- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
What is there to reasearch about Harrahs – the most famous name in the US gambling?!? Or MGM?
I am not talking about drive-by online casinos here – those you should research, but Harrahs?
C’mon.
This is how the future may look, with legal US gambling (best case): http://www.youbet.com
Thank about it, here is the TV commercial:
Play at our online casino at Caesars dot com
And the wife tells her husband:
a.) Honey, this is where we went last summer. Lets check them out.
or
b.) Honey, this is where we went last summer, lets find an online portal to research them.
Casino’s will not offer comparisons with competitors – they will not offer opinions – their advertising will generate interest – but there is a large LARGE LAARRRRGEE void between interst and a sale there.
Because TV, and magazines are broadcasting (and spots are expensive) they can only hit the highlights – and usually most adverts are no more than BRAND – 90% of TV ads don’t actually inform …
So let the casinos expand the market … but … here is the key question :
(Q) Of the 1,2,3,4,5 or 6 casinos … which is best for you? Or Sally? or Joe?
The adverts don’t say (or they all say that they are) but the public is skeptical of broadcast media …People want to talk and compare and make sure that they’re playing at the best – and not the most hyped … so they’ll do a bit of ONLINE research before they purchase …
:1Dialog:And that’s where affiliates step in …
As for your bread example …
– If you could buy and consume bread online
– If it potentially cost $100 or $500 or $5000 oper night
– If it had a 70%-80% profit margin
– And that the baker was prepared to share that with me …THEN YOU BET I’D BE RUNNING A BREAD COMPARISION SITE !!!
:cheers:Frankly Stupid – you’re just being ….
:crazy:(Apologies for that …. I think we’re gonig to have to agree to disagree here mate)
:woo-hoo:(Apologies for that …. I think we’re gonig to have to agree to disagree here mate)
No offence taken friend.
But you guys on the other side of the ocean (either one) dont realize how things work.
Example with the mortgages – you think that 5 pounds a click is a lot? Do you think that on a $200,000 mortgage $500 commission is good? A $150,000 home loan with the average 9% over 30 years makes over $300,000 in interest alone. Compared to $500 comission – it is just funny.
And following that example – that’s how you’d get $10 for your casino player.
My main fear – I dont trust the government will regulate online gambling in the USA in any way that could be called fair.
You will probably end up with the choice to go to 10 online casinos, five of each owned by one company.
And I dont think affiliate programs will exist – maybe some sort of casino-orbitz – where one company enters a contract to deliver 10,000 players a month, and then that company “passes the savings to us” and making us third tier affiliates with a very small payout.
Or as one pundit answer the question if we should impeach George Bush: “Do you want Dick Cheney to be the president?”
You shouldn’t have brought up banking mate – I can argue untill the cows come home there …
:popcorn:Your calculations are superficial …
A 9% mortgage on $150,000 might generate $300,000 over 30 years – but the banks profit from that is far, far less.
Firstly the bank will probably be paying depositors anywhere between 6% to 7.5% for those funds – giving them a profit of say 200 basis points (2%) and that’s hugely generous.
Throw in running costs and documentation costs (staff, storage, monthly accounts and suchlike) and the real value to the bank is only about $1500 to $2000 per year.
So your $500 fee is a 25% to 33% return on first years profits. Which is not a bad commision rate.
====
So the example was a poor one.
Stupid wrote:My main fear – I dont trust the government will regulate online gambling in the USA in any way that could be called fair.[/B]Now this is a statement I understand … and agree with !!!
:hehe:But in light of the recent WTO decision, and the fact that money does make a market more competitive …. I expect a regulated market to be better than the current black-market funds-banned situation we have.
We have to embrace the competition head on …
And certainly to oppose a legal market is not a good “head-space” to be in …
Or one that existing affilaites should push …
It’s not a defensible posiition IMO.The government wants taxes?
Let’s show them we can generate so much interest and so much tax revenue that their budgetary problems could be solved overnight – if they open it up to FREE trade
:hehe:(You’ve gotta admit an approach like that would at least get a few ears listening)
:1Dialog:I can imagine the marketting right now …
:shhh:UNCLE SAM WANTS YOU … TO PLAY POKER !!
The US defense budget depends on you CALLING THE FLOP …
Have you PLAYED POKER ONLINE THIS WEEK ???!Do YOUR PART and CALL with Big Slick !!
PLAY POKER ONLINE TODAY – AND CONTRIBUTE TOP THE POKER TAX !!
Oh hell – I’ve got hundreds of ideas now …
if the government really wanted to boost revenue … You could actually calculate peoples poker rakes – and they could claim 20% of it as a tax credit as for TAX already paid !!!
Why pay tax the old-fashioned way ?!!!
Take a table at Doyles Room – and PAY TAX while you’re RAKING IT IN.
POKER TAX – YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE !!Poker is America’s game …
Play your part … and pay your tax !!
:rollover:=======================
I think we’ve really got something here …
:notify:I would love you to point me to the US bank that will give me that much on my savings. Right now Bank of America is paying me 0.20% a month and their high yield CDs are 4.5%.
Let’s not forget that the banks also invest themselves in stocks, corporate loans and other short and long term instruments. Either way, bottom line, $300,000 will come out of your pocket within 30 years from the interest alone, and I doubt that my bank will spend more than $10,000 servicing my loan during these years.
