- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hi all,
you’re right Fergie, not appreciated.
the fact remains that what few players we have left willing to jump thru the hoops necessary to play are all that much more reason we as affs are deserving of the deal for which we signed up for.
if not for us …. these programs wouldn’t have what they have. the income is still the same for each player still playing. Had we signed up under the agreement that bundling was acceptable …. we’d be willing to accept the situation and have no reason to bitch about that. However that is not the case.
cutting costs should not fall on the affs.
Now if VA were to come forward and say ….. look we’re in a bind and need to bundle for X amount of months to get some cash flow …. I for one would be very understanding. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Treat us as the partners we are …. and I think the majority will be understanding. Treat us as if we don’t matter and must accept the rules as they’re made up as we go along …. and see where that gets a program.
pretty simple to me.
These are no doubt tough times, but its not just for affiliate programs. It’s all relative, and everyone including affiliates are feeling the burn. These tough times shouldn’t be an excuse to cut corners by affiliate programs. I mean common, 70% of the action isn’t enough, now they have to dip into my measly 30%. They pull this shit because they can, they control the money and can do whatever the hell they want.
I don’t know what situation some of these programs are in financially, or what kind of bath they took from the Neteller situation. But I know these programs and casinos have been making an absolute killing for years. I mean big time bucks, and if they were smart they would pull a small amount out of that room they have filled with cash and keep affiliates paid on time, and also not pull any stunts like changing the terms on us. They are just begging to be dropped. I just don’t have a lot of sympathy for some of these casinos. They are still making a killing, but I guess making $2mil a month instead of their normal $3mil means they have to make up that extra money somewhere. Its that 5 letter word GREED. BTW, I don’t know much about their end of the biz, I pulled those #s out of my ass and I may be way off. But I do know the kind of money I bring in the door as a small affiliate, I can only imagine how well they do.
I just wish some of these owners would realize they will put more coin in their pocket by not cutting corners with us rather than doing so. They are able to see the tangible savings with a stunt like this because they can look at what an affiliate would have made if they didn’t bundle, then what they are making now because they bundle. It is in black n white for them if they put it on paper. What is not black and white is the lost revenue that would have been made by the affiliates that dropped them because we don’t bend over and say “oh, that feels good, give me more”. I wonder when a decision like this is made, what is said in some of these meetings. I would like to know what goes through their mind when they think changing the terms like this is a good business decision. The greed in this business kills me sometimes.
I have tried to be patient and understanding, but I will be cleaning house soon and I have notes on every program I work with and how they handled affiliates during these trying times. Kudos to CWC, Fortune, CPS to name a few for being smart enough to know that getting paid on time is more important now than ever. For the programs that are not keeping affiliates paid on time, changing the terms and lord knows whatever else your doing that we dont know about, your going to drive yourself right into the ground and deservingly so. Use your heads folks, its crunch time and you don’t need to give yourself a permanent blackeye that you may never recover from. Affiliates are part of your team, the lifeblood, your bread n butter, don’t treat us like your doing us a favor because you let us make money for you. Do the right thing programs and I am confident it will pay you back 10 fold.
Poor Henry, I don’t envy his job when he has to pass along this garbage knowing the kind of flack he is gonna get.
bb1webs wrote:…Now if VA were to come forward and say ….. look we’re in a bind and need to bundle for X amount of months to get some cash flow …. I for one would be very understanding. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.Treat us as the partners we are …. and I think the majority will be understanding. Treat us as if we don’t matter and must accept the rules as they’re made up as we go along …. and see where that gets a program.
pretty simple to me.
Spot on bb1. Whilst the decision is disappointing I took more offense to the way it was delivered. A post on their blog saying it would only affect a few affiliates (which according to Henry was based on him looking at the February data, yes only one month for the sample). Whenever I read something like that my first thought is always, “then why do it?” Putting that kind of crap in and expecting me to believe it is insulting my intelligence.
