- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I just saw this for the first time:
WagerShare will only make payments to active affiliates; an active affiliate account is defined as an account which has generated a minimum of 1 new paying customer for the casino clients of WagerShare within a 3 month period. If an account does not meet these requirements, at the sole discretion of WagerShare management, future commission payments may be withheld.
Since when do we have this?
It would explain why Wager Share never gets off the ground with me. I start programs out with minimal text link exposure. If I see movement they go up a step. If I see $ they go up another step. ETC. Sometimes quite some time passes before a program has worked its way up to receiving converting players and making $. I can see how this clause keeps Wager Share from moving up at all. The program never generates enough to warrant moving up, and that means many 3 month periods pass without new players and if the old ones are not counted for reimbursement, the program won’t move up by virtue of retention either. It is a perpetual bottom feeder on sites that operate like mine.
Well, however that may be, this puts Wager Share in the same category as Money Mechanics. New affiliates should avoid this program. You can’t afford to lose your existing players if you have a bad spell.
Sorry to hear about this change. I was just starting to use them.
Thanks for heads up!
Hi Dominique
I’m not sure why you believe this term has hindered your affiliate performance with us as the term has never been applied to you. In fact the term has only ever been applied to 2 affiliates since it’s introduction almost 3 years ago.
For reference please see this link to our terms and conditions page taken from the Web Archive in August 2002.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020829072131/www.wagershare.com/terms.asp
I’m also not entirely sure what you mean by this statement:
Quote:You can’t afford to lose your existing players if you have a bad spell.No players are lost with this term, as soon as you start delivering players again you continue to earn from them.
I hope this answers your questions.
Regards,
Tim Whyles
No players are lost with this term, as soon as you start delivering players again you continue to earn from them.
The clause punishes people for bad luck such as having search engine trouble because of scraper sites, sites that copy yours and make you look like duplicate content and all kinds of black hat techniques that make us lose positioning or worse, get penalized. There are other things, like personally I lost a well working site because someone hacked into my server and used the domain of this site for Phishing. I had to abandon the domain.
S#!t happens, and people suffering from the Black Hat Seo happens every day now. I woke up the other day to find my number 1 position moved to the bottom of the page by all scraper sites, not a real site in the bunch.Punishing people for this by taking away their livelihood is not good business.
Re. your performance on my page – it could be just bad luck like all the above situations. New textlinks compete with a lot of other text links. Not unlike the affiliate world, I suppose.
Hi Dominique
I understand your concerns and that is why the term has only ever been applied twice. If we can see you are trying to deliver players then the term will never be applied, it has only been applied when no attempt to send traffic has been made.
Best regards,
Tim
Tim, I know you are a good guy and you treat your affiliates well.
But this clause is an evil thing that lends itself to abuse very easily and gives any program carrying it way too much discretion over paying people for the work they have already delivered.
If a person sends you a player, you are to pay them for it. You don’t just suddenly decide not to, for whatever reason.
While you personally have handled this in a decent manner, this clause is a very bad thing and I still need to impress on new affiliates that it leaves them defenseless and at the programs whim.
If we refer a player, you owe us the percentage promised. Regardless. That is just good business.
So, while this is in no way personal and I don’t doubt your personal integrity, this clause is bad news all around. Affiliates work for free, get no health insurance or pension, sick pay ot anything at all from the programs. All we have is the promise that we will get paid for our work.
Take that away, what have we left? How are fathers and mothers supposed to take care of their families?
You have had this clause quite a while (shame on me for not noticing sooner) and so there is no legal breach of contract. Just a lack of trust and security.
Dom,
you are arguing about a clause that was in place over three years ago. This is nothing new and fruitless arguing about it as everybody that signed up has the responsibilty to read the T&C’s beforehand…. it is not as if they have now suddenly changed the terms and applying them retroactively and also there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to doubt their integrity.
Like Tim said.. as long as you show that you are trying to send players, you will get paid. Regardless of bad luck, hacking, getting tossed out of the SE’s ..
I would guess that a great many of the aff programs have a similiar clause and it is a standard CYA statment that gives the programs a fall back.
Although I don’t like it I accept it for what it is. I don’t have a problem with Wager Share because it has always been there. The fact that it has been there and has only been enforced twice further leads me to believe it is a tool and not to be used as a threat to bring in more business.
Now if any program would start using this as a standard operating business instead of tool then that program would see itself quickly on the outs. All we would have to do as affiliates would bring one client in over that period of time and pull the banners down once this has been covered. No program can survive from just once sign up per affiliate.
The beauty of this system is we the affiliates control our own traffic and can move it as we see just and in a timely fashion. Tim I am fine with your program and would recomend it to others just as it is.
Brian
sorry to be off subject, but its the first chance I’ve had to contact Tim to find out why my emails are being ignored?
A tool it is – and one that can be used in various ways.
Tim has used it in a benign way – I do believe this, knowing what I know about him.
But it is a dangerous tool, in the wrong hands or during hard times it can quickly be used in a damaging way.
I will start reading T&Cs better. Personally, I like to have my fate written up clearly in a contract rather than depend on someone’s good will. We might as well not have a contract and just place ourselves in the hands of the programs.
Hi Steve
I haven’t received any emails from you – which email address are you sending to?
Cheers
Tim
