I think this is a difficult situation. On the one hand, i can see why wiping affiliates balances back to zero at the end of the month could mean a situation where the casino has a player who wins overall (loss for the casino over say, 6 months) where in some of those months they had to pay an affiliate when that player was down. This is no doubt what these changes are trying to balance.
On the other hand, if you tell an affiliate that when they bring in a player they get 20% (example) of the players losses for the life of that player, then that is what it should mean. To add the proviso that Player B winning at the casino will negate the profit from Player A is something we are used to already and, because we are told that up front, i think is quite fair.
To add a further proviso that any player at any casino group will affect commission from Player A – well thats up to the casino group, and up to the affiliate to choose whether he/she promotes that group (for me personally it makes sense to represent just one casino from each group thus reducing my risk).
But, as long as all these terms are clear to the affiliate up front, then all’s fair IMHO.
What would be (more than) objectionable, as Spear alludes to, is if the terms are retroactively applied thus meaning your players prior to such a change are affected, thus effectively nullifying the original casino/affiliate agreement.
But we don’t know that yet – its not been made clear and until it does, one can’t really judge the situation IMHO. If it turns out that previous players are exempt then fair play, i respect the casino’s decisions and my decision will probably be to minimise my risk with just one property: i don’t mind that at all. No problem.
If it turns out that it does affect previous players I signed up, then i have a trust issue with that group. If it changes once, it could change again, (and as BBS1 said they could potentially treat players the same way) and i’m not sure i want to take the risk.
However I’d suggest we get some clarification before any rash decsions are made – it may all turn out to be a storm in a teacup.
as an aside…:
In actual fact, the whole way the casino affiliate schemes work is illogical to a degree. If i send a player to a casino, then in theory, the casino should report that player as an individual.
If he wins, then that negative balance should be carried forward indefinately until such a time as he’s in profit and the affiliate should take the rough with the smooth. BUT, that player should not influence or be influenced by any other player at the casino. He stands alone as a seperate entity. That would be the fairest way to do it for everyone IMHO.
Of course the minute you start lumping players together AND carrying forward negative balances then I for one feel a sense of injustice, so negative balance casinos may get some promo from time to time, but the minute i take a big hit, they’re history until i’m positive again.
Wonder how that would work in practice?!
Anyway, cheers
Simmo!