- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
On the programs not wanting to pay lifetime rev share unless new accounts are coming in…. Ive seen a lot of programs recently express this and some add terms to their programs. I think this is completely unfair on affiliates, programs should pay lifetime commission regardless of future performance or not offer lifetime commissions at all!
The reason I think a lot of marketing managers, affiliate managers dont like this is becuase a lot of their targets/budgets are set up wrong. Sure, if thousdands of pounds is coming out of your budget each month for affiliates who no longer refer new players, you wont be happy. But its the budgets/targets that need to be relooked at, not ways to stop paying these affiliates.
On the no negative rollover – sure thats unfair on the programs. But that doesnt stop me insisting on it with every program I work with! Its an unfortunate cost that programs need to pay – If I am referring 200 new accounts a month to a program and one of those players wins a million, with negative roll over I’ll stop sending 200 accounts a month, there will be no incentive for me to ever send them another account. With no negative roll over I will carry on sending 200 accounts a month.
An extreme example but for most programs it makes a better business plan to give affiliates no negative roll over. In the past there have been around 4/5 programs Ive stopped working with alltogether as they applied nageative roll overs. Without wanting to sound arrogant, they have missed out big time for wanting to save a few quid short term.
Richard (OLBG);203797 wrote:On the programs not wanting to pay lifetime rev share unless new accounts are coming in…. Ive seen a lot of programs recently express this and some add terms to their programs. I think this is completely unfair on affiliates, programs should pay lifetime commission regardless of future performance or not offer lifetime commissions at all!The reason I think a lot of marketing managers, affiliate managers dont like this is becuase a lot of their targets/budgets are set up wrong. Sure, if thousdands of pounds is coming out of your budget each month for affiliates who no longer refer new players, you wont be happy. But its the budgets/targets that need to be relooked at, not ways to stop paying these affiliates.
On the no negative rollover – sure thats unfair on the programs. But that doesnt stop me insisting on it with every program I work with! Its an unfortunate cost that programs need to pay – If I am referring 200 new accounts a month to a program and one of those players wins a million, with negative roll over I’ll stop sending 200 accounts a month, there will be no incentive for me to ever send them another account. With no negative roll over I will carry on sending 200 accounts a month.
An extreme example but for most programs it makes a better business plan to give affiliates no negative roll over. In the past there have been around 4/5 programs Ive stopped working with alltogether as they applied nageative roll overs. Without wanting to sound arrogant, they have missed out big time for wanting to save a few quid short term.
The more I read the more I think the companies that carry out practices as explained above should be named, shamed and boycotted.
Well, they can do as they like and it’s up to us to pick and choose. So you have to be aware of the terms and conditions. Always read them.
What is not ok is changing the terms affiliates signed up with. That is breach of contract and we do name and shame then. A program can change the future course it takes and apply new rules to new affiliates, but once you have signed up they need to stick to the contract.
Pokerknave;203779 wrote:Likewise why should I suffer because a player win?Now seeing as Referback doesn’t carry over negatives I feel I am safe in commenting on this in defense of those who do…
It’s not a matter ok “making the affiliate suffer” but the name of this game is revenue share or aka, a term now long lost in the mists of affiliate marketing, “profit sharing”.
Now when a player takes out a load of cash from a casino as an affiliate you can at that point, from a pure money made vs money paid out perspective, be considered unprofitable.
In the truest sense if the deal is that you receive [x% of the profit] your players bring an affiliate program then with massive winner on your name there is [no profit] and thereby [no commission due]. *see why it had to be a rep who has no negative carryover saying this*
What is often forgotten is that when the affiliates are making no comm with a legit affiliate program that it means the program itself is not making money from the affiliate.
*Let the lynching begin* :angel:
Hello,
Affiliates are not a waste of time for any online operation.
Affiliates have become one of the major channels for online gambling operations.Cheers,
Connie Burstin
Yes agree, affiliates should recognise they have a very good deal if they do have no negative roll over set up with a program and not think its only right that they should.
And an even better deal if a program seperates that negative roll over by product..
ie. I send a sportsbook player who wins a large amount in sports, he then (feeling a bit rich) plays a bit of casino and loses leaving a negative rev share in casino that month, some programs would clear the casino negative and pay the sportsbook rather than rolling the commissions together.
Not exactly fair eh?
But on the flip side any good affiliate I think can justify asking for no negative roll over on the basis that if a player/ or players do win then surely the program will want the affiliate to keep sending volume players through rather than stop and wait for the negative to even out or give up altogether and promote another program instead.
@CWC-Martyn 203756 wrote:
I know this will be a can of slugs that I am about to open but what about the negative value of those players?
I know most programs dont carryover negatives but the players that affiliates refer should they not also be accountable for the losses too and not just the wins?
If a player wins big on the last day of the month sending the affiliate into the red, then spunks it all back on the first day of the following month, once commissions have been reset to zero. The casino takes the hit of the win, then has to pay out further commissions on the money spunked back.
Is that fair?
Can I use the word spunked?
