N1 Partners / N1 Casino , AVOID / Refusing to pay owed affiliate commissions

**Agentti** · 14 May 2018, 9:27 am

Hello!

Another issue with N1 casino / N1 partners https://n1affiliates.com/ https://www.n1casino.com/fi

Sister casinos are Lady Hammer casino and Joocasino

Highly recommend to avoid dealing with them as the commissions payments from them have been a work to get.

First off , we had serious problems of getting the commissions from March. It was " will try to pay asap" "will try to solve it" "reorganization in process"

At the same time , they wanted to cut us out from the current deal and force a deal change. We had been working with them under a month at that time. We said no and another affiliate manager here contacted us and explained the situation. Hope that this will be also explained because oh boy....

At the current time , they are refusing to pay us the agreed upon CPA earnings for April 1st-April 14th which totals 59 triggered CPA´s. Reason for this was that they have paid "more than enough from March as the NGR was in such a negative state" ? CPA-fees have nothing to do with NGR ?

I think that is the whole point of CPA. Also , i do not understand what the March commissions payments have to do in regards to April payments

It´s basically just trying to save the money and not pay the affiliate and push all these jargon as the first time.

They are now forcing and pushing to pay the earnings of April with revenue share rate. At last time we talked , April cpa earnings was promised to be paid at the beginning of May by two different affiliate managers. Tried to contact the other affiliate manager with no effect yet. This original AM is really trying to twist the words as much as possible and neglecting every point that we make. Highly recommend to avoid.

As they have a MGA-license at the site , is there a way to contact MGA about matters concerning affiliate payments?

BONUS TRIVIA / DID YOU KNOW ABOUT N1:

-They also tried to force in a term for March aff payments about self-exclusion. So , basically if player self-excludes within a month of FTD , they will not pay the CPA commission for the player. Problem was , they did not have this term in effect for March , they added it in April and they tried to force this on the March commissions as well. "Exception" was made in our case of pointing it out. Also pointed out that hope this will be used for other afilliates as well. No response

-Raised a question about the self exclusion with a CPA deal. So if player for example deposits 4000€ within a month and self excludes with in a month , is it fair that the affiliate does not get the CPA fee but casino gets to keep the 4000€ ? No answer here and it was confirmed that they do not refund the money to the self-excluded player. I think the question went to the legendary "i will specify this matter"-bin

**Triple7** · 14 May 2018, 9:38 am

Just like any other regulator, MGA doesn't care about issues between affiliate programs and casinos. They've licensed the casino, not the program. It's a bit like when the casino orders some pizzas at the office and they don't want to pay them. That's not a case for MGA.

I think the only thing you can do is take your loss and leave this brand for what they are. I've mailed with them and met them. In a minute i couldn't take another conclusion than that they're not serious.

It's white label number 10932509 with big talk and a lot of bla bla. 99,9% of this brands will disappear within a few years.

**ladyhammercasino** · 18 May 2018, 6:55 am

Good day!

The situation with this specific case is the following:
After the issuing of the commission for March - which, by the way, exceeded 7000 EUR - the administration of the project has performed monthly analysis of the results. The results of the analysis invoked uncertainty in provided players.
Commission is temporarily suspended while the investigation of the affiliate traffic is in progress. As soon as this investigation is finished, we will be able to provide more detailed information.
Unfortunately, at the present moment we can’t provide exact time frames when the investigation will be finished as it is complex procedure that requires some time.
Also we have to mention that the commission for month was issued fully including self-exclusion. Affiliate was warned about the affiliate terms changes in order to avoid misundestanding. It is a little bit surprising that word "forcing" is used in this context.
Affiliate was proposed to move on Revenue Share deal after the month of testing the potential of the affiliates services. It is quite a common practice beteween partners to test the capabilities and quality level of performed services.
NGR plays crucial role in affiliate partnerships as it shows effectiveness and quality of affiliate's services. It is the main aim of such partnership to have a beneficial business relationship for both sides not only for one partner.

**Agentti** · 18 May 2018, 9:17 am

"The situation with this specific case is the following:
After the issuing of the commission for March - which, by the way, exceeded 7000 EUR - the administration of the project has performed monthly analysis of the results. The results of the analysis invoked uncertainty in provided players.
Commission is temporarily suspended while the investigation of the affiliate traffic is in progress. As soon as this investigation is finished, we will be able to provide more detailed information."

