Affiliate Club - Predatory Terms Change (resolved)

**kwblue** · 26 February 2009, 10:22 am

While we have only evaluated the FAQ so far (Terms have too many changes to do quickly)... this change affects earnings of all affiliates. This is a predatory change and is seen in the FAQ and followed up in the T&C's.

Not a good move by Affiliate Club:

Affiliate Club Predatory Terms Change

**Engineer** · 26 February 2009, 10:48 am

Affiliate Club,

This is extremely predatory. Do you intend to enforce the term retroactively on your existing affiliates? Please let us know ASAP. I was planning to start promoting your new casino, Slots Club, but now I may actually skip this and take down Casino Club while I'm at it.

I don't think it's fair to base affiliate commissions on how well YOU (Affiliate Club) can convert and retain players.

If an affiliate has a base of players (or even one player) that generates decent revenue each month, you should pay the affiliate each month -- period. You should not base payment on whether YOU are able to convert the current traffic an affiliate is sending.

Please think about this; I hope you'll revert to your original T&Cs.

Nobody wants to work with a program that has predatory terms and conditions!

**kwblue** · 26 February 2009, 12:40 pm

The actual terms alert is in now and analyzed. It appears, at this point, that the term will be applied retroactively to all affiliates.

Affiliate Club Predatory Terms

**Webzcas** · 26 February 2009, 5:31 pm

Good catch. I just signed up with Affiliate Club this week, ready to start promoting their casinos hopefully from tomorrow or Monday at the latest.

I guess a rethink is in order now.

Edited to add: Just read the full change over at AGD. Looks like I won't be promoting them until it is removed. I will be onto Chris about this in the morning.

**Anthony** · 26 February 2009, 9:55 pm

I really hope they do rethink it.
Bad move on their part.

**ppw** · 27 February 2009, 8:24 am

Thanks AGD, I was looking at them too for a new project, but will give it a miss.

**itay** · 27 February 2009, 1:07 pm

I actually think that it really makes sense. I talked to the guys after I saw the publication here and the only thing they say that it makes sense to have affiliates as partners for the good and bad...but it doesnt make sense to have affiliates to take the cake buy themselves and never share the other things... BTW I think they are far away to be the first ones to do it...many others already dont it. Affiliates=Partners, Partners have to work together....see what is happening with someone we know where partners are not cooperating, does it make sense? not to me, not in both ways...

**Engineer** · 27 February 2009, 1:33 pm

No, it doesn't make sense.

If THEY can't convert the traffic I send them, for whatever reason, then I don't deserve to get paid on the past players I sent them?

How does that make sense?

**itay** · 27 February 2009, 2:01 pm

see the commission plan: https://cpays.com/casino_commission.php

all they are saying, be our partner, work with us (same as cpays, europartners, 888 and others) and we will pay you. I think until today they were one of the most reliable programs paying hard cash to all and they need to get supported

**Webzcas** · 27 February 2009, 2:13 pm

Originally Posted by itay

I actually think that it really makes sense. I talked to the guys after I saw the publication here and the only thing they say that it makes sense to have affiliates as partners for the good and bad...but it doesnt make sense to have affiliates to take the cake buy themselves and never share the other things... BTW I think they are far away to be the first ones to do it...many others already dont it. Affiliates=Partners, Partners have to work together....see what is happening with someone we know where partners are not cooperating, does it make sense? not to me, not in both ways...

No it doesn't make sense. If you promote under a rev share agreement and you have agreed to terms that every player you refer to said casino, you accrue revenue for the lifetime of those players - then that is what should happen. To change it afterwards is wrong and deceitful and predatory.

Let me suggest something to you Itay. Why don't you promote them. Because I am sure you will probably be the only one.

(same as cpays, europartners, 888 and others)

Yes all three groups thankfully I don't promote and for good reason. Funnily enough EuroPartners have moved on from spamming my mail accounts, to now making unsolicited phone calls to my office.

Regarding CPays or whatever they are now. Just do a search on google.

**LiveCasinoPartners** · 27 February 2009, 4:10 pm

Originally Posted by Engineer

No, it doesn't make sense.

If THEY can't convert the traffic I send them, for whatever reason, then I don't deserve to get paid on the past players I sent them?

How does that make sense?

It does not make sense to me either. I would be interested in knowing how they came to that decision.

**kwblue** · 27 February 2009, 6:42 pm

No - I understand all the 'arguments' from the affiliate program side of things... heard them all before. Itay's response is no different.

The problem is that if the affiliate SENT that player, it is the duty of the affiliate programs to convert, retain, and pay the affiliate that sent that player.

This is TYPICAL sales. Lifetime commissions = Lifetime commissions.

The AFFILIATE made that sale happen... Where exactly do you think that player came from?? The program can't convert a player they never got. All they have to understand now is that since affiliates will stop promoting them.... there are a lot of players they will never have the chance to convert now.

This term is a LOSE-LOSE situation. They will eventually see that.

**Fergie** · 27 February 2009, 6:49 pm

Affiliates won't stand for predatory terms like this.

