- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Dominique said it and she was right. All it will take is one doing it without a large hoopla and the rest will follow. Hey Dom, this is your cue… How many languages can you say “I told you so!” in?
Sue
What a disgusting turn of events, I would hope all webmasters remove all links and banners for the offending casinos immediately and lets have a definiative list of these shoddy casinos, then collectively we can remove/avoid them
Now Roxy Affiliates has done the same thing? Dominoes, anyone?
Okay, so we have Fortune Affiliates, Money Mechanic, Vegas Partner, Roxy, and Party Poker changing their terms and conditions to boost profits. I suppose they are entitled to do this, as long as the changes aren’t retroactive.
Meanwhile, we have Golden Palace tarnishing the industry by buying baby’s names.
Then there’s the rakeback issue.
Combine all of the above with the ongoing problems concerning late payment, unanswered emails, poor conversions, stat tracking problems, issues with software not working on Firefox (due to Active X or something), legal/DOJ issues….
This industry can be overwhelming at times. :dontget:
The month after Amsterdam and every newsletter has something in it about changes to the affiliate program it seems. It will be interesting to see how this pans out for sure.
Dominique nail hit methinks head (re-arrange to make a meaningful sentence).
Slly question though: regards these groups lumping payments together – is a casino not a business in itself? Do say all the VPL casinos share the same bank account, budget and management? Because if they are seperate businesses, then each accounts independently to everyone surely?
This secret meeting in Amsterdam is something I was unaware of and glad I did not know of.
My feeling is that affiliate programs are there to help the affiliates make money and it is only common sense that the affiliate will be putting in greater marketing efforts for the program which does not screw them out of commissions.
I will never work with a program which cuts the affiliates commissions as this is just bad business!
On the other side if all the programs continue to cut affiliates out of commissions it can be only better news for my program http://www.gcmoney.com as affiliates will start to promote GC Money properties more as we have no plans to cut affiliates out of any commissions!
Lol Simon, you are supposed to put the link on the bottom as a signature!
But you are right. It makes sense to only promote one property of a group that pools your earnings/losses.
That opens up a lot of space for smaller programs that will not pool their properties.
hey Folks
this is a very important issue and i think we need a BLACKLIST here regarding the t&c’s.
We started to talk and no actions had been done yet.
If no a blacklist of casinos/poker rooms we need put up something like:
(This list is only a example)
Party Poker – after xx days of innactive player you lose that commission, etc..
Money Mecanic – No Player, no payment … and so goes.
This will helps us all and each webmaster will decide if they’ll promote them or no.
I think we need to wait a few for the new policies to either be confirmed or changed – like Party Poker may explain this differently soon.
A list pointing out tricky T&Cs in detail may indeed become a necessity.
Spearmaster wrote:This is a very easy thing to deal with.Vote with your feet. Promote someone else. And if a Microgaming group decides to renege on something retroactively, contact eCOGRA.
I agree with Spear on this
And will add
Why would I have you on my site if I’m not making money?
BradRoyalVegasPoker wrote:Im also very curious to hear who has been trying to collude.Fortune Affiliates is certainly not part of any cloak and dagger drama.
If you have any info on the industry players, please name and shame !
Thanks
Brad
Consider Fortune Affiliates named.
Lifetime players are meaningless if the rules can be changed in the casinos favor.
figure if they do it to some of their marketing people they’ll do it to the players too eventually.
There lies the big part of the iceberg, hidden below the line of sight, but still it waits….
there really is nothing further need be said, from my point of view. My players come first, because they make it possible for me to do what I do. I cannot send them somewhere that I feel I cannot trust for myself. To do so would be as foolish on my part as it is on the aff programs to openly prove (by their own admittance no less) that they cannot be trusted to keep their word. biz suicide if you ask me.
This is really bad news to me since I had just started to list a few MM properties again in some decent spots, and worse, I apparently just landed a decent sized player at one of the FL properties.
Man I am amazed. They must have had some damn good cocaine at the Amsterdamn meeting because that’s the only thing I know about that can actually sell such an obviously greed-influenced – horrible idea – to a sane man’s mind.
Snifffffff. Hey I got a great idea! Lets piss-off the one reliable, cost-efficent advertising avenue left open to us: OPENLY COMING FORWARD AND PROCLAIMING WE CAN’T BE TRUSTED TO KEEP OUR WORD: for the few extra dollars we’ll be able to skim off the corners. Snifffff. I wonder if this is how George Dubbya started out?
I think this is a difficult situation. On the one hand, i can see why wiping affiliates balances back to zero at the end of the month could mean a situation where the casino has a player who wins overall (loss for the casino over say, 6 months) where in some of those months they had to pay an affiliate when that player was down. This is no doubt what these changes are trying to balance.
On the other hand, if you tell an affiliate that when they bring in a player they get 20% (example) of the players losses for the life of that player, then that is what it should mean. To add the proviso that Player B winning at the casino will negate the profit from Player A is something we are used to already and, because we are told that up front, i think is quite fair.
To add a further proviso that any player at any casino group will affect commission from Player A – well thats up to the casino group, and up to the affiliate to choose whether he/she promotes that group (for me personally it makes sense to represent just one casino from each group thus reducing my risk).
But, as long as all these terms are clear to the affiliate up front, then all’s fair IMHO.
What would be (more than) objectionable, as Spear alludes to, is if the terms are retroactively applied thus meaning your players prior to such a change are affected, thus effectively nullifying the original casino/affiliate agreement.
But we don’t know that yet – its not been made clear and until it does, one can’t really judge the situation IMHO. If it turns out that previous players are exempt then fair play, i respect the casino’s decisions and my decision will probably be to minimise my risk with just one property: i don’t mind that at all. No problem.
If it turns out that it does affect previous players I signed up, then i have a trust issue with that group. If it changes once, it could change again, (and as BBS1 said they could potentially treat players the same way) and i’m not sure i want to take the risk.
However I’d suggest we get some clarification before any rash decsions are made – it may all turn out to be a storm in a teacup.
as an aside…:
In actual fact, the whole way the casino affiliate schemes work is illogical to a degree. If i send a player to a casino, then in theory, the casino should report that player as an individual.
If he wins, then that negative balance should be carried forward indefinately until such a time as he’s in profit and the affiliate should take the rough with the smooth. BUT, that player should not influence or be influenced by any other player at the casino. He stands alone as a seperate entity. That would be the fairest way to do it for everyone IMHO.
Of course the minute you start lumping players together AND carrying forward negative balances then I for one feel a sense of injustice, so negative balance casinos may get some promo from time to time, but the minute i take a big hit, they’re history until i’m positive again.
Wonder how that would work in practice?!
Anyway, cheers
Simmo!
Hi guys,
I think the “blacklist” idea is not a bad one at all. The aff. programs that are doing such things must realise where they are heading and the consequences they will suffer.
Freddy
_________________________
Affiliate Manager
Bingo Program
Bingos.com / Bingos.co.ukfreddypm wrote:Hi guys,I think the “blacklist” idea is not a bad one at all. The aff. programs that are doing such things must realise where they are heading and the consequences they will suffer.
I’d suggest, that if this does go ahead, it only applies to programs whose changes are retroactively applied to players already referred under different terms. After all, it’s reasonable to accept that any business can set their own terms of affiliation, so long as it doesn’t impact the terms of previous affiliate agreements.
Cheers
Simmo!
Yeah.. Maybe it would be enough with a list where affiliate program changes are listed, combined with a listing of affiliate programs that has some kind of tricks in their affiliate agreement. Maybe a blacklist to for those who are really really bad..