Considering that banks are smart enough to offset the interest from the deposits they got to give me the money for the loan (investing in Harrah’s stocks, for example) – it still comes to a good chunck of profit and $500 cannot come close to 1% of it.
And when did this turn into a banking sector discussion? :tounge2:
I dont know, Gooner…If you can sneak an Internet gambling act into a Port Security bill – Can you imagine what can happen with an actual gambling bill?
Do we really want the Congress to tell us how the industry should look? With their “tubes” and “internets”?
90% of those guys dont know Internet if it hit them on the heads – probably thinking it’s some foreign guy trying to sleep with their daughters.
When it comes to a law of this kind – it will be dictated by the lobbists from Harrah’s and they will shape it just right, so they can keep the monopoly…
Stupid wrote:I would love you to point me to the US bank that will give me that much on my savings. Right now Bank of America is paying me 0.20% a month and their high yield CDs are 4.5%.Well you can get 7.35% down here in New Zealand and we’ve got fixed mortgages at 8.50% showing just 115 basis points between the two.
I’m sure you can’t do that in the US right now – but I’m also sure that you aren’t paying 9% for your mortgages either …
:hehe:All of that explains why the NZ$ has jumped from 40 US cents to 70 US cents in the last 18 months.
The $300,000 is true – but once you factor in the cost of the deposits and the fact that Dollars paid in 30 years time (assuming 4% inflation) will be worth only about 1/4 of what they’re worth today it isn’t much of a profit.
A rough calculation is that their profit (after funding) should be about 20% ($60,000) and then adjusted for inflation it is about $20,000 …
(10 years working in the finance industry creating financial transaction systems teaches you a bit about this)
And back to the real discussion …
Quote:I dont know, Gooner…If you can sneak an Internet gambling act into a Port Security bill – Can you imagine what can happen with an actual gambling bill?I guess that I have more faith in the senate to do it properly if it’s the actual focus of the bill – rather than a silly tack-on.
I mean the port security bill DID do a good job of tightening Port Security right? And ensuring Port ownership laws for US entities…
So if they actaully thought about online gamblnig as the MAIN issue – and used appropriate subject matter experts – then who knows – even the senate could get it right …
:woo-hoo:Hi all,
When its legal, so will be advertising. Vegas will easily be able to afford the top spots for ads. While I know there are a few who don’t; I ask you: how often when you do a search trying to find Joes red wagon website; and you see Joesredwagons.com advertised at the top of the page … do you choose to visit one of the natural search results from say .. aboutredwagons.com ?
even the times I have chosen the natural return results when the site I’m seeking is at the top ad spot .. I generally click open the site I am seeking .. and any natural returned results which I think may be beneficial to my cause. In that case: whether the aff site has a link or not: and even if I click it: they aren’t going to get credit because once I opened Joesredwagons.com .. the cookie was set and it’s going to appear I was already there first … thus not giving the aff credit. (correct me if I’m wrong on that).
on a separate note:
there is no way Vegas is going to offer a rev share. On that I stand firm.
there won’t be any vegas casinos offering rev share so none of them will be missing out. Stupid made an excellent point that seems to be passed over. Vegas casinos stick together. the only hope IMHO for any chance of a rev share might be if the Indian casinos see the chance to get in front of the game by offering rev share.
Not likely however you’ll ever see Harrahs, MGM etc ever offer that sort of payment schedule. I truly hope I’m wrong. But that’s not how I’d bet.
Stupid wrote:Do we really want the Congress to tell us how the industry should look? With their “tubes” and “internets”?No Kidding. I cringe every time I hear people screaming for regulation. Government isn’t good at very many things, and this wouldn’t be one of them.
Stupid wrote:When it comes to a law of this kind – it will be dictated by the lobbists from Harrah’s and they will shape it just right, so they can keep the monopoly…You got that right.
But, I’m more with Gooner through most of this conversation. Bb1 is probably right. And nothing regulatory will happen soon. They’ll have to “study” it first… get campaign money from their new buddies… make recommendations… set up a taxing and regulatory authority… etc. They’ll go slow and hope being slow makes them look smart and careful.
Likely, they’ll claim it is illegal to play in casinos in other countries.
darko123 wrote:what do you think is more profitable
spending say $10,000,000 a year on advertising
or
setting up an affiliate program that requires minimal running costs and will collect more players then their $10,000,000 in advertising costs would.
which ever model makes more money for the casino will win !!!
and thats the affiliate model.You are mistaken here my friend,
Which ever model makes more money for the casino will win, is NOT the affiliate model, but is a one timr payment for the player – CPA.
An affiliate model is more costly to the casino, the more a player loses, the more revenue is being taking away by an affiliate. Hence the term, “the casino just took my whale”
A one time cost for the player ensures that all loses are given to the casino.
One of the major reasons why the affiliate model exists, is because its initial cost is cheap to setup, as a small program grows, so does their capital. Also we as affiliates have smartened up and know that for us, revshare is good for us, not CPA, and affiliate programs who want our traffic have to offer a competitve revshare rate.
If Vegas casinos come into the mix, I doubt they will do lucrative revshare, but will focus their marketing budget on advertising, name branding and cpa acquisition of players. All which long term value to their casino, not short term value.
Stupid wrote:My main fear – I dont trust the government will regulate online gambling in the USA in any way that could be called fair.here. here. couldnt agree with you more. our options as affiliates will be fewer, which could mean we really are at the mercy of programs who make it into the market.
