- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hello!
Thank you Dominique. My previous posting was in support of Matan’s point of view regarding backgammon in general! I am sorry if it was misinterpreted.
The past affiliate program for play65 did have the same T&C as GE. However, TC Ads is now the official affiliate program for play65. If you visit play65.com you will see under “contact us” that the affiliate link leads directly to us.
I hope that this has cleared matters up and that we can all focus on promoting online backgammon and achieving great results!
Thanks!
Julia
Julia wrote:Hello!The past affiliate program for play65 did have the same T&C as GE. However, TC Ads is now the official affiliate program for play65. If you visit play65.com you will see under “contact us” that the affiliate link leads directly to us.
Julia
I do remember your old T&Cs and our conversations about them and your changes.
I hope Barosh will give it some thought too.
Dominique,
1. Contracts with affiliates are for legal disputes. Unfortunately they’re quite one-sided. Affiliates’ biggest weapon against merchants is legal actions. Therefore merchants must provider an armour. Contracts are NOT necessarily the manifestation of actual T&C and working relationship. If there are clauses in the contract which prevent you from working with us, you can sign a revised version of it and sending it to my email after we both carefully go over it.:fencing:
2. TC.Ads and Barosh Internet are competitors. Therefore, both sides have an interest to promote their brands on the back of the other. This creates a situation where mutual attemps to damage each party’s reptuation can occur frequently. I am trying to avoid this by presenting the business relations behind the InterLogic network of backgammon servers; I cannot stay indifferent to arguments which elegendly put us inferior to TC, because niether party is inferior or subordinate to the other. Insinuating that GE is a “While Label” of Play65 which is owend by TC.Ads is simply not true.InterLogic made a wise decision to take TC.Ads’s reliable affiliate program to handle all incoming applications. However, there are many other affiliates that work with Play65 not through TC.Ads; In other words, TC.Ads is not the exclusive. In any case, I recommend TC as the program of choice to promote Play65.
Eventually, GammonAffiliates or TC.Ads popularity among affiliates will be determined by the program’s reliability and conversion.
Motan,
I don’t really quite understand why we are discussing who are TCAds as the original message was purely agreeing with you regarding the potential of backgammon.
Yes, we are competitors but at the end of the day we are on the same platform and promoting online backgammon. When I stated “It’s really good to see that our white label have joined CAP!” – TC Ads are not play65 but we represent them and we will therefore refer to play65 as us.
I really think that we should go back to the original discussion of this thread which is online backgammon. Poker is a market with huge numbers of competitors and at the end of the day the market is saturated whereas backgammon is still an untapped market which has huge potential and I am purely here on CAP to keep up to date and get involved with discussions and industry news.
Dominique,
Yes, those discussions regarding the terms and conditions we had when I first started at TC Ads were a great help. We made the changes regarding payments and so on and now things are running smoothly.
Julia
affiliate program
play65Julia,
If I’m not mistaken we recently passed the 6000 players online threshold. This is more than the average at Empire Poker and Pacific.Backgammon is growing and so is the player value. I hope that you will also agree with me that it pays off to bring players now, because the earlier you bring them, the longer they last. Players who joined GammonEmpire at the beginning of the year (January – February) are still making hefty commissions today.
Hi Matan,
Yes it is true, we have reached 6000 players playing at peak time which is fantastic! Due to the fact that there are not that many competitors at this point in time the lifetime span of a player is high meaning that affiliates who opt for revenue share deals are able to make high commissions for a long period of time.
The value of a player is 70/80% of the average poker player (I believe) which is great seems that online backgammon is still very young. I think gammonempire/ play65 probably have the best backgammon software so far and will be extremely successful!
Thanks,
Julia
matanoosh wrote:Dominique,
1. Contracts with affiliates are for legal disputes. Unfortunately they’re quite one-sided. Affiliates’ biggest weapon against merchants is legal actions. Therefore merchants must provider an armour. Contracts are NOT necessarily the manifestation of actual T&C and working relationship. If there are clauses in the contract which prevent you from working with us, you can sign a revised version of it and sending it to my email after we both carefully go over it.I already went over this in writing with gammon, before your time, and was told to use the email as my approval for things to be handled the way I suggested.
I have been ready to launch backgammon for some time now, and I have perfectly targeted players for it already. Everything is ready to go live, design, content and all. But after the recent problems with 6 programs and their contracts, I am hesitant to take anyone’s word when they say – if you don’t like these conditions, don’t promote us.
I am still awaiting the removal of the non compete clause. That is just not acceptable in the onling gaming world.
There is no doubt that competition will soon come on board and it probably will provide a better incentive to get the new business. As of now I have no ties to your program Matanoosh and you will loose an opportunity to cement any ties with this clause.
Its your business but if you intend to have affiliates as a strong part of your marketing strategy I would drop the non compete.
Brian
Then I assume you’re not promoting PartyPoker? Because they have exactly the same clauses on the non-compete and ‘search engine’ issues.
What exactly is the problematic clause? Please quote it or give me the clause’s number and I’ll see if there’s a way to change it to accommodate the affiliates’ needs and remove your suspicion.
One more question, don’t think we have covered.
What is the backgammon industry doing against bots? Is this not a more serious problem in comparison to poker bots as they are almost unbeatable.
Bart
Bots pose a problem, indeed. But there are many ways to deal with them. Although none offers a 100% full proof solution, combined together they form a tight barrier for cheaters. Here are some of the ‘weapons’ we have:
1. Fast games – players can choose to play fast games. These have a timeout for each turn which is shorter than the average time it takes to get a bot software’s output as to the correct move.
2. Sophisticated rating system – players who use bots and win a lot get higher ranking and less opportunities to play with weaker players. Furthermore, the ranking formula also contains the stake amount so in order to reduce ranking a player will have to lose as much money as he or she wins.
3. Anti fraud team – Our Customer Care Department has a team whose sole purpose is to detect fraudulent activity in the system. This can be fraudulent deposits (stolen credit cards, multiple accounts etc) but it also covers ranking manipulations and bot usages. Our skilled staff manually analyzes suspicious players’ playing patterns by comparing similarities to bot playing (this is easier in backgammon than poker).
I hope this helps.
I would like to thank Dominique who raised these issues, very insightful for affiliates who are not that experienced
. I dont disagree with not allowing affiliates to compete on PPC terms, this is fair enough, however I think the wording should be revised as you could take it as SEO promotion (organic) and this is impossible to control.As per affiliates’ demands, we made several modifications to our original T & C agreement. Please have look at the following link:
http://www.gammonaffiliates.com/affiliateAgreement.php
-Matt
I not saying that there’s no potential for backgammon but I have a difficult time believing that it’s the next poker. Also the so called player value seems to not match with what programs are willing to pay.
Most of the CPAs I have seen are $20 – $30. If the value of a player is similar to poker than the CPA sould be $75-$150.
Antoine
