- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have had a relationship of mutual respect and support with Simon spanning many years.
I am very disappointed he would support breaching contract with affiliates.
It seems time made you a bit too jaded, Simon.
It makes me sad.
everybody,
You have all made your point clear and we respect your feedback.
Simon and myself will continue to take good care of all affiliates and again, no true enforcement is intended to those that have been consistent in sending players and promoting our brands in the past and present.
Nothing has changed in the way that we treat our affiliates, and things are set to get better for all. We have always been able to bend rules for affiliates with the best intentions and will continue doing so when applicable.
The term has nothing to do with small checks, I am sorry that was mentioned.
Also, a lot of the grudge held against Simon due to this is out of place as he was not present during the discussions of the new terms and conditions. He is working very closely with me to make the rules more affiliate friendly and also be in the best interest of both the affiliate and the program. For this reason he has decided to hold off on posting.
We both have the same ideas on how to enforce this term, which is why many affiliates have nothing to fear. NO affiliates here have anything to worry about as we value you all in the affiliate gaming sector.
We have been in touch with those affiliates that would be affected by this rule and fully understand the impact. As a result they are all working closely with me on re-activating their efforts, and not worried about this.
Mario, at the risk of repeating what others have said, the problem is that the clause IS in there. If you have no intention of enforcing it then remove it. That’s what is getting us annoyed and potentially reducing the number of affiliates working with you.
There must be some other way of getting non-performing affiliates to start working with you again. Heck, if you get desperate just do what all the other crappy programs do which is tell us to put their banners at the top position on the top page. But, I know you guys are better than that and perhaps that is why we are responding the way we are.
Can you also please clarify the affiliate vs campaign that Dom mentioned a few posts back.
Mario, this isn’t just going to go away.
Did you not pay attention last year?
This is breach of contract, in real life it is criminal.
We cannot let this stand, and all personal concerns about pay or no pay have nothing to do with it. It erodes the little bit of secure legitimacy affiliates have – their contract with the program.
The problem is not about who does and doesn’t get paid for what and when, it is that you breached contract with affiliates.
It will make it’s way into the player boards and the blacklists if it isn’t fixed.
Perhaps you want to ask Referback, Fortune and Vegas Partners why they removed their retroactive clauses?
I also have to say that I have no players with you , but we did put you on a few pages in the last three months. — to be honest — I haven’t checked my stats in three months. but my point is here that having it in your contract is ultimately a tool for one use – extortion later on. we will take your revenue if you don’t get busy.
most of us are in the biz so we dont get poked by people with sticks.
tarzan
Mário wrote:no true enforcement is intendedHorsehockey! Then why is the term in place?
As stated this is clearly a retroactive change to the previously agreed upon terms and conditions. If you wish to enact this term you can only do so from this point forward. It can not affect players referred in the past; if it does you are a crook!
This is breach of contract, in real life it is criminal.
Actually, it wouldn’t be criminal, but it would be a cause for action in a civil suit.
Needless to say, non of us are going to file civil suits over this. We will just go away, and promote other programs. This thread appears to be an effort to prevent that, but the responses so far from VIP are not very encouraging, IMO.The bottom line for me is that it is unethical. You can twist it, and turn all you want, but it is a change that puts the affiliates at risk for their future income.
We all do what we do, with the idea that we are creating something that will feed us for life. We have no benefits, no 401k’s, etc..
We are mere sub contractors trying to build customer bases that will pay us as long it is paying you. Some acounts are small, some are bigger. Many of top earners change from year to year as well. I had places this year that were crap for 5 full years, and this year they finally came to fruition. That happens quite a bit actually.If YOU go to the bank on one of our customers, then so should we. If you want to change the rules from this day forward, and not change the past agreement on the players already in the system, then just say so, and if affiliates don’t like it, they can remove your links.
In other words, don’t try to gloss the change over. Just lay it our there.
For example:
Starting January 1 this is the new deal. Past customers are yours for life as agreed. After that, the new rule applies. You can’t just say we won’t enforce it. As mentioned earlier, if you aren’t going to enforce it, then it should be no big deal to remove it.Pretty simple, IMO.
If you think doing that will cost you too much new business, and exposure to implement this new clause, then perhaps you guys should re-think this rule.
For me it’s just a simple Value for Value relationship. If we send you someone that wagers with you for the next 10 years, then we would like to know that our smaller cut is safe and secure. You can change the future rules if you like, but don’t change the status of the exisiting agreement on present customers. JMO.
Just be sure that you are willing to take the hit if a ton of affilates drop you.
I’m not a big affilate of yours either, but I will respectfully drop VIP if this new rule applies to us.Again, it seems to me you might want to re-think this.
I doubt it will just fade away. JMO.The_CPA wrote:For example:
Starting January 1 this is the new deal. Past customers are yours for life as agreed. After that, the new rule applies.Exactly. Then at least new affiliates can see what they are getting into and can excercise a choice.