Of course their terms state that they must notify us by email as well but this didn’t happen for a couple of days as I only received mine overnight. Hardly the way to treat partners. And don’t get me started on the new stats fiasco…
Bonusgeek also agree about the cleaning house and remembering who is being stand-up at the moment and who isn’t. Your last sentence is not one I agree with though. If he is passing on decisions then I think a better choice of words and dealing with the fall-out would help him avoid a bit of flack.
This program has under performed for years for us so we have not even bothered promoting them heavy, in fact I think we removed them from the sites if we haven’t we will be now IF they don’t change this bundling terms to retroactive!!
These are trying times for us all but that is no excuse for the programs to be making these new rules, this is happening left and right and we have to stand up and say enough is enough! We are hardly getting paid now as it is by many programs now we have to contend with rules being changed like this as well?
I am keeping notes on all the programs as well, the programs recognizing the affiliates and the value of the affiliates are going to be the programs getting the main exposure on the sites, the others well.. I just can’t be bothered with them anymore they do nothing for me and don’t pay my bills so they can take a hike!
I have above average tolerance for late payments, and a great deal of compassion for the affiliate programs who are trying to make things work despite being caught between decision making on the operator level and anger by the affiliates.
But business is business, and the entire industry is reeling and ailing.
In the end, we all have to base decisions on what is best for us. Only time will tell if the decisions were correct.
When a program decides to enforce terms that will cut affiliate income, the affiliate needs to decide whether it is still profitable to deal with this program, whether adjustments (like promoting only one of their properties) will make it profitable again, or whether another program will yield better results.
These are tough times, and no one can afford to make these decisions based on likes and dislikes, or emotional reactions to the situation.
Only the figures matter now if one wants to stay in the game, and that is the case for the entire industry, including affiliates.
Only the figures matter now if one wants to stay in the game, and that is the case for the entire industry, including affiliates.
BAM! Right there is the botttom line Dom, well said!:clapper:
Fergie wrote:I think we need to take the time to review and understand the impact this is having across the industry as a whole before damning any programs who make changes to cut costs and stay afloat.I totally agree. If VA want to bundle, that is their perogative and we can take what actions we think suit us. That’s our prerogative. It’s better to have VA in existence rather than going under, whereupon we’d potentially lose all our revenues.
That said, if the change is retroactively applied, then it’;s the same old ground – it’s breaking a contract and that’s not right.
But for players acquired following the announcement, that’s fair IMO.
We may not like the changes, but we have to live with it. I’m sure more casinos will make more changes. Some which make sense some which wont.
I’d like to think that a program has made these changes so that can remain profitable and remain operating.
If the group is not profitable, they will go under, and we can say goodbye to a lot of programs. Programs will initially make staff cuts, then as changes continue to happen, they will need to change their business model to stay afloat.
To think that we will continue to make the same amount as in the past, while the casinos take the hit and remain afloat, we’ve got to be kidding ourselves.
We are also in a very liquid market, chanegs are happening often, to put a time frame on when these changes will revert back to before the changes, is operationally flawed. Easier to lose money then to make money.
Hi again all,
while I agree if its not retro ….. its our choice whether to keep promoting them.
I’ll give that.
But I think what is being missed here is the fact that there are numbers involved which over the big spread ….allow a casino to absorb a big winner. people with a small number of players will likely not see any decent income more months than not. OF that, I speak from experience.
all it takes is one winner to say …..take away a grand or two ….. and all your earnings are wiped out. With exception to big affs ….. there is no way our small number of players can help us to absorb the winners.
I think many will change their opinion once they’ve seen what the coming months will bring.
again …. I’m not being hard to get along with; but rather speaking from experience. IF you don’t have the big player base ….. you’re inevitably going to suffer ….and more than just on a rare month.
give us a 50/50 split ….. minus the cost of operations ….. which ain’t much spread over the entire players at said casino …… then divided by the number of players we have ….. and then ask me to absorb the cost of winners and I’m going to be more inclined to see it as a fair deal.
