- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
There is nothing wrong with prepaying and it is a serious error to suggest that. There is only bad business practices. Prepaying includes a calculation on both sides that there is a possibility that either side will act dishonorably; or die; or deliver poor performance; or deliver out of the box better performance than anyone would have guessed; etc. These things are part of the calculation in making the deal (unless you are a horrid business person and don’t think any of this is possible).
People can get screwed by post-paying, or pre-paying, or even pay as you go. Non-news flash here: unscrupulous people can figure out a way to be unscrupulous regardless of the payment scenario.
Allegedly bad affiliates should be pointed out with the same criteria that allegedly bad casinos are. But there is a problem here. Posts similar to the first one here could be used as a means of extortion in a business negotiation between parties, particularly if the paper trail is not as clear as it may be here. I would hope people in the future would either name names, or not. These general posts of major problems help no one. Even if it pressures one party to behave in the specific situation, it does nothing to help others in the future avoid the same problem.
==
Mildly off-topic, I’m not understanding how a manager can be personally owed $4000 by an affiliate. Wouldn’t this be a debt owed the casino group?I have gotten screwed myself – twice and one time was badly – and surely we need to watch out for ourselves.
That does not justify crooks. It does not mean they should go on to screw another two or ten or twenty people.
Or should we just say: This industry has no morals and therefor everything goes?
I think it would be good and fair for all involved to have their say, and for everyone to make their own conclusions.
I am surely not talking about any kangaroo court – we have all seen those and want no more of that.
But full disclosure on all sides would be good, and then everyone can make their own private conclusions.
Full disclosure surely wasn’t good for the last affiliate manager who was urged to make the names of people he felt were cheating programs public.
Once he make things public, he was left hanging to dry on his own – and none of the affiliates who urged him to go public came to his defence on any of the threads where it was made public!
No, I don’t believe this is the proper venue. As Lou suggested, a private message to Lou – as the owner of CAP – so that he (Lou) may make a rational decision regarding CAP’s responsibilities, and perhaps private emails to casino affiliate programs are in order.
“Full disclosure surely wasn’t good for the last affiliate manager who was urged to make the names of people he felt were cheating programs public.”
That was the opposite of full disclosure. It was no disclosure at all, exactly the type of irresponsible behavior that should never be done to affiliates or to casinos.
“Once he make things public…”
Absolutely zero was made public, and that was the problem.
This is not Lou’s business, other than he can decide what sort of messages he allows on his message board. Private emails and whispering and lack of responsibility is what this business needs to put an end to. Rational, public presentations of factual evidence, complaints and demands is the direction this industry needs to move in. The hustlers and other irresponsible people should not set the agenda, regardless of what aspect the business they work in.
There is one big difference between then and now – Dean is not an affiliate manager anymore. He doesn’t have to fear repercussions – he is an affiliate himself now.
So there is no one with the power to excert pressure on him the way it happened before.
Beyond that, I have to agree fully with Classics:
The hustlers and other irresponsible people should not set the agenda, regardless of what aspect the business they work in.
Classics wrote:Allegedly bad affiliates should be pointed out with the same criteria that allegedly bad casinos are. But there is a problem here. Posts similar to the first one here could be used as a means of extortion in a business negotiation between parties, particularly if the paper trail is not as clear as it may be here. I would hope people in the future would either name names, or not. These general posts of major problems help no one. Even if it pressures one party to behave in the specific situation, it does nothing to help others in the future avoid the same problem.==
Mildly off-topic, I’m not understanding how a manager can be personally owed $4000 by an affiliate. Wouldn’t this be a debt owed the casino group?it is not really my intent to extort this person or pressure him in to dealing with this as a matter of me posting here. i am sure he will not read this post unless his name or website is mentioned and then he will be informed by someone else here. he is a repected member of the affilaite community he is not an active participant here.
dom in relation to exposure the deal we did was on a CPA basis – so if he did give us more exposure and i didnt see it it is not relevant as i prepaid him on his estimate on what he thought he could send me each week as CPA not exposure.
and classic to answer your question off topic – i was the 50% owner of the phoenician group up until november but decided to wind down some interests and spend more time with my family and on some other projects. any ‘doubtful debts’ we can recover i am still entitled to 50% of , and i still need to help my old partner with some of these debts particularly where i did the deal in the first place and i have all the info.
my post was out of frustration and disappointment it is normally not my style and as mentioned i will try and resolve it privately.
cheers
dean
I think you have every right to vent, just as affiliates vent about programs all the time.
dom in relation to exposure the deal we did was on a CPA basis – so if he did give us more exposure and i didnt see it it is not relevant as i prepaid him on his estimate on what he thought he could send me each week as CPA not exposure.
