- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
As most of you are aware, the ‘Minimum Player Rule’ is considered predatory. This rule was recently added (within the last 10 hours) to the Betsafe terms and conditions.
If you are currently promoting this program, you may want to seriously re-consider until which time they remove this term from their T&C’s. It is only there to confiscate your commissions.
NEW TERM wrote:6.14 Your Betsafe affiliate account must have a minimum of 5 active referred Customers per month before you will be eligible for Referral Commission payment.See all BetSafe Terms Alerts
Hmm. Thanks for the heads up.
Betsafe, why the switch to predatory T&Cs?
I think more affiliates would be interested in your program if the T&Cs didn’t contain that predatory minimum-player clause.
Let’s say you got only 4 big whales/month you are not entitled to a commission ?
Not very attractive T&C’s IMO
I’m glad people look out for these developments. It’s appreciated.
Glad we can be of service
Terms like these are EXACTLY why AffiliateGuardDog.com was created. It is just not worth it for affiliates to promote these organizations and lose their hard earned money.
It’s crazy how Betsafe and others just think we should market their casinos and NOT get paid properly. What can they be thinking??
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to clearify things around this rule we added. The reason why we added it was because we had several affiliates (maily from China) that signed up and reffered themselves (under another name). And players that signed up with “fake” sites just to be accepted. They bet large amounts in our sportsbook on different matches and then layed the bet on Betfair or at other bookies to get 30% surewin from us each month through the affiliate system.
So the reason for this rule was mainly because these players either won from us in the sportsbook or they got 30% off from the affiliate program, which practically meant 30% surewin since they already layed the bet in Betfair or other bookies.
This rule is not meant for real affiliates that actually brings in players.
Allthough I can see that the sound of the rule was not good, and that’s why we have changed it. I can see that kwblue already has posted the new terms on another tread. But here it is again:
6.14 Your Betsafe affiliate account must have a minimum of 5 active referred Customers before you will be eligible for Referral Commission payment. Please note that the sole purpose of this rule is to protect us against arbitrage players taking advantage of our program. Honest affiliates that indeed owns a website and affiliates that gets all or part of their commission from Casino/Poker revenue, should not consider this rule as part of the T&C
Hope this clearify things. This rule is not meant as predatory for real affiliates. If you for example have reffered two high rollers to sportsbook or casino you will of course get paid for it.
If you still see this rule as predatory please give me comments and we will try to go through it again.
Kind Regards,
Rudi,
Betsafe.comThanks, Rudi, for the comments and the followup on the terms and conditions change.
I understand the need to protect the affiliate program from such incredibly unethical persons. It is unfortunate that those few affect the rest of us as they do
The problem here lies more in the wording of the term itself. I believe you would serve the program better by adding a term to the Termination Clause instead which applies to fraud by affiliates. Most affiliate programs protect themselves from this type of affiliate through fraud rules which state that if an affiliate perpetrates fraud for the purpose of gaining affiliate earnings, the affiliate would be immediately terminated and all earnings withheld.
I do not see the purpose of a ‘Minimum Player Rule’. If such an affiliate existed – it shouldn’t matter if they brought in 1 or 10 fraudulent players for the purpose of collusion. That affiliate should still be terminated if found to be guilty of such activities.
Regardless, feel free to contact us at: guarddog (–@– affiliateguarddog –dot– com)
I do not see the purpose of a ‘Minimum Player Rule’. If such an affiliate existed – it shouldn’t matter if they brought in 1 or 10 fraudulent players for the purpose of collusion. That affiliate should still be terminated if found to be guilty of such activities
Exactly.
Minimum player rules are preditory and useless (not attractive : we worry a lot
why join BS if it is still in the TC’s ?)Kick the term out and you are affiliate friendly.
Fraudulent affiliates should be stopped at all times.
Rick
@kwblue 160080 wrote:
I do not see the purpose of a ‘Minimum Player Rule’. If such an affiliate existed – it shouldn’t matter if they brought in 1 or 10 fraudulent players for the purpose of collusion. That affiliate should still be terminated if found to be guilty of such activities.
KW said it.
Obviously fraudulent affs need to be terminated, any decent aff will tell you that this in is our interest as well as yours.
The clause is a legally binding instrument, and any affiliate who promotes you is subject to it.
The promise to enforce it selectively does not help that fact.