But again speaking from experience …. its damn tough to earn anything with bundling involved for the above reasons.
Time will tell the story. But I point to anyone whose got a decent player base built up at a program that bundles. I bet 3 or 4 times a year I see decent income wiped out. Trust me that hurts.
kar wrote:I’d like to think that a program has made these changes so that can remain profitable and remain operating.
There are alot of ways to cut back on expenses. Biting the hand that feeds you is not one of them.kar wrote:To think that we will continue to make the same amount as in the past, while the casinos take the hit and remain afloat, we’ve got to be kidding ourselves.
.
I don’t know about you, but I am not making the same amount as I have been in the past. Sure, a few are comparable, a few are even better, but all in all I have gone backwards since the bill. So it’s all relative, we are running a business too and have to make the same kind of cutbacks, but I don’t send an email to some of the sites I advertise on asking them to cut my rate so I can remain profitable. It’s like me saying to my sub affiliates, I am not making enough cheese as I want to, so I am going to take another 1% out of your pocket and put it in mine. I also don’t think the extra money they are making from affiliates with bundling is the difference between them making a profit or not. I think it is more of them attempting to keep the big dollars rolling in anyway they can, and if that means if it has to come out of affiliates pockets, so be it.It doesn’t matter what business you are in, when things are not going so hot you immediately ask yourself why, and how can I change it. So now looking at it from a casino owners perspective, the first thing that comes to mind when I ask myself, “How do we bring more dollars in the door?” is we need to grow, we need more players, we need more affiliates, we need more traffic and the list goes on. Instead of cutting affiliates pay, I would probably be raising commissions to get prime exposure which will lead to more players, more commissions, more $$$$$, everyones happy. Sure cutbacks will come to mind, but not with affiliates. We are not an expense you can just cut back, shit we bring the money in. It’s not smart, especially during these times to rock the boat with affiliates. But again I don’t know their end of the business, so I concede that I don’t fully understand their side of things.
Most affiliates I have seen here are extremely compassionate and understanding, and as BB1 pointed out, I think if a program genuinely put some ideas on the table to help them succeed, we would be open to it. But thats a silly thought, its not like we are partners or anything and our goals are one and the same, to make money.
Originally Posted by kar
To think that we will continue to make the same amount as in the past, while the casinos take the hit and remain afloat, we’ve got to be kidding ourselves.Obviously that cannot happen. Affiliates don’t make a set income, they get a percentage. The casinos make less, affiliates make less automatically. It’s not like affiliates continue to make the same when the casinos make less.
I would probably be raising commissions to get prime exposure which will lead to more players, more commissions, more $$$$$, everyones happy.
That has been for instance Casino Reward’s policy, giving a much higher percentage last month as incentive.
But again speaking from experience …. its damn tough to earn anything with bundling involved for the above reasons.
Really, this holds true for every size affiliate. If you have more players, you also have more players that win and you get wiped out no matter what size affiliate you are. In my experience this has wiped out 1/3rd to one half of all income from a group. That’s substantial, but I have seen wipe-outs every other to every third month under such conditions.
That said, if the change is retroactively applied, then it’;s the same old ground – it’s breaking a contract and that’s not right.
But for players acquired following the announcement, that’s fair IMO.
Agreed. It may not be smart, but if it’s not retroactive then no contracts are broken and the program can do as it pleases. Doesn’t mean we have to like it or continue to promote it.
Bonusgeek wrote:These are no doubt tough times, but its not just for affiliate programs. It’s all relative, and everyone including affiliates are feeling the burn. These tough times shouldn’t be an excuse to cut corners by affiliate programs. I mean common, 70% of the action isn’t enough, now they have to dip into my measly 30%. They pull this shit because they can, they control the money and can do whatever the hell they want.Just to pick on this issue …. you’re getting far more than 30% share if you are on a 30% deal that includes no bundling and no negative rolloever … that’s the whole point.
