- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I can’t imagine Fred or Jeff trying to twist that clause to bully the affiliate community anyway.
That would not get the desired result, IMO.They are above that, or I think they are anyway!:nervous:
I could be wrong, but at this point, I think we need to hear from them before we can move this issue forward to a final resolution.
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.
That is totally false and not fair to say, Lou and Warren did what they could in the best interest of the whole CAP community and they accomplished more then anyone else has in the past, and I am grateful they at least opened the doors of communication for us. I am still hopeful that these terms can be made NOT retroactive as well.
I am still hopeful that these terms can be made retroactive as well.
I think you mean, NOT Retroactive.:wink-wink
Yeah that is what I meant…lol Been a long day:hattip:
It has been a rather long day!
Get some rest and hopefully we can get more feedback tommorrow!
Ok how does this sound.
1. First I have to ensure they modified the term as promised. Assuming they have we can move to step two.
2. We open their forum so direct discussion can occur and you guys can provide feedback to their team.
3. We make a note in their forum area and within their cerification page which states they do have a minimum activity policy.
4. We continue to work on getting the retroactive aspects of the term cleared up.
Would this work?
If they haven’t made the changes now why will they if certified?Everyone has right to run their business whatever way they wish but I would think they see how serious this clawing back commission is for us.They want to be on CAP to get more affiliates to work with them , we have all said our issues with them and if they wish to have good success here ,they should fix these terms.
I am surprised they would want to invest the money in CAP and then have ‘warnings’ on their forum ,it would make more sense from a financial point of view for them to just drop these terms and come in with a clean slate.If they dropped these terms ,I probably would deal with them but until that time we will never promote them.I can certainly understand casinobonusguy’s position.
It isn’t unreasonable.At the same time, I must admit that I wish this thread were in a PRIVATE forum.
This is a rather sensitive topic, and they may not be comfortable airing it out in public.So let me suggest this, and see if it flies.
Do just like you said there Lou, but open a second forum for them, make it private, and move this thread into that one so it is out of the General Public view.
As a condition of the Certification, they need to discuss this problem with everyone in the Private forum.
IMO, that shows some Good Faith on behalf of CAP and the Members that they want to work thru this problem with them, and it shows Good Faith by BCP and Blasters to work on the problem with us in the Private thread.
How would that be for everyone?
@The_CPA 179471 wrote:
Do just like you said there Lou, but open a second forum for them, make it private, and move this thread into that one so it is out of the General Public view.
I would think that opening up one private forum so we can discuss it first is a good move. If a resolution is reached then open the public forum up.
We should be able to iron this out quickly if both sides are serious about negotiating in good faith and if that is thier goal then we should try it.
I am moving this to the private industry discussion area. Only registered members can view the threads there. The general public cant. Its not a fully private forum but that isnt practical due to the number of members discussing this.
Jeff and Fred have access here via their Casino Blasters membership so they will have access and posting rights for the thread.
Thanks Lou!
Can you direct Fred and Jeff to this thread to address the problem.
I think most of the affiliate concerns are pretty well stated throughout this thread, so the only thing left is to hear from Frederick, and Jeff.
Ok here is their official response. Once they have an open forum here at CAP they may post further clarification.
Quote:An Open Letter to BCP AffiliatesAs many of you are aware, effective June 15th, 2008, BestCasinoPartner.com Terms and Conditions were amended to include: “Any Partner Account that remains inactive for a period of 90 days or longer is subject to closure without any further notice. Any future earnings on these accounts will be forfeited automatically. “Inactive” is defined as no new qualified players delivered within this prescribed period.” Despite having gone to great lengths to express both publicly and privately that this term would only ever be applied “subject to review on a case-by-case basis” and regardless of the fact that, to date, there hasn’t been a single incidence of this term having been applied to any affiliate, this change appears to have become a source of much discussion on the CAP forums. Throughout this time we have maintained a healthy dialogue with both Warren and Lou and we are extremely confident that they understand our point of view and our commitment to fairness in all cases.
Historically we have chosen not to engage in a public debates over company policy, as well as other business related issues. However, in an effort to avoid further miscommunications and shift the focus to where it rightfully belongs, which is generating revenue for everyone, http://www.BestCasinoPartner.com, would like to announce that effective Oct. 1, 2008, “Any Partner Account remaining inactive for a period of 90 days will be adjusted to a revenue percentage of 15 percent. Should this account remain inactive for a further 90 days this percentage will drop to 5 percent. Once an “inactive” account reflects a minimum of one depositing player having been sent the account will be set at a base revenue share of 30 percent. “Inactive” is defined as no new qualified players delivered within this prescribed period.”
Will this apply to someone who has suddenly lost their Google ranking? No. Does this apply to someone who has fallen ill or suffered some other type of life crisis? No. It’s simply not possible to list each and every possible exemption; which is why we clearly stated that such accounts would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Our reason for applying this term is simple. We firmly believe that any true partnership is based on communication. When there is no communication there is no partnership. Granted, we could have quietly shaved accounts like so many other programs do, but we chose instead to put our cards on the table. We understand that not everyone will appreciate our frankness but this is a risk we are prepared to take. There has never been a single incidence of any account being locked over player quotas not being met. Our affiliates have been paid, and will continue to be paid, millions of dollars in revenue every single month. To those who choose not to promote our products in spite of this, we respect your decision and all we ask is to be given the opportunity to establish our own policies and higher industry standard without being subject to unfair and baseless accusations.
We trust that by clarifying our position with regards to inactive accounts and providing further assurances that our affiliates have and will continue to be paid will put this matter to rest so we can all focus our efforts and energies on the business at hand. To that end, we ask that any responses to this announcement be made directly to our affiliate managers so that we may address them on a one-to-one basis. Your understanding and cooperation are, as always, greatly appreciated.
Best CasinoPartner.com
Since I stopped promoting them last year it does not affect me so I respect your decision on how you proceed with this matter Professor since you are basically forced to do under the circumstances.
To those who choose not to promote our products in spite of this, we respect your decision and all we ask is to be given the opportunity to establish our own policies and higher industry standard without being subject to unfair and baseless accusations.
That statement right there does not sit well with me, but it’s not worth my time to worry about BCP.
so for those of us that have had our payments put on hold, does that mean if we havent sent a depositing player that we will be paid the money owed at a lower commission rate (if we are owed $500 we will only be paid $300), or that the money will still be on hold until we send a depositing player.
