New Terms and Conditions

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 45 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #609514
    rasierllc
    Member

    Jeff called early this morning to talk about this. We kept everything on a positive note, and would like it to remain that way so that we can get something done about this if it is at all possible. A final decision will be made by the group most likely tomorrow evening / afternoon. That should make everyone happy that at least they will not have to wait forever to hear the final decisions, so that you may then make yours.

    We were asked for some input and opinions on this T&C change that they MAY consider when making the final decision. Jeff stressed that I stress that no promises are being made. (clearly)

    There are a few main points that Blasters made (and I hope I say them right since they don’t post here) about why they made the T&C change.

    Quote:
    1. they have a large problem each month with accounting because there are literally thousands of affiliates with incorrect payment details and contact details.

    2. they feel that as partners, we should send them some traffic. or are we really partners?

    3. they have stated in the T&Cs that they may change the T&Cs without notice at anytime they feel is necessary.

    So how can we convince them to phrase the terms and conditions in a way which are not deemed predatory?

    Let’s be nice and get something done. I’d prefer not to be the only one dealing with this, so please people, weigh in. In fact I am sick and not feeling so great, so this is taking a toll on me.

    To me, it seems that these are separate issues that are being smashed into one T&C making it kind of hard to deal with.

    –> on the bad contact / payment information: folks, we cannot expect to be paid if that information is incorrect or missing, right? can we have some agreement there?

    –> C.B. can easily deal with this part of the problem by making a list of accounts that have this problem and freeze them until the affiliate contacts them…. am I overlooking something here? then they never make it to accounting to become a hassle until the account is “un-frozen” when the affiliate finally makes contact. Sick or not, they can’t get us our money if the contact details are wrong / missing.



    Okay, that said, this is the one part that really hurts, right?

    –> the affiliate must send a player within 90 days issue (case-by-case, they’d like to stress)

    I had a hard time finding the justification in this because we are promised our players for life. If they don’t want to pay us for life, why then is that advertised on the websites home page?

    I was promised players for life. As long as my details are correct, I expect to be paid. I have a hard time finding a way around this. To me this is what makes this term predatory.

    IF this term was not applied retro-actively, I think that I could submit a little here. The home page needs to stop making the false claim, and explicitly say the truth. That way a little affiliate doesn’t get swooped into the program on false premises. When I first started in the industry, I had a hard time getting players.

    I’d like to hear from AGD on this. I don’t think that term would be considered predatory if mentioned up-front. Maybe not desirable, but certainly not predatory.

    Please weigh in folks.

    I’d personally like KWBlue and AGD to take over at this point and craft the letter to Jeff. I think he would be the most objective person to do this and would look out for everyone’s best interests.

    – Bernie

    #769704
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    Quote:
    –> on the bad contact / payment information: folks, we cannot expect to be paid if that information is incorrect or missing, right? can we have some agreement there?

    I agree, if the contact information is incorrect and Casino Blasters or Best Casino Partner have tried to get in touch with the affiliate – the affiliate program may lock the account (not take the commissions). If, for some reason, the affiliate never contacts them – I guess they win. Realize, though, that they win regardless (they get to collect intereste every month on balances they do not pay out). Once the affiliate returns, he/she should be able to collect commissions (otherwise, it would be stealing would it not?)

    Quote:
    C.B. can easily deal with this part of the problem by making a list of accounts that have this problem and freeze them until the affiliate contacts them…. am I overlooking something here? then they never make it to accounting to become a hassle until the account is “un-frozen” when the affiliate finally makes contact. Sick or not, they can’t get us our money if the contact details are wrong / missing.

    Absolutely. Freezing the accounts is simple. Lock them and don’t pay out. This is easy on the accounts receivable / payable end as well as taxes. Nothing earth shattering here.

    Quote:
    –> the affiliate must send a player within 90 days issue (case-by-case, they’d like to stress)

    If BCP/CB are going to put this term into their Terms and Conditions, they will have to be marked as a predatory program. This term is a way to steal commissions from affiliates who have worked very hard to get those players over to their casinos. In many cases (especially early on for new affiliates) it can take a year and a lot of $0 revenue to build up websites in order to gain traffic for these programs. If the program is going to stop paying out for players ‘for life’, then there are many other programs to promote. Why promote them if they try this?