As a European sportsbook affilaite I was amazed to see that you could get – no bundling + no negtive rollover deals on the casino side at all and at 30% is amazing.
You (should) realise this – and you must realise this because you’re complaining about the very real affect of what happens to your bottom line when ALL numbers are collected together … and you are still getting you negatives cancelled.
So that claim that you’re only getting 30% of profits with that previous deal is very bogus … I suspect that if you went over all the reports for the last year that you’ll find you were actually making the lions share of the profit.
=============
As an example – I have a deal with an (unnamed) British bookmaker that used to be at 35% profit share … and they recently moved to 25% w. no negatives and no bundling across casino, poker, sports, games as well.
I snatched that offer out of their hand as quick as I could – because in the past I’d been hit by losing months (about 1 month in 6) that would also take me the next month to work off. So I only got paid for 8 months from 12.
The upshot ?
After nine months their revenue figure is GBP 6,742 …
And I’ve been paid GBP 8,827.64 !!!That’s right at 25% no neg – no bundle – I’m being paid 133% of their total profit … due to the up and down nature of monthly earnings.
Now I know that sportsbooks can be a bit more flightly – a run of favourites winning can hurt sportsbooks – and it’s much more likely than a run of luck on casino games for BIG affiliates.
========
That having been said – I do agree that a unilateral change to contracts is a very bad move – and something that I’d expect our affiliate guard dog (where is KWBlue ?) to have covered to let us know where we stand.
I suspect that the contract actually had that “little” clause tagged to it saying that they reserve the right to do anything they want … so legally we may not have much to go on … but KwBlue will have the facts.
But honestly – 30% – no bundle – no neg – is such a sweet deal … perhaps too sweet to last ?
TheGooner wrote:But honestly – 30% – no bundle – no neg – is such a sweet deal … perhaps too sweet to last ?I don’t agree with bundling and never will. I as an affiliate will not allow myself to be put into a position where my income from 7 properties is negated by one lucky winner at the 8 property. That’s just not real smart on my part for the simple fact that most programs don’t bundle, and I am going with the current market. I think of my traffic like a product I am selling, and it’s silly for me to sell to the bidder who tells me I am going to lose the revenue on all of the products I sold, because one was a loser or malfunctioned.
When I first got in this business, I didn’t even know what bundling meant. Then I learned most programs did not bundle, while a few did. Naturally I chose to work with the casinos that didn’t bundle my earnings. It was a market and I was going to buy into the programs that paid me the most for my efforts. Sure, once in a while the casino will break even on my action for the month because they do not bundle, meaning if I had one big $20K winner, and the rest of my players lost about $20K, then the program broke even one month. They might even take a small loss that month, big deal—thats why they make the big bucks every other month. Point being the once in a blue moon I have a big winner, and it is extremely rare, shit I hardly ever even have a cash out on the casino side of things, I don’t exactly feel bad that the casino did not make money and I did. That’s why they are making 70% every other month while I am only making 30%, yet I am the one who brought the money in the door. Without me they make 70% of ZERO. We all know that there are far more people that cashout in sports betting than in casinos. And if the casinos have a big winner, alot of the times it is on a progressive which the software provider pays anyway, so they really have a pretty sporty deal going. Don’t you ever wonder why there is never any talk about the percentage of money brought into the casino compared to the money going out. I bet it’s less than 5%.
But putting all that crap aside, I look at a lot of things like a simple equation. And the question the program needs to bear in mind, is this “Is this move to bundle affiliate earnings going to be a profit center for us?” I think we can agree that is why they chose to now bundle affiliate earnings, to put more money in their pocket correct? And I am not so sure this will in fact be a profit center for them. Newton told us for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so let’s take a quick look at what the action and reaction is here.