TAKE COVER! :slapface::beatup::banger::help:
processing fees aside, If they blew it back wouldn’t it effectively cancel out the original win?
slotplayer;203850 wrote:processing fees aside, If they blew it back wouldn’t it effectively cancel out the original win?Yep. This would happen and does happen in most cases which is why having a great casino can work for those so opposed to neg rolls.
For those that are in a bad way we will do our most to help out where we can and this has been the case on a couple of occasions since I have been with CWC. We wont just leave you to rot.
@Dominique 203768 wrote:
Fencing on demand?
For me personally it would mean I don’t have to pull you everytime I get in a negative.
I will always still prefer programs that don’t have negative carryovers. There are only two programs with neg carryover I work with at all. And that’s because they are very good in all other ways.
But – even when affs still choose you over programs without negatives, your program will suffer from the removals. What costs you more?
As long as there is transparency in what the program does and the policies, I think any model will work. It depends on your relationship with the affiliate and how you communicate. I have been with a program which carried negative but never lost an affiliate due to player win. Please note that any massive win which probably would wipe off your next 6 month’s earnings will most likely be nulled by the casino. These calls are always case specific. Actually it is good to have winners as they tend to stick to the casino for longer and most winners dump the money back in next few months.
CWC-Martyn wrote:Yep. This would happen and does happen in most cases which is why having a great casino can work for those so opposed to neg rolls.For those that are in a bad way we will do our most to help out where we can and this has been the case on a couple of occasions since I have been with CWC. We wont just leave you to rot.
Most programs that do carry forward will take care of you in one way or other. Like our good friend here.
And for the programs that do not carry forward the negatives, it is important to clarify the terms and conditions. For all you know you may be losing out in the long run if they have aggressive ‘fencing’ or ‘quarantine’ or ‘adjustment’ policies.
The best programs are those who simply absorb the negative and don’t retort to any fencing or quarantie or adjustments. But then they take a hit when the winning player drops money in the next payment cycle/ month.
Somebody always takes a hit. The question is who and how painful is it.
The aff takes a hit if the casino carries over, and most of the time there is nothing to balance out a big winner since it’s not balanced against all the players in the casino but merely one person’s players.
So the aff has to attempt to monetize the players that would normally be sent to the casino, pulls the property, and now the casino takes a hit.
Both the casino and the aff have now lost one source of income until the player plays it all back. The casino takes the risk that the aff is happy elsewhere and won’t return.
The vast majority of casinos just takes the original hit and doesn’t carry over.
Many affs just avoid places that have carry overs in the first place.
Everyone has to put food on the table and has to manage this the best way they can.
slotplayer;203850 wrote:processing fees aside, If they blew it back wouldn’t it effectively cancel out the original win?It would in theory but that ignores the percentage paid to the affiliate.
In a perfect world scenario a (-)100K in Month 1 is balanced by a (+)100K in Month 2 – but in Month 2 the casino would still be paying out 35K to the affiliate.
This still leaves the casino bottom line at (-)35K
@Dominique 203896 wrote:
Somebody always takes a hit. The question is who and how painful is it.
So the aff has to attempt to monetize the players that would normally be sent to the casino, pulls the property, and now the casino takes a hit.Both the casino and the aff have now lost one source of income until the player plays it all back. The casino takes the risk that the aff is happy elsewhere and won’t return.
The ideal solution fair to both casino and the affiliate is if none take the hit. But this is a difficult proposition to manage + there is scope for discrepancies. In this case the casino doesn’t carry forward the negative and absorbs the immediate loss in the books. The player is then ring fenced till the loss has been recovered and then start paying the affiliate as usual.
Point to note – the affiliate should also be compensated for his loss of revenue for the month when the player winning would have wiped out his earnings.Probably MGS casinos have a similar system (Not sure if with the same policies or rules or how automated it is). I doubt if any program has a transparent and automated system like this.
But then the big question will come up if the programs are able to ring fence, would they start shaving?
PS. Please note these are my personal views and in no way a representation of the operators I have worked with.
@Shane 203901 wrote:
It would in theory but that ignores the percentage paid to the affiliate.
In a perfect world scenario a (-)100K in Month 1 is balanced by a (+)100K in Month 2 – but in Month 2 the casino would still be paying out 35K to the affiliate.
This still leaves the casino bottom line at (-)35K
true, with the correct figures
I always try to put my feet into the affiliates shoes first.
1. A successful affiliate re invests into their business to have long term income.
2. Players will win and lose – player volume is key so one win will effect an affiliate that has low volume of players. If you have a high number of players and the casino helps retain players 1 big win is not a big hit.That is why it is so important to always grow your business.
On the operator side:
1.Communication is key, a partnership is the only way to succeed.
2. A casino has operating costs and retention costs they also have people to pay to keep the operations running at peak efficiency.So in the end an operator and an affiliate are in it together and need each other to succeed. An abuse from either side is a lose lose scenario.
Both sides need to share the wins and the losses per month – if it’s one sided nether side can move forward and offer the best service to the playerI would like to know from affiliates – is negative carry over ever justified? if so what are the reasons?
