- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The logic behind this I still don’t get. You have someone who is looking at a way to save a bunch of money which in theory should be making the company more profitable but it comes at someone else’s expense. Well that comes at the cost of pissing off affiliates who sent you the players in the first place. Well $XXX has been saved but don’t people understand that they will lose more from yanked banners? I honestly bet this costs the company more than they save …
this is reason why someone may not reach $50 payout balance
I contacted them and got the reason for this new term in detail. I sent kwblue a PM about this.
Rick
cannot post it out ?
ofcourse i could do that but I would like to hand it over to kwblue to avoid misunderstandings. Second it is a personal mail so I think if Kwblue picks the highlights and gives his opinion about the CB’s response it is just fine.
Personally I am not worried that much about the new term.
:hattip:
Sorry for the delay, guys, had baby-duty last night
The overall concept of what CasinoBlasters’ thought process is concerning this term is as follows:
The accounts in question are accounts which haven’t had activity in closer to 2 years, have inaccurate contact details (leaving it impossible to contact the affiliate), and most of them have monies less than $0.10 in the account balance. Essentially, they are neglected accounts.
CB states that any affiliate who comes back to the program would have their funds auto-reinstated.
NOW – AGD Thoughts… By removing the funds from the account, the affiliate will likely not even know they were there in the first place. We would have to audit their ‘auto-reinstatement’ feature to feel confident this will actually be the case. Our belief is that they will re-instate the funds if the affiliate asks them to (again, if the affiliate doesn’t know (s)he was ever owed monies, the affiliate won’t know to ask).
Further AGD Thoughts… There is really never a reason to remove funds from an affiliate account. If they wish to optimize the database, they can create a filter for inactive accounts. If they wish to show greater profit to investors, they simply need to exclude payments not paid from their ledger. The only reason (still) that I can come up with is true confiscation of earnings.
While this does not affect most of us, those that it does affect will be mostly clueless to the stolen funds. It seems a rule that will do more damage to CB than good
I have less than $50 in casinoblasters and don’t promote it because it bans Chinese and Canadians.
From the looks of this term, it appears that your $50 is now THEIR $50.
>> the affiliate will likely not even know they were there in the first place.
unless they send you a email every time they clean up your less than $50 balance from your account
plus, better tell you exactly how much money they taken away as well
otherwise, you cannot do a record keeping for future