Action = Vegas Affiliates is now bundling earnings for all 8 casino properties
Reaction = Affiliates drop 7 out of their 8 properties as not to put themselves in a situation to lose all earnings from other properties because of one big winner. That’s just the fact of it, this is what affiliates are going to do, there is no question about it.So let’s assume an average affiliate was bringing in 5 new depositors to each of the 8 casinos a month. That’s 40 players a month, and because of the reaction this will have with affiliates, this 40 number will turn into 5 new depositors, 1/8 of the previous amount of players because they are down to promoting only 1 casino instead of all 8. In short, the program just lost 7/8th of their action with affiliates.
So the million dollar question is simple, Is the amount of money saved by this new bundling going to exceed the 7/8th lost revenue from affiliates. Are they willing to trade this bundling move for 1/8th of the previous action? You tell me if that is a good business decision. They can’t bring more players in the door without affiliates, and they picked a hell of a time to give affiliates a reason to get a bad taste I their mouths.
Once in a blue moon there is a big winner, and I feel the guy making 70% every month should eat this loss, instead of taking it all out of my 30% which is exactly what happens when they bundle. Of course, that is assuming that the rest of my players made up for the losses by the big winner, which to me is the most likely scenario, because I bring in more than just a few players a month, and frankly most everyone loses.
Now I know that sportsbooks can be a bit more flightly – a run of favourites winning can hurt sportsbooks – and it’s much more likely than a run of luck on casino games for BIG affiliates.
The financials of sports and casino are not really comparable at all. With sports a winning situation tends to apply across the board and can really strap a book. Whenever your income depends on the success of living beings in high performance situations influenced by many factors beyond your control the outcome is a lot less predictable.
In casinos, winners are a lot more predictable and can be figured into the budget easily. The number of winners per played unit is pretty much predetermined – it’s called payout rate. Additionally, high jackpot wins do not affect the casino per se as the jackpots are paid into with each spin of the wheel and the money is already sitting there waiting to be paid out. It is easy for the casino to factor in the winners. The affiliates however are only affected by a small percentage of this and there is no telling who will be affected how much and when.
Casinos also pay the percentage to affiliates AFTER DEDUCTIONS, such as jackpot fees (in this case the affiliates have already paid their dues for the large win), administrative costs and the like.
Thus, with bundling, the income of an affliate becomes capricious, while the income of the casinos becomes completely even at a much higher ratio, since about one third of the earnings that is the affiliate percentage is not paid out.
The one third is only my personal experience and capricious by nature. Someone more proficient in math than me can go and figure out exactly what this costs affiliates overall, factoring in the payout rate. That will be the figure the casino looks at. For the individual affiliate however the result is periodically catastrophic, since we are not paid on the profitability of the casino but on that of the individual player.
Hey guys,
Sorry for the delayed response.. AGD has not begun tracking Vegas Affiliates as of yet. So – I cannot speak to their Terms and Conditions without proper validation of those terms.
However – I can speak to the issue itself.
Terms and Conditions – Bundling is a BAD thing, IMO, but if you sign up under those terms, then you ACCEPT those terms. When T&C’s change RETROACTIVELY – then it is time for a MASS EXITING of the program. If we allow them to change their terms for ANYTHING, then this is giving them carte blanche to continue changing until we make very little $$$.
Somewhere in this long thread, I heard – We could let them change for a couple of months… NO – We cannot do this. How many times have our government officials given us a temporary TAX only to continue with that tax beyond the time period alloted. Nope – BAD idea.
Vegas Affiliates needs to consider what they are asking of their affiliates – to take on the BURDEN of cost fluctuation. As their profits decrease, our income decreases already. There is no reason they should furthur decrease our profits. Try doing this to a sales organization for a land-based business and see how quickly your ‘products’ move after that.
While VA continues to bundle – I would certainly either 1. Not promote them any longer and let them feel what REAL decreased profits are 2. Promote only 1 of their casinos, that will also hurt their bottom line.
It’s quite disheartening to see VA hurt affiliates like this… The very people who bring them their income. Sad.
