Thanks for responding. I really hope that Mainstreet will help us out here. Correct, it is completely fair for ANY company to determine the overall compensation package to have on offer, but that does not mean that the terms of the deal itself are fair. It means that it’s fair for the affiliate program to say “we’re bundling”, and it is also fair for the affiliate to say, “no way!”
aka: while it’s fair to make the offering no matter what it is, it does not make bundling a fair offering;
Let’s say I like MainStreet, Casino 1, and Casino 2…. say I trust them all the same. It makes sense I give them all equal exposure, right? But Mainstreet has done something. With four brands, they have quadrupled their exposure. This seems good for us at first until we realize that there is simply no insulation between the casinos. It’s the same company and when they have a big winner in one casino, instead of the casino itself paying the winner, they use the affiliate revenues from the other casinos to do that. Not their own resources. This is why bundling is predatory.
I personally would rather get to a site and be informed that I’ll make 30% rev share, up to 40% after a certain volume than I would being greeted with: “You can promote our four casinos and bring us in players. Then when you have a big winner in one of the casinos, we’ll use your earnings in the others to pay it off.”
Four times the exposure on our sites is not supposed to come as a liability to us, we should get a RAISE for that sort of thing.