I accept that many of you are upset and confused about some of the additions to the terms and conditions. I use the word additions as there are no retroactive changes to the revised terms and conditions. Let me clarify the few points that I believe are still misunderstood by some affiliates.
Addressing the definition of an “Active Casino Customer”
Firstly attempting a purchase of more than $500 is not possible as this is the purchase limit at the credit card companies and the casinos. Large first purchases are rare for new gamblers, due to trust issues etc. As much as you and I would like all players to join the casino purely for its entertainment value, this does not happen, as new players are mostly joining for the signup bonus. The remaining small percentage of players that do not apply for the bonus, will probable make multiple smaller purchases, as found during an investigation into this issue.
Here is my reasoning as to how this can be beneficial to affiliates. Players receive an incentive for their first purchase and most cases the free bonus exceeds the purchase as with the $50 for $200 promotion. As per the old definition the affiliate has a balance of -$150.00, and as per the new definition the balance is still $0. If the player leaves the casino you have lost nothing if the player purchases again the balance will show the first and second purchase less the bonus. Now the player has value, as he/she is able to make multiple purchases.
Please note: We definitely DO NOT discount the 1st purchase, as you will receive full commission on all purchases that the player has made from the date that they opened the first casino account. This extends to any and all first purchases the player may have made at any casino in the group.
If a bonus taker loses the bonus and deposit, your firm wins and keeps the aff monies. You write the above like there is nothing in it for your firm. If there were nothing in it for the firm, they would,nt bother with the new rule. That tells me the bonus player losers outweigh the winners.
Addressing the “Lapsed Customer” clause
If a player stops playing at all the casinos in the group for 6 consecutive months the player will be considered lapsed. This applies from the 1st of August 2005. The date will be included in the terms for clarification. This will not apply to players acquired prior to this date.
Taking into consideration all the retention as well as reactivation promotions, if a customer is INACTIVE for 6 MONTHS on the GROUP of casinos chances are he/she is really not interested in being a casino player.
I can understand that a webmaster would revisit a casino after 6 months, however would a player? This is 6 months without responding to any casino promotions. This does not apply to players that play every day or month.
The opportunity/positive here is that all affiliates are now able to re-acquire these lapsed players via their web sites and they will be linked to the affiliate that did the work. This applies to players that signed up directly with the casino as well. As it is many affiliates refer qualified gamblers that have not played in years and are already linked to an affiliate or the casino directly and thus lose out on the commission. A case of either or?
I think that all the other points raised have been clarified. As all of you know I am open to any questions or discussion in regards to the above or any questions you might have. Please include your aff id in a private mail if you have any questions relating to your own account.
Thank you
You write the above again like there is nothing in it for your firm. Players who return after a 6 month gap to a casino downloaded on their poota, hooked up with an account are free lunch for your firm. If the punter doesnt click a new banner and just use the icon on the desktop, you keep the affs part. Have it right. There is nothing in it for the aff who found you the player.
Trying to pull the wool over my eyes with this kind of chatter is as silly rb closing my account without notice or even telling me, because of my “perceived” tone in an email.
I do not like the tone of these new terms or the attempt to portray them as “beneficial” to the affs.