I think it’s also worth pointing out that this term wouldn’t work in my scenario: I provide comparison lists of casinos, rather than straight-up promotion on some sites, allowing players to choose casinos based on facts rather than gloss. Consequently I can have a casino who goes 6 months without a player, they change one thing and suddenly they fly. Example: G3 Partner and Intertops – nothing for months yet this month they are 2 of my highest earners.
I couldn’t add casinos with this clause for obvious reasons. And I wouldn’t add them even if they offerred to make me an exception – the “once-bitten” rule. I still harbour reservations over some programs from the way we were treated last year. They all apologised and reverted to the original agreements to be fair, but – and not by design necessarily but sub-consciously – I know they’ve tried it on once so I’m reluctant to restore them all to their former glory in case they try it again.
Same here. I haven´t got you any players but I have you on a few new sites I just started to push. Btw I removed Nine and Vip from the sites. Just in case.
:dozing:Hi folks, I would ask you not to make any decisions quite yet, I have been one of the oldest affs with this group and they have never treated me wrong.
I too am surprised and displeased with these new events and I think this is really just an ill advised move on their part not understanding how we as affiliates feel how bad of a move this is.
They are a great book, pay on time, and if their is a problem they are upfront and honest. In all my years with them they have never done a miscue like this. Lets get back from Thanksgiving and see if we can work this out.
Brian
Please, don’t get me wrong here. I also like these folks.
I’m not much into Sportsbooks, and don’t even plan to expand the books, but I have always felt good about Mario, and Simon.
I might have a hundred players or so. I don’t even know without looking.This isn’t about Mario, or Simon though. It’s about a new clause that puts all of our future commissions in jeopardy.
This rule wasn’t put in place by Mario, or Simon.It simply needs to be clarified as to whether it is retroactive or not.
My sense is that it will not be retroactive, but will apply to future players.
If so, that’s OK, (not that I like it), but at least we all know where we stand, and can stop building on this particular relationship, and find new ones that don’t have this clause.
It’s not personal. That’s just where I’m at on it.
No hard feelings eitherway. Just biz.I have had enough of this conversation.
We are all talking and posting and simply waiting for Mario or Simon to change their mind/terms, but they have made it clear they have no intention of changing the new wording so lets just get to blacklisting them.
When I got the mass email that was sent a couple days ago it was adding insult to injury. If terms and conditions are not applied to affiliates who already signed up, then we should have no reason to ‘read the new terms and conditions’ that they insisted for us to read because they shouldn’t apply to us. The fact that they pointed out to read their new terms and conditions just goes to show it does apply to ALL affiliates.
We are all worried about the after-effect of whether the casinos/sportsbooks/poker rooms we used to promote will still be around, now we have to worry that we will lose income from an affiliate site that actually is still around. This is absurd and I am done. No more VIP brands for me from now on. CAP is the affiliate watchdog of the industry and whether we like or dislike Mario and Simon or what they have done for us in the past should have no bearing on what has happened now.
Last year Referback decided to change a clause in the aff contract.
It set an avalanche in motion. Soon Wagerjunction, Money Mechanics, Fortune and Vegas Partners did the same. The programs figured that contracts with affiliates need not be honored, and they can just do whatever they like, pay us, not pay us, pay us if we do certain things and so on.
It caused an outcry, and Money Mechanics kept the clause but made it only applicable to new affiliates, leaving the existing contracts intact.
The others programs stuck to their guns. Affiliates started blacklisting and taking the issue to the player boards. Next Wager Junction came around. It took months for the other three to feel the pain and change these clauses.
I never had any problem with any of the above programs before the breach of contract, and I don’t now. Like these programs, Simon has always run a clean ship. That doesn’t mean VIP can set a precedent now that puts our industry in chaos. We got enough to worry about without chasing after all kinds of programs breaking contracts.
Mario, Simon, get this fixed and make it applicable only to new affiliates signing up going forward, and everyone can go back to business as usual.
This is not personal, and it is not about VIP Profits. It is about a clean industry where a hand shake is a hand shake and a contract is a contract.
>>make it applicable only to new affiliates
means no new affiliates will like it and join,
unless they don’t read the terms carefully before sign up,
the terms are not fairi would say remove the terms,
no matter new or current affiliatesDominique wrote:It took months for the other three to feel the pain and change these clauses.Yes, but back then American affiliates had huge clout. Now I am wondering if these programs would really care at all about us or our traffic… considering they are already “feeling the pain” from the new law.
Think about it: If we all were to blacklist a program and stop sending traffic (which we all know not every affiliate would do) they may believe that — in the long run — they would still come out on top.
If traffic from affiliates is already down 70-80%, what real difference would it make if it was down 90%? Then, once things settled down and the industry rebounds, the old faithful affiliates who accepted the changes — plus any new affiliates they’ve acquired — could rebuild their traffic bases with a more advantageous contract for the program.
I’m not saying that’s what’s going on here… I’m just trying to think like a program might think.
===============================================
Vrindavan wrote:…means no new affiliates will like it and join…Unless they… as so many new affiliates do… don’t take the time to read the T&C
