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. We’re 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 “invoking a predatory clause,” 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 “print” 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 don’t think it’s unreasonable for affiliates to continue to drive new FTD’s 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 “all I can do as an affiliate is place a banner” (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 you’ll 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]