I cannot promote this group of casinos anymore with these three
changes. Just yesterday, I had a new player at an online casino..
deposit $500 and take the new player bonus that was being offered.
If this was at one of your casinos and the player was to lose the
money and quit.. I would make absolutely nothing off of the player.The 6 month “no activity” clause doesn’t really make any sense. What
is the reasoning behind removing these players? Keeping a bunch of
players in a database can’t be taking up that much bandwidth. Why
would I want to chase down the same player multiple times, when
I only need to acquire them once at any of the other affiliate programs?
it seems to me Wayne that you are really so close … and you said it yourself; most of these things happen rarely so why jepardize so much in the sake of so little?
I think my idea of having a set amount on the first deposit if big enough; then automatically qualifies that player as having made a second deposit has merit. It satisfies both our concerns about getting credit for money earned; as well as credit for having signed the big player without our having to worry that the big player only makes the one deposit and then wonders off only to show up later under somebody else’s tag – while still accomplishes what you’re saying is the goal. You simply make the cut-off line an amount that covers the concerns that brought about this change…
Yes we stand to lose out on the credit of signing some small player if that player only makes the one deposit; but hardly anything worth losing sleep over IMHO.
the 6 month thing … well if its true they aren’t likely coming back then I don’t see how it could be such a big issue with you guys that you aren’t willing to shell out the few extra bucks every month it would take to store this info.
and I think its already been pretty much agreed upon that we have no problem if you take that number up from 6 months to a more reasonable expectation…