More on this can be found on https://www.askgamblers.com/affiliate-complaints/n1-partners-refusing-to-pay-the-agreed-upon-cpa-earnings-april-2018. I don´t quite get the "by the way , exceeded 7000€" It´s like bragging about paying what they owed to us for March. Like it´s an achievement to pay the affiliates what they are owed for.

"Also we have to mention that the commission for month was issued fully including self-exclusion. Affiliate was warned about the affiliate terms changes in order to avoid misundestanding. It is a little bit surprising that word "forcing" is used in this context."

Yes it was , but before it was issued fully , it was tried to be paid with including the term which was not in effect at the time. Just after we made a notice about this that the term was not in effect , term was taken off from the payment. So basically it was a case of "let´s try to use the term here and see if they raise a issue about it"

"Affiliate was proposed to move on Revenue Share deal after the month of testing the potential of the affiliates services. It is quite a common practice beteween partners to test the capabilities and quality level of performed services. "

"Proposed" is quite interesting wording here as it was either we move to revshare or partnership is shut off. Plus , once again , this "proposition" was made under a month , excactly 25 days after the promotion of N1 started. It was not a discussion or negotiation. No talk of test for one month was made at the beginning of starting to promo N1. We did say in the beginning that IN THE FUTURE , if things work out REALLY WELL , we are open to switch to a revshare but not under a month or maybe even two months as we have no idea of the retention and CRM of N1.

"NGR plays crucial role in affiliate partnerships as it shows effectiveness and quality of affiliate's services. It is the main aim of such partnership to have a beneficial business relationship for both sides not only for one partner."

It could be one of the factors yes but players winning also factors the NGR which they did. We or you as an operator have no effect on it. We are not asking to bring the sky down for us. Just to pay what is owed to us.

**Triple7** · 18 May 2018, 9:42 am

NGR counts, but it seems to be a problem if commission exceeds € 7.000 ?

**ladyhammercasino** · 18 May 2018, 11:49 am

I don´t quite get the "by the way , exceeded 7000€" It´s like bragging about paying what they owed to us for March. Like it´s an achievement to pay the affiliates what they are owed for".

As it was mentioned before we have provided commission for March as it should be. By saying that we provided summ that exceeded this summ means that we are ready to provide payment if we are provided with quality high services.
For this beneficial deal for affiliate we are expecting adequate and profitable traffic.

"Yes it was , but before it was issued fully , it was tried to be paid with including the term which was not in effect at the time. Just after we made a notice about this that the term was not in effect , term was taken off from the payment. So basically it was a case of "let´s try to use the term here and see if they raise a issue about it".

I apologize, but this question was answered several times. The commission was provided in full. Also we provided notification of the alteration of the terms and conditions.

"Proposed" is quite interesting wording here as it was either we move to revshare or partnership is shut off. Plus , once again , this "proposition" was made under a month , excactly 25 days after the promotion of N1 started. It was not a discussion or negotiation. No talk of test for one month was made at the beginning of starting to promo N1. We did say in the beginning that IN THE FUTURE , if things work out REALLY WELL , we are open to switch to a revshare but not under a month or maybe even two months as we have no idea of the retention and CRM of N1".

There is no other words to describe high revenue Share offer on several other projects with exclusive bonuses for the affiliate players other thatn "profitable offer". Once again we are speaking about partnership what supposes to mean that profit should be received by both parties. Despite the fact that NGR - the main parameter that determines the quality of good traffic - was negative we still wanted to continue partnership as we honor interests of our affiliates.

"It could be one of the factors yes but players winning also factors the NGR which they did. We or you as an operator have no effect on it. We are not asking to bring the sky down for us. Just to pay what is owed to us".

Once again, no disrespect, but we have to repeat that we are not employers or employees of each other. In partnership profit should receive both parties. We provided asked commission, necessary bonuses to attract traffic, set e-mails that provided complete information about bonuses for the players.

We are not saying that we refuse to provide your commission, but first we need to perform investigation.
We will make a decision in accordance with the results.

**universal4** · 18 May 2018, 5:52 pm

Obviously, it appears they do not feel that the traffic and players being sent warrants whatever the agreed CPA terms were. It is very common for groups to not want to continue CPA terms for some affiliates after an initial trial run.

If the traffic and players are really good, in the end the affiliate will end up making more revenue from the traffic.