    It is VERY easy to lose graces with the Search Engines, get sick for months on end, or any number of other reasons to stop promotion of a casino brand. That is not a reason to renig on a contract.

    Quote:
    IF this term was not applied retro-actively, I think that I could submit a little here. The home page needs to stop making the false claim, and explicitly say the truth. That way a little affiliate doesn’t get swooped into the program on false premises. When I first started in the industry, I had a hard time getting players.

    A contract is a contract. It really doesn’t matter that they have a term that says ‘we can change this at any time’. The contract you sign is the one which governs your wages earned. If BCP/Casino Blasters wants to remove earnings from past affiliates, then we need to gather all affiliates who will be affected and look for council.

    Quote:
    I’d like to hear from AGD on this. I don’t think that term would be considered predatory if mentioned up-front. Maybe not desirable, but certainly not predatory.

    We believe that the term is predatory even in it’s infancy. It is a way of taking commissions away from a hard-working affiliate. If we allow such a condition to exist, then why would we work in this industry. Residual income is what this industry is about. We do not have 401k’s, Insurance, or all the other benefits of a typical job unless we pay for them and many of these residuals go towards these items along with the feeding of our families.

    Think about it CB/BCP – Let’s resolve this and keep your programs affiliate-friendly :) We all want that.

    #769706
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I have a couple of comments here.

    1. IMO, if the affiliate cannot be reached for a given period of time, accounts could be frozen like mentioned above. This will help with the monthly processing costs that are tied to each attempted payment. Tracking of earnings can continue. Maybe someone got run over by a truck and is hospitalized for a long time or something.

    2. This is an older program with hundreds of defunct accounts. I can understand that there needs to be a cut off date. They can’t be expected to hold unclaimed funds for 30 years, they are not a bank.

    3.

    the affiliate must send a player within 90 days

    This is the point of contention. Actually, I fall into that category. :tongue: I understand that this is to be applied case by case, but it still contradicts the life-long player” part of the contract.

    This is not the first time where we deal with this clause, nor will it be the last. It is true that Blasters has always treated affiliates fairly and they have a good track record. Personally, I trust them.

    But, affiliate industry standards do not allow this clause because it undermines the very basis we use to create an existance for ourselves – the player base. We all work towards creating a healthy player base. Take that away and the income is too sporadic to support any full time effort. If every program sported this clause, the affiliate industry would be effectively cut off at the knees and all you would have left is fly by night affiliates and spammers.

    Now, again, I do trust Blasters to handle this responsibly, even if they kept the clause. But, if I accept it from them, I have to accept it from everyone and that would be disastrous.

    Blasters would like to work with us to phrase the T&Cs in a way that is acceptable to us. So let’s try to come up with some suggestions.

    #769709
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I agree with the posts above.

    Last week I was thinking about adding Golden Casino to my sites again, but if I’m not going to earn lifetime residual income from my players, it makes better sense financially to send my players elsewhere.

    Minimum referral clauses are predatory, and I don’t work with programs that have those kinds of clauses in their T&Cs. Furthermore, I think it is extremely predatory to retroactively implement a minimum player rule. I hope that is not what CB/BCP are planning to do here.

    CB/BCP, please make your T&Cs 100% affiliate friendly, and deal with the problematic affiliates on an individual basis. If their payment information is out of date, then don’t pay them. It seems simple enough. Please don’t punish those affiliates who have kept their details current, who spent years building up a player base with your casinos. You promised your affiliates lifetime residual income, and some people really depend on this money to survive and pay their bills. Please do the right thing and honor the agreements you made with your affiliates in the past. I don’t think you should close anyone’s account just because there aren’t any “new” players being sent. If the old players are still depositing, you should pay the affiliate his cut.

    #769710
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    @Dominique 164846 wrote:

    I have a couple of comments here.

