever single program out there that is taking advantage of our hard work.
If only?
Hehe, if online gambling gets legalized in the US we can consider doing that – and we can all be stock holders and profit in two ways.
Lots of talent among affiliates – we have lawyers, coders, graphics people, accountants, friendly folks for support staff, you name it, we’ve got it all.
We don’t even have to wait till its legal here, we have plenty of smart, big affiliate in other countries where the company could be based, i am sure Dom you know plenty of them that are trust worthy, and able!
What a concept, it would be one of the smartest moves we could make, if it was possible?
