- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hi all,
What’s the concensus regarding “grouping” casinos for affiliate payouts? IE: where one aff program has several casinos but negatives at one affect the others.
When i see this, i just generally pick one casino from the group to promote and fill other spots elsewhere. But am i being naive – is that the right approach? Or does it not make any difference?
I have dropped pretty much all casinos that carry over negatives now but is this effectively the same thing?
Be interested in opinions.
Cheers
Simmo!
My preference is for programs that don’t combine but there are always exceptions. I don’t think you are being naive, just selective, and taking a less risky strategy.
Thanks Jarvi.
Reason i ask is that I see Vegas Partner Lounge are doing this from 1st June too. Presumably this would also affect players that you have already sent and signed up there aswell.
I’ve already just removed all the casinos that don’t zero out each month and now it looks like i’m gonna have to review another group. I can’t see how its in my best interests to send players to one casino that’s potentially going to impact 6 others if they win. It strikes me that it increase my risk factor 6-fold?
Wouldn’t I be better having just one casino from each group that works this way and spread the risk?
Cheers
Simmo!
Simmo, I agree with you.
I have given this some thought, and this is a bad move.
I have just started giving some exposure to VP because some friends have recommended them highly, and I am seeing a response. But I think, like you say, maybe it’s time to pick just one casino to promote from there.
I am going to move this thread to Vegas Partner’s forum so they can respond.
Dominique wrote:Simmo, I agree with you.I have given this some thought, and this is a bad move.
I have just started giving some exposure to VP because some friends have recommended them highly, and I am seeing a response. But I think, like you say, maybe it’s time to pick just one casino to promote from there.
I am going to move this thread to Vegas Partner’s forum so they can respond.
Ok Dominique – thats cool. It’ll be interesting to see if this has benefits for the affiliate that i haven’t spotted. I’d suggest moving it back to the main forum following any response though as this will probably interest affiliates in general.
I’ll hold back on deciding what to do on my sites ’til Tuesday.
Thinking about it i would guess that it probably won’t affect players already sent as this would ruffle a few feathers. Fortune Affiliates, when they recently introduced CPA, ensured previously acquired players remained on Rev Share at the point you switched which was a sensible move.
Cheers
Simmo!
Honestly, I’d like to know how this can be done WITHOUT affecting players already sent… they would have to manage two complete sets of stats, and I highly doubt that will be the case.
Spearmaster wrote:Honestly, I’d like to know how this can be done WITHOUT affecting players already sent… they would have to manage two complete sets of stats, and I highly doubt that will be the case.Fortune Affiliates do it Spear, although their system is obviously one of the more comprehensive ones.
It’s one thing to separate revshare and CPA stats. It’s another thing entirely to separate past players fron new players using two different revshare formulas.
If they can do it while maintaining the ability to show both pre- and post-change stats, fine. If not, then there will be a big problem.
Ironically, my biggest slice of revenue comes from a group that combines the casinos into a group. Had they not done this, I would be making around 3x what I am currently making. So when they ask me why I don’t promote them any more, I simply point to the fact that they are the only remaining program on my list that does this.
Unfortunately, it looks like that list is about to be increased by one – and thus my promotion list will decrease by one.
I’m not saying that I object to this move – however, I run a business – and I have to make decisions which are most beneficial to the business. I will most definitely object, though, if all past players are rolled into the new calculation method.
