- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Joeyl I tend to agree with the part about it being an ill advised term. I much prefer the original terms and conditions.
If I were a new affiliate deciding on who to promote I would definately steer clear of any programs who had such a clause in place.
Perhaps in the future we can persuade VIP Profits to drop this clause all together, I think it would be beneficial for all if they did so.
Okay it makes more sense to me now that the Professor has explained it in different terms, but I am with others and still think this is just plain wrong and I really hope other programs do not start adding these predatory terms because I for one am not impressed with VIP any longer.
Yep, all well presented Lou. I agree on all fronts.
Thanks for going to bat to keep the past players in tact.Joeyl, it’s not unworkable for many people, but it’s the new webmasters and smaller ones that always concern me on these changes.
This business is a lot like baseball.
You need 9 on the field, 9 on the bench, and 9 in spring training.If I were a new affiliate deciding on who to promote I would definately steer clear of any programs who had such a clause in place.
Agreed.
This type of rule sort of eliminates the 9 in spring training, and some of those on the bench. It lacks logical foresight, IMO. :tooconfusThanks Mario, Simon for at least listening and Professor for trying to get the best solution, even if it wasn’t 100% successful. There are some programs I will continue to work with because of the people who work there and VIP Profits is one of them. Sure, their terms aren’t fabulous but when comparing to other programs, many of which have crap terms, then VIP Profits will always come out ahead.
I like others here are putting our faith in this program and I hope the decision makers at VIP Profits understand that and show a bit more support in the future. As Professor said, rewarding good performance is more motivating than penalising mediocre performance.
i just signed up with Vipprofits…….
no players yet……guess what i will do….:kissass:
still wanna have a bear with Simon :cheers:
:yang2:
It’s good to see that they ditched the retroactive bit. Whether its VIP or anyone else, you need to be able to trust your partners to keep an agreement in any business.
Unless a casino is on MG or Crypto (both of whose licencees are assessed & well policed by the software vendors), I don’t generally put a new casino into my sites until at least a year has passed so I can see how the casino and affiliate program adapt and perform and am able to assess the reputation they have built. These sorts of rule changes are a case in point – new programs are always learning and, quite rightly, changing things to survive/remain competitive and are quite within their rights to introduce new (non-retroactive!) rules as they see fit obviously.
But this is business for me too, and this clause forces me to promote a specific partner forever, or lose any earnings as a result, or at best accept a “handshake” agreement that it won’t happen to me. It’s just not an attractive offer when I can send the same player to somewhere that guarantees lifetime and hasn’t given me cause to suspect that they would change terms retroactively in the future. At the end of the day, if I find a customer for a casino, I can’t see how it is fair that the casino can cut me out of the deal later.
It’s nothing personal Mario/Simon, purely business, but I hope adding my opinion to others will go some way to making you rethink the rule some day.
Cheers,
Simmo!
It seems to just be a bad move to me… Here is how it breaks down to affiliates…
– If you are new to VIP Profits, what is the point in signing up if VIP reserves the right to confiscate your players when you don’t perform?
– If you signed up under the new terms…. What is the point in sending NEW players when they could be confiscated?
Seems to me that you are cutting off your foot. Good luck standing.
kwblue wrote:– If you signed up under the new terms…. What is the point in sending NEW players when they could be confiscated?You mean:
If you signed up under the old terms…. What is the point in sending NEW players when they could be confiscated?You mean:
If you sign up under any of these terms…. What is the point in sending any new players unless you are immortal..Dominique wrote:You mean:
If you signed up under the old terms…. What is the point in sending NEW players when they could be confiscated?No – I meant exactly what I said….
It sounds to me like ALL NEW PLAYERS that you gain will go under the new terms, correct? This means that if you send new players and then you don’t send any for a while, those players will be forfeited (unless you start promoting again).
No thanks.
You might as well let the retroactive work for you and forget about sending any new players. You are much safer that way – send the traffic to a program where lifetime player revenues mean just that…. lifetime.
VIP,
Thanks for clarifying your T&Cs.
The minimum referral clause is still a deal breaker for me, though.
I’ll definitely mention this to all of my clients using them (or thinking about it).
Hi all,
how laughable!
and KW: you’re stealing (ok, pun intended) the words right out of my mouth
It seems to just be a bad move to me… Here is how it breaks down to affiliates…
– If you are new to VIP Profits, what is the point in signing up if VIP reserves the right to confiscate your players when you don’t perform?
– If you signed up under the new terms…. What is the point in sending NEW players when they could be confiscated?
Seems to me that you are cutting off your foot. Good luck standing.
So lets see if I’ve got this straight?
you want to keep new players coming in by threatening your long-time partners with a new set of terms which almost guarantee they will choose to STOP sending players rather than have them fall under the new terms set forth … thus in essence you’re achieving what you were most trying to avoid?
whatever rocket scientist’s idea this was … did he used to work for Coke by chance?… and his last great idea was to replace the most popular drink in the world with a new and “better” version?
I think the rationale here is that it costs money to carry small affiliates.
Some payments cost as much to process as they are worth, leaving little or no profit for the program.
So by refusing to pay these monies earned, the program makes a last attempt to push the small affiliate into producing more. If s/he doesn’t perform, or isn’t able to perform, s/he is dropped and the monies remain confiscated.
Theoretically, the program ends up ahead because not only do they not carry the cost of supporting a small affiliate, they get to keep the monies earned and all future proceeds – for free.
Not only that, but newbies are often the most pesky affiliates, full of questions and conspiracy theories. Dealing with these things is time consuming, but in this industry, it’s part of the cost of doing business. Much of this can be aleviated by dealing with things openly in the forum, for every one problem you solve publicly you avoid ten of the same cropping up.
While confiscating earnings may seem profitable, it’s a flawed theory for several reasons.
Firstly, it doesn’t take branding into account. There are hundreds of small affiliates making little or no money who nevertheless contribute to branding of the properties. The number of views per site may not be that high, but if you add all these sites up, it’s sizeable. Getting your brand seen is valuable, very valuable, whether the view produces an immediate player or not. Exposure creates recognition and trust, two very valuable items. Most businesses would kill for such free exposure.
Secondly, now you have permanently pissed off a small affiliate. Look around – many of the affiliates who were big a few years ago are not around anymore, the majority of players now comes from affiliates who were too small to compete then. Do you think the scorned affiliate whose earnings were confiscated will promote you when s/he becomes successful? I don’t think so.
Thirdly, you are pissing off producing affiliates who, for one reason or another, are not ready to give you good exposure now. Maybe they have all the good spots filled with well producing properties. When a new spot opens up, do you think they will place a property that confiscated monies earned from them previously? Dream on! Even if you carefully avoid confiscating monies from this category, do you really think they will ever trust you? They would be fools to do so.
Fourthly, a lot of serious affiliates are in it for the long term. Like in any other job, they work for stability and continued reward. The policy of refusing payments owed for delivered players prevents people from selling their site and holding on the accounts in order to continue to get paid for the work they did all the previous years. This option is now mute, and in this business, there is no other way of retirement available at all. That makes this program totally undesireable for any affiliates who want to pursue this as a profession.
It is a short sighted policy everyway I look at it. If it made much sense, we would have fought this trend years ago.
How do other programs handle the problem of too many small payments? You got it, minimum payment amounts. DUH! And dealing with pesky newbies, it’s the cost of doing business and an investment in the future. And it can be handled efficiently.
Yeah, what Dom said:exclamati