Thanks once again, Guard Dog.

**aksana** · 3 March 2009, 1:39 pm

Thank you very much Guard Dog!
Today I will disable them on my site.

**John-AffiliateClub** · 4 March 2009, 1:57 am

Over time the average commission paid out to affiliates in general has increased by 15%-20% resulting in shrinking margins for the operators. In order for us to conduct our business accordingly as a profitable organization we need to look over our costs like any other professional operation would do. GVC is not the first and certainly not the last company to apply these new rules. Allot of the big operators have already taken these steps a long time ago. This is a trend that you as an affiliate might not appreciate but if you deliver traffic which is the foundation of a affiliate partnership you won’t be affected in the slightest.

We simply believe that an affiliate partnership is a two way street and that we should be able to reserve ourselves the rights to reimburse only partners that are actively promoting us. What is not said in the new T’s & C’s is that we will review these specific partnerships case by case meaning that if the affiliate for some reason does not deliver traffic even though trying at his/hers best ability to do so we can certainly make exceptions. We know it takes time to establish a steady stream of traffic and if we receive solid proof that this is the case we’ll grant any such affiliate a respite that mirrors his/hers actions.

We spend a lot of time and resources trying to maximize our existing partners results and will continue to do so now with even better means as a result of this decision.

Please do not hesitate to contact me personally at [email protected] /Skype: John Ryott: to discuss this matter further. I will also monitor the response on the boards closely and try my best to answer any questions you might have.

Regards

John Ryott
Gaming VC / Affiliate Club

**Simmo!** · 4 March 2009, 3:30 am

Originally Posted by John-AffiliateClub

Allot of the big operators have already taken these steps a long time ago.

I appreciate these are hard times in which steps need to be taken to reduce costs. But the change made is fairly typical of a company that doesn't regard this as a "partnership" as you put it, at all. It's basically you telling us how it will be.

So, 2 points from me John: firstly, about 3 or 4 did operators have tried this approach before, but they have all (as far as I am aware) since reverted because in a nutshell, most affiliates won't work under these circumstances. It is your right to add his term to new contracts of course, but I for one certainly wouldn't promote under those conditions.

My second point is, irrespective of your stance going forward, you shouldn't apply these terms "retroactively" to existing contracts. Not only do you lose the affiliates as per my first point, but now, you also lose the trust.

Why would I trust any "partner" who reneged on an existing contract without my consent? That tells me any contract between us, past or future, is potentially worthless.

If you are paying too much money to affiliates, then that suggests that you got your sums wrong, or at least failed to provide a lack of contingency, but to go and effectively claw it back from them through retroactive changes to existing contracts is, IMO, not the right way to go about it.

**Simmo!** · 4 March 2009, 3:45 am

Incidentally, has it occurred how counter-productive this would be if "allot of operators" did apply this? Everyone would effectively be tying the hands of affiliates into profiling their casinos prominently and there would be no room for affiliates to manoeuvre. You would find it hard to get new affiliates because we would be tied into existing agreements with the other operators doing this so as your other affiliates gradually drop away over time, you're sales base gets weaker.

Catch 22?

It strikes me as a very short-sighted business approach.

**John-AffiliateClub** · 4 March 2009, 4:38 am

Hi Simmo,

Thanks for your comments.

If you go back to my post you’ll see that we will review every issue as a case by case for the exact reason you stated on your reply. This is not something I’m just saying to avoid confrontations. Feel free to argue your case and I’ll listen.

Regards

John Ryott

**Simmo!** · 4 March 2009, 4:56 am

Originally Posted by John-AffiliateClub

Hi Simmo,

Thanks for your comments.

If you go back to my post you’ll see that we will review every issue as a case by case for the exact reason you stated on your reply. This is not something I’m just saying to avoid confrontations. Feel free to argue your case and I’ll listen.

Regards

John Ryott

Hi John

I noted that. Bottom line is though, you've effectively stated that the partnership agreement isn't an agreement at all, but merely a statement of intent which can change retroactively at any time. That's not an attractive proposition.

Cheers

Simmo!

**John-AffiliateClub** · 4 March 2009, 5:14 am

Point taken

But as I said before.. feel free to contact me at anytime with regards to issues surrounding this specific issue or any other issues for that matter.

We are not out to cheat anyone out of is rightfully earned commission.

I regard myself as very reasonable and fair which you will find out if you ever need to take this discussion to the next level.

Regards

John

Thread: Affiliate Club - Predatory Terms Change (resolved)

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Affiliate Club - Predatory Terms Change (resolved)

The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to kwblue For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to Engineer For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to kwblue For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to Webzcas For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to Anthony For This Useful Post:

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ppw For This Useful Post:

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Engineer For This Useful Post:

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Webzcas For This Useful Post:

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LiveCasinoPartners For This Useful Post:

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to kwblue For This Useful Post:

Affiliate Director

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Simmo! For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to Simmo! For This Useful Post:

Affiliate Director

The Following User Says Thank You to Simmo! For This Useful Post:

Affiliate Director

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions