- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
We have all been new affiliates, but I personally make sure to read the T&C of an aff. program. When a new affiliate today visits the BCP T&C they will read their conditions and decide whether to work with them or not. Most complain that the changes are retroactive and I fail to see how this protects new affiliates?
What I don’t follow is how, as a businessman, you’re saying you’re happy for people that you contract with to change the terms of your contract retroactively without your agreement.
The problem is that unlike business, here only one party seems to be obligated to a contract. For example, the aff program is obligated to pay you for the players you bring but you are obligated to what? And the proposed contract makes BOTH parties obligated, but all of a sudden, it’s a big problem that YOU have to be obligated, as well? Why?
I hope you realize that with these kind of TC that BCP has now and imagine other programs following this trend then not many new affiliates will enter this industry.
Maybey you’ve misread my post, I am advocating tougher contracts by all programs in the industry. Many used to complain how Bodog was “picking” affiliates, but even back then I was in total agreement. And insted of hurting Bodog, on the contrary, it helped them build a great brand for pennies on the dollar. There is a reason the online gambling webmasters are considered a lowlife much to the likeness of porn and meds; and it’s not so much the product we advertise as the way we advertise it.
Most complain that the changes are retroactive and I fail to see how this protects new affiliates?
It doesn’t protect NEW Affiliates, but that is THEIR choice going forward, not ours.
It’s not Ok to change the exsiting affiliates agreements.
Pretty simple, IMO.The problem is that unlike business, here only one party seems to be obligated to a contract.
How do you figure that? I never agreed to a Player Quota, and neither did you.
The fact that you may be such a huge affiliate that it doesn’t affect YOU, doesn’t mean it won’t kill some smaller affiliates, or affiliates that focus STRICTLY on Tiered/Sub Affiliate type marketing.With all due respect, you are not looking at the larger picture of this,.. just your own personal picture, which apparently won’t be affected by this proposed change.
I have no problem with a program hand selecting affiliates like BoDog did either.
Their choice, and that isn’t really relevant to this situation anyway.We are talkng about EXSITING Agreements being altered to include Player Quotas.
The Player Quota is the Deal Breaker here.
I don’t think anyone has a big problem keeping their casinos up on their sites, but this thing needs to get straightened away fairly first.@Stupid 179263 wrote:
The problem is that unlike business, here only one party seems to be obligated to a contract.
If you read the T&C’s you signed, you will find that as an affiliate you too have obligations such as non-competitiveness, brand sensibilities, mis-representation clauses etc, but I see that as a side issue irrelevant to retroactively applied contract changes, so, back on topic…
@Stupid 179263 wrote:
the aff program is obligated to pay you for the players you bring…
And you’re saying it’s OK for them to change their minds later. Strange. Why are you OK with that? I’m intrigued.
Why are you OK with that? I’m intrigued
Contracts change all the time, there is no such thing as “forever-contract”. I do expect aff programs’ contracts to change to reflect current situations, and in fact they often do. There is not a single program which at one point in time has not changed their T&C. In the “real world” the contracts are often re-negotiated for the same reason – to reflect current conditions. If you ever enter a contract with the believe that it will be the same forever, you may be in for a surprise, and you obviously are.
Yes, I know your standard reply will be “but they changed it retroactively!”. But they didn’t. If the contract was retroactive, that would mean that BCP will have to go back through your account history and take away commission for the months where you have not referred any players. Instead they don’t apply the rule to past months, rather FROM NOW ON. What you guys mean is not “retoractive” but you wan to be “grandfathered” into the contract, i.e. the new rules do not apply to old affiliates. That’s completely different from “retroactive”, please, stop using this word when you don’t know what it means.
Or in other words, the contract has just been re-negotiated. The old contract is void, the new contract is on the table and just like any other business in the world, you have the option not to “sign” it.
If you are unhappy with the outcome – you may want to PM Lou and tell him that he should be a thougher negotiator. I am a little upset that Lou just renegotiated a contract with a program for the entire industry WITHOUT asking for the input FIRST, althoug, again, I am for two-side contracts.
Or in other words, the contract has just been re-negotiated.
Where did you get that from? Who negotiated with us? Nobody negotiated with me that I won’t be paid for the players I already sent. I would have never agreed.
It’s like you send me a TV for $1000, and after I get it I say I am renegoting the deal and you only get $500.
I can say, ok, next TV you send me I only pay half, and then you agree with it or not. But to change the deal after the merchandise is delivered is NOT ok, EVER, ANYPLACE.
I don’t know what bodog has to do with anything, but they were perfectly within their rights to pick representatives. Every program can conduct their business any way they want. If they want to do it by invitation only, what’s wrong with that?
It has nothing to do with refusing to pay for items delivered under a contract.
That’s completely different from “retroactive”, please, stop using this word when you don’t know what it means.
Stupid, I know exactly what RETROACTIVE means in this situation, and so does everyone else here, so please ease off the SUPERIOR intelligence thing you have going on there.
I’m fine with calling it Grandfathering as well if all you want to do is split hairs with word semantics.:rolleyes:
How about breeching an agreement? You OK with that terminology?
When I make an agreement, I stick to it, and I expect the party that I made that agreement with to stick to theirs too.
To expect less is dangerous.I don’t think I’m in the minority on that either.
Sure, Agreements can be, and sometimes are RE-Negotiated, but until they are accepted by both parties, the EXSITING contract stands.
I’m more than happy to discuss changes with Jeff and Fred, and Lou was too.
Lou didn’t make any decisions for anyone, and he didn’t authorize any changes.He got the ball rolling for all of us to have a discussion on the problem, and for that you should be grateful, not condesending!:sarcasm:
I said my peace here. Thanks for the ear folks!
Thanks again to Warren and Lou for trying to work this thing out.
Modification – We may modify any of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement, at any time and in our sole discretion, by posting a change notice or a new agreement on our website. Modifications may include, but are not limited to, changes in the scope of available fee schedules, payment procedures, and the Affiliate Program rules. You are solely responsible to review these Terms and Conditions on a regular basis. IF ANY MODIFICATION IS UNACCEPTABLE TO YOU, YOUR ONLY RECOURSE IS TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAM FOLLOWING OUR POSTING OF A CHANGE NOTICE OR NEW AGREEMENT ON OUR WEBSITE WILL CONSTITUTE BINDING ACCEPTANCE OF THE MODIFICATION.
This is a quote from the BCP T&C affiliates agree to. It’s very clear. It doesn’t get more clear than this. Again, contracts change all the time.
I don’t agree with the “semantics” rant:
Stupid, I know exactly what RETROACTIVE means in this situation, and so does everyone else here, so please ease off the SUPERIOR intelligence thing you have going on there.
This is where you and I profoundly disagree. The contracts and T&Cs are there to avoid the “you know what I meant” agreements. Contracts and T&Cs are carefully worded for that same reason – so you don’t mistake tomatoes with cucumbers, although their are both vegetables.
If you guys are so upset about a program changing the T&C, I do advise you to check with all programs you currently advertise for the “Modification” clause. I bet you all of them have it and trust me, they have put it in the contracts for a reason – so they can use it when things change. OR do you just hope that they won’t change their T&Cs and they have put the clause for SE optimization?!?
Here’s one problem with the BCP T&C’s. I have many friends who advertise very sporadically. They see a big opportunity (which I cannot give an example because they would kill me) where they jump on advertising for one month, spend big big bucks on it, but then the advertising opportunity is gone. They can go months, sometimes more than a year before they see an opportunity like this again. Should this person not get the percentage he was promised for life? This whole issue is absolute nonsense. This is no more than stealing.
I also have had many affiliate programs say to me something to the effect of ‘stop whining, you make enough from our program’. As if I should be grateful that they are allowing me to make money??? Often, these programs do not take into account the fact that large amounts of money, time, and serious and dedicated effort are put into getting these players and we should never be taken for granted or pressured. They should be grateful for us, for ANY player we send them.
As far as BCP being CAP non-certified, I do disagree with that. CAP is a great place to communicate with programs. Perhaps, if a program is not certified there can be a big disclaimer on all their forum pages declaring such statements, however, to shut off all communications is dangerous and what allows situations like these to arise. For instance, Lou (and we all are very grateful for Lou’s role in this industry), should not be the only one talking to BCP about this. They should have a forum where we can discuss this directly with them in a communal fashion. Otherwise the program may feel they can hide in the shadows and do shady things.
PS – to Stupid. This is not a normal advertising venue and the relationship should not be treated the same. If a program was paying my company for advertising space, then I have the responsibility to bring them the exposure they were looking for, and if I don’t they can stop paying me. However, this situation is different. These companies are getting free exposure and no dime comes out of their pocket for such exposure. The deal is, we bring them players, we make a percentage. We don’t no harm done. End of story.
They see a big opportunity (which I cannot give an example because they would kill me) where they jump on advertising for one month, spend big big bucks on it, but then the advertising opportunity is gone. They can go months, sometimes more than a year before they see an opportunity like this again. Should this person not get the percentage he was promised for life? This whole issue is absolute nonsense. This is no more than stealing.
They can always choose the CPA deal if they are THAT TYPE of affiliates.
The click-here-to-play affiliates I don’t consider at all. I don’t have anything against them, but I don’t consider them and their opinions valuable at all. And from all people, I would think you should’ve been the first to agree, considering you know how much time and effort goes into creating quality content, comapred to simply buying an ad on a high traffic website.The way I look at it – it’s 36% commission, no negatives, one of the top converters for the US market – can I bring 1 player in 3 months? I think so. Should I care about people whose contribution to the industry and total effort is an ad purchase on a website? No. Sounds like a deal TO ME.
These companies are getting free exposure and no dime comes out of their pocket for such exposure. The deal is, we bring them players, we make a percentage. We don’t no harm done. End of story.
I actually have programs paying a monthly fee for exposure, usually programs which have not converted well enough in the past. But it’s always less than you would make with Rev with a good aff program.
Sure Stupid, many have these CATCH ALL type clauses.
They can certainly change them going forward under that modification, EVEN TO EXSITING AFFILIATES, as that modification clause states, and we accept or REJECT THEM GOING FORWARD!!!
That DOES NOT IMPLY that they can RETROACTIVELY, {yes, Retroactively}, apply THOSE CHANGES to past business, and that’s where the problem is on this!
That’s what you are missing here, IMO.
If they implement the proposed changes, then everyone will have to make a decision on whether to continue on with them, and if they don’t, then they still deserve to be paid for their past results under the agreements BOTH parties agreed to when that business was transacted.
Well, In the REAL World anyway!:roflmao:
My Tampa Bay Bucs are losing. Gotta go root for them!
Later!:roflmao:If they implement the proposed changes, then everyone will have to make a decision on whether to continue on with them, and if they don’t, then they still deserve to be paid for their past results under the agreements BOTH parties agreed to when that business was transacted.
And they did. They got paid 36% even if they did not bring players.
And they did.
So far maybe, but not in the future if this proposal goes thru.
Any modifications should apply to future players ONLY, not to past players procured under the original terms that both parties agreed to.
PS: This is not a media buy or CPA issue, so none of that really matters on this issue.
If you guys are so upset about a program changing the T&C, I do advise you to check with all programs you currently advertise for the “Modification” clause. I bet you all of them have it and trust me, they have put it in the contracts for a reason – so they can use it when things change. OR do you just hope that they won’t change their T&Cs and they have put the clause for SE optimization?!?
I have to agree with CPA, this does not apply to items delivered as promised under the old contract. It just means that the contract can be changed for future interactions.
Like I said earlier:
It’s like you send me a TV for $1000, and after I get it I say I am renegotiating the deal and you only get $500.
I can say, ok, next TV you send me I only pay half, and then you agree with it or not. But to change the deal after the merchandise is delivered is NOT ok, EVER, ANYPLACE.