    1. IMO, if the affiliate cannot be reached for a given period of time, accounts could be frozen like mentioned above. This will help with the monthly processing costs that are tied to each attempted payment. Tracking of earnings can continue. Maybe someone got run over by a truck and is hospitalized for a long time or something.
    [/quote]

    Yes, exactly what I was thinking.

    @Dominique 164846 wrote:

    2. This is an older program with hundreds of defunct accounts. I can understand that there needs to be a cut off date. They can’t be expected to hold unclaimed funds for 30 years, they are not a bank.
    [/quote]

    Understandable. This cannot be a 90 day thing.

    @Dominique 164846 wrote:

    This is not the first time where we deal with this clause, nor will it be the last. It is true that Blasters has always treated affiliates fairly and they have a good track record. Personally, I trust them.
    [/quote]

    We have seen this numerous times, but in each case the affiliate program has seen the error of it’s ways and has reversed the term. I trust CB & BCP today, but if they changeup AM’s they could take that clause and steal a LOT of money from affiliates. It all depends upon who is enforcing the ‘law’.

    @Dominique 164846 wrote:

    But, affiliate industry standards do not allow this clause because it undermines the very basis we use to create an existance for ourselves – the player base. We all work towards creating a healthy player base. Take that away and the income is too sporadic to support any full time effort. If every program sported this clause, the affiliate industry would be effectively cut off at the knees and all you would have left is fly by night affiliates and spammers.[/quote]

    Great point. This is what I was thinking, but is worded much better :) Thanks Dom.

    @Dominique 164846 wrote:

    Now, again, I do trust Blasters to handle this responsibly, even if they kept the clause. But, if I accept it from them, I have to accept it from everyone and that would be disastrous.[/quote]

    I do not believe many affiliates would accept this term. Why continue to promote them with this when other programs really do know what ‘life of the player’ means?

    @Dominique 164846 wrote:

    Blasters would like to work with us to phrase the T&Cs in a way that is acceptable to us. So let’s try to come up with some suggestions.

    Personally, I believe they should remove the term all-together. We should not be here to continually re-write their terms. We (as AGD) will help in any way we can, but re-writing for a program isn’t something we are equipped to handle.

    If they want to ensure they are not ‘becoming a bank’ (which I know is not the real reason behind this)…. Then lock down the affiliate accounts for a period of 1 year. Try like hell to contact the affiliate (This better be documented somehow or it will be abused) and if at the end of the 1 year time they do not claim their funds, terminate the account.

    That’s just a guess… but it’s all I’ve got. I have claimed moneys owed me from more than a years past, so I still think it is wrong, but I guess something has to give.

    As far as accounts with no new players for 90 days… That is plain wrong, IMO. Most newbies can’t even cover that spread.

    #769772
    stevej
    Member

    It seems like the points are in order and there is just not much room (or any room) for compromise on the one issue that is actually addressed in the T&C.

    KW is right – it’s not really his job or the scope of AGD to help these guys write their T&Cs. In fact, the best way to write this, is to NOT write it at all.

    So do we even have to write a letter? Jeff does read this or not visit at all, I forget… are we just at the part where we wait to see what happens with our fingers crossed?

    #769776
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I have been involved in discussing this at a few other forums, and the general consensus is similar to many of the points brought up here.

    Sadly, I think in some cases some affiliates may react hastily and remove links instead of first trying to work more directly with them for a resolve.

    I personally do not WANT to remove links to Blaster properties or Best Casino properties, but if the terms stand as they are I may have no choice.

    I too agree that when the law hit they went way out of their way to try and protect our players and help us protect our incomes. I believe that since the complete pullout of the US that the Blaster group is feeling the pinch of the reduced revenues and they are trying to insure that affiliates don’t just drop them.

    It is my hope now that we can all collectively work together for a solution.

    Rick
    Universal4

    #769793
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I have a hard time digesting that the 1000’s of incorrect addresses are the reason for the 4 players per year terms change.

    You could actually send 3 players in a year, and lose everything you invested over the years.

    It’s wrong. It needs to be rescinded, ASAP, IMO.

