Ian I appreciate your feedback and oppinion. Yes retroactive changes are generally unacceptable. And in the form that term was written and being applied it was retroactively going back on the promise of players for life.
The reduced commission for inactivity modification does NOT take away players or your ability to draw a monthly check from the program. Is it the best scenario to be paid at a lower rate? No. But all one has to do is be active and make a good faith effort. While they arent going so far as stating this in writing in the term modification Jeff and Fred both said “if we go to the affiliates sites and see they are running our banner and trying to send us business we wont lower their commissions”
CAP will always go to bat for affiliate interests. Its not always easy and it does strain relationships we have with the programs, but we bite the bullet and do it. We generally come away with a positive resolution. Its not always 100% what everyone wants, but we certainly shoot for that goal. When progress is made we have to acknowledge it or the programs wont have any incentive to change. A “It’s 100% our way or the highway” attitude that some affiliates adopt makes many programs bristle and just want to dig their heels and stick with a bad term to show they arent going to be shoved around either.
A spirit of compromise and jointly working together, if even by baby steps, does help to change things. Thats what we are seeing here. BCP made a small step in the right direction.
The economic realities of where we are at now, post UIGEA, and in this economy, makes some flexibility necessary. We all have seen programs collapse under the new climate. We will see more of that and more consolidations and acquisitions in the next year. As affiliate partners we need to be sensitive to this and do what we can to help the decent programs out there weather this storm.