CPA again….
I don’t do business on that basis precisely because of what can happen. I don’t think it’s that smart to prepay for CPA. Pay for exposure if you like the traffic and need branding, or pay a placement fee if the network is extensive and it takes time to implement you, but always expect your money to be gone if you pay it. The results of placement should be paid for seperately and as they occur.Just my 2 cents on that one.
I can see I will likely be frustrated again as I am so often by this industry. Honesty in business is not the prime objective – yet again – it will be squelched and silenced.
I have a very good idea of who your talking about and if Im right your not alone Dean………
This is a story Ive heard before..Someday this MUST stop… maybe today is that day…
I think you are to nice. It looks like you have to mutch money. I usely go after all people that ows me more than $50.
For $6000 you can by 750 casino related domains and get a lot of typein traffic for a hole year.
Dominique wrote:I can see I will likely be frustrated again as I am so often by this industry. Honesty in business is not the prime objective – yet again – it will be squelched and silenced.As far as outting affiliates goes, I liken it to running a retail store (which was my past life). In a retail store it would go something like this: Pepsi guy pays store owner a bonus upfront to put his product in the best spot. Store owner takes the money, but doesn’t ever seem to get around to fulfilling his part of the bargain and Coca Cola stays in the best spot. Everyone can agree that this store owner is a jerk.
The other store owners hear about it, probably from the pepsi guy. They agree that the other store owner is a jerk.
So what are the other store owners to do? Are they expected to write up a big ad in the local newspaper to say way a jerk this store owner is, therefore preventing pepsi, coke, or Frito Lay from being taken advantage of? Do they plaster the name of the storeowner on all the bullentin boards in town? I can tell you with the upmost certainty that they do not. They mind their own shops and keep their own relationships with the distributors positive. They can’t possibly assume that they have the power to determine or to influence the actions of other store owners.
I know how they are affected. They’re probably going to be receiving fewer offers of such payments because one or two (who knows how many) other store owners aren’t trustworthy in their business dealings.
CAP isn’t an association of store owners, or even a formal association of webmasters. It’s a public message board, open to whomever wishes to post here. I don’t believe that CAP can or should assume it has the mandate to regulate webmasters.
Don’t get me wrong, jerks piss me off. I just don’t see how we can regulate each other, any more than one store can regulate another store. Maybe the GPWA would like to give it a try.
In serious matters the umming and aaghing should be done before one posts.
If one decides to post in the public domain upon a serious matter, one should post the relevant information.
When one posts information in the public domain they should be willing to feild questions on the matter. Especially the difficult questions.
Who has screwed you in your opinion Dean?
If that is unanswerable or not for posting on the CAP forums, the post should not be here, if anywhere atall.
imo.
the mandate to regulate webmasters.
I never said anything of the sort, nor would I. I have seen how that works.
What doesn’t fit the Frito Lay theory is that the little stores don’t publish either when Frito Lay screws them.
We publish that all the time.
Allegedly bad affiliates should be pointed out with the same criteria that allegedly bad casinos are. But there is a problem here. Posts similar to the first one here could be used as a means of extortion in a business negotiation between parties, particularly if the paper trail is not as clear as it may be here.
This works in both directions. Blaming and shaming a program can be used the same way as you point out blaming and shaming affiliates can.
Dominique wrote:What doesn’t fit the Frito Lay theory is that the little stores don’t publish either when Frito Lay screws them.We publish that all the time.
LoL
Well, they don’t publish it, but you can bet your bottom dollar the word gets around – and gets around fast. The grapevine is more complete in the brick and mortar world than even here – believe it or not.
Quote:Posts similar to the first one here could be used as a means of extortionYou hit the nail on the head with that one.
While wanting to regulate ourselves is a noble cause, I personally don’t think it’s an easy thing to accomplish or even possible. And, no, it’s not fair that anyone and their dog can log into a forum and do damange to the reputation of a program or an affiliate. But life isn’t fair. The best programs and affiliates can do is nurture a good reputation for themselves, so that they may withstand any negative comments.
Posts similar to the first one here could be used as a means of extortion
All negative posts about casinos, affiliates or programs, made here or elsewhere by us or programs or on player boards made by players, can and sometimes are used to extort.
That is sad, but true.
So where does that leave us?