    If a program wants, or feels they need to make a change, they can always do that going forward, but should never breech exsiting agreements.

    I also think they need to realize that Vegas Technology software does not convert like Playtech did for new U.S. player sign ups, IMO.
    It never has.

    The fact that people are making money from their old Playtech downlines is proof of that.

    Also, many people were targeted on U.S. Traffic, and it’s not easy to realign that.
    It takes a LONG time.
    Therefore, it’s also harder for many of us to convert at Casino Blasters now which is why they are down for many of us.

    This is a double edge sword that is not necessarily the fault of the affiliate, but rather the decision of Playtech to leave the U.S..

    If Golden isn’t producing well for them, then perhaps they need to look at changing their Platform instead of the Affiliate terms!

    They might also examine their own procedures to see if they can do a better job of converting the traffic they are getting.

    When other platforms are converting, and another one doesn’t, it does affect the amount of traffic that webmasters can afford to send.

    In closing, I honestly feel this mainly about paying the downlines that we all worked hard to establish for ourselves.

    In what is already a difficult time for many U.S. webmasters, we need our partners to be more understanding, not less.

    Times will change, and when they do, we will ALL want, and need this important relationship to Casino Blasters and BCP to be intact!

    #769798
    vladcizsol
    Member

    I find minimum player requirements on net rev affiliates offensive. It is predatory if you forfeit all earnings or your account is closed. It certainly should not be retroactive for existing affiliates. Let me get to work on this guys and see if we cant find a more equitable solution.

    #769863
    vladcizsol
    Member

    Ok guys I heard back from Casino Blasters senior management and we are going to work together to resolve this. We are scheduled to get started early next week. Sorry for the delay, but here is a portion of what I was told:

    Quote:
    I know the T&C are something we need to discuss; please give me a few days as we are working on some issues internally and I’ll call you guys early next week to have an in depth discussion about the changes.

    I believe they sincerely want to adjust the T&Cs so they aren’t predatory.

    I just wanted to keep you guys in the loop.

    #770268
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Well…My account’s got frozen 2 weeks ago. Lisa told me that becuse of inactivity. sure enough, they didn’t convert for over a year, despite the fact that I sent them around 200 visitors per month.
    Today I received an email from Evano, claiming he tried to call me unsuccessfully. He stated my phone# … which was correct. He said he was to discuss important information on how to increase the revenue I generated for myself with Casino Blasters?????
    I’d consider it scare tactics, similar to CPays conduct. First…freeze your account then call you to put them up everywhere…

    #770269
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Thanks for the info, Led. That is crazy.

    200 visitors a month should convert to at least 1 new player per month. For them to lock your account due to “inactivity” is just plain wrong. What a joke.

    BCP and Blasters — what are you thinking?? We can send traffic, but if you can’t convert the traffic (with nice landing pages, bonuses, or whatever), then what are we supposed to do?

    It isn’t entirely up to the affiliate to generate new depositors. The casino needs to do some of the work as well. Good landing pages, bonus offers, retention — all of that is out of our control.

    I’m this close to blacklisting BCP and Blasters based on Led’s post alone. Led sent traffic in good faith, and now his account is locked. Absolutely outrageous.

    I’m going to check my sites right now to make sure I am not sending any traffic whatsoever to Best Casino Partner or Casino Blasters. :angry:

    #770270
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    This is beginning to get ridiculous.

    I was told that I would hear from both BCP and CB this week and now this??? What’s going on Jeff / Allan? Please contact me ASAP.

    #770272
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Well…they had very good conversion prior UIGEA and I liked the fact they never called and nagged for for more traffic. In those days I’ve sent them 4-5 hundred clicks per month. Actually I didn’t supposed to have that high clickthrough. I’ve reduced they presence on my sites after UIGEA. Only kept GP and mostly on European traffic sites. I was always supprised when sometimes checked the stats that still sending that many visitors. Probabily cashed pages on site search…? Well…traffic is traffic….intentional or not…

    #770511
    stevej
    Member

    Professor – any updates on this? or at least a time-frame?

    Thanks for your help with this!

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 45 total)