If the traffic and players are of good value, the program would NEVER want to cancel a CPA deal, as this would hurt their revenue numbers.

I do however, fully and completely support the affiliate being paid for traffic/players already sent, at the rate that was agreed or contracted previously.

Rick
Universal4

**Progger** · 18 May 2018, 10:05 pm

Originally Posted by universal4

Obviously, it appears they do not feel that the traffic and players being sent warrants whatever the agreed CPA terms were. It is very common for groups to not want to continue CPA terms for some affiliates after an initial trial run.

If the traffic and players are really good, in the end the affiliate will end up making more revenue from the traffic.

If the traffic and players are of good value, the program would NEVER want to cancel a CPA deal, as this would hurt their revenue numbers.

I do however, fully and completely support the affiliate being paid for traffic/players already sent, at the rate that was agreed or contracted previously.

Rick
Universal4

Exactly...you have done your homework..

And its not really possible to see how good the traffic is,after one month.This take some time...many players come back after some weeks or months and start playing...

This make me laugh...

"In partnership profit should receive both parties"

Yes u are right...but this is the gambling industy...and this is not a one way "Ka-Ching" street....

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

https://www.affiliateguarddog.com/co...iliates.11224/

And Agentti why u work with this brand, i dont need more than 60 seconds to figure out the reputation behind this aff program..

Dont waste your time...

Regards

**Agentti** · 21 May 2018, 2:46 am

Originally Posted by universal4

Obviously, it appears they do not feel that the traffic and players being sent warrants whatever the agreed CPA terms were. It is very common for groups to not want to continue CPA terms for some affiliates after an initial trial run.

If the traffic and players are really good, in the end the affiliate will end up making more revenue from the traffic.

If the traffic and players are of good value, the program would NEVER want to cancel a CPA deal, as this would hurt their revenue numbers.

I do however, fully and completely support the affiliate being paid for traffic/players already sent, at the rate that was agreed or contracted previously.

Rick
Universal4

Yeah , i can agree on every point you made. I think it´s more the way the change from CPA to revshare was handled and the hold-off of commissions that is rubbing us the wrong way. Also the fact that the supposed investigation of the traffic started after we made a complaint on Askthegamblers too. There was zero issues or concerns given about the traffic until this.

Funny thing is , they have promised earlier to pay the commissions with the traffic/players sent but it seems not.

**Former Member 14** · 25 May 2018, 11:19 pm

Universal4 (Rick) has hit the nail on the head here. Pay the affiliate, then, if your not happy with the CPA deal, renegotiate it.

Yanking an agreement, after said (deal) players/months have been sent/fulfilled, is very, very unethical behavior. One which will surely see both N1Casino and N1Partners receive BAD PRESS, if not being blacklisted on numerous affiliate sites (which tends to overflow onto player forums too).

My advice, pay the affiliate his RIGHTFUL EARNINGS, then renegotiate.

Originally Posted by Agentti

Funny thing is , they have promised earlier to pay the commissions with the traffic/players sent

Do you have this in writing?

**Agentti** · 26 May 2018, 3:35 am

Originally Posted by AussieDave

Universal4 (Rick) has hit the nail on the head here. Pay the affiliate, then, if your not happy with the CPA deal, renegotiate it.

Yanking an agreement, after said (deal) players/months have been sent/fulfilled, is very, very unethical behavior. One which will surely see both N1Casino and N1Partners receive BAD PRESS, if not being blacklisted on numerous affiliate sites (which tends to overflow onto player forums too).

My advice, pay the affiliate his RIGHTFUL EARNINGS, then renegotiate.

Do you have this in writing?

Hello everybody!

Yes i do. Have the skype chat log with the affmanager who promised that he players sent will be paid with the agreed cpa dea. It´s dated April 14th 2018 , the same day they wanted to switch revshare and when we stopped sending them players. I think i can attach the image.

**Former Member 14** · 26 May 2018, 4:52 am

The OP (Agentti) referred 135 CPA players to the casino. That's a fairly decent number. But (and lets make this perfectly clear), it seems the affiliate program's AM et al, are now reneging on the agreement because the players sent, won-too-much (something like that).

NEWS FLASH... This is not the affiliates fault. He sent the players. Reiterating, pay the affiliate the agreed CPA total value. Once that's paid in full, then, and only then, can you ethically enter into discussion to change the CPA to Rev-Share. Anything else is just plain wrong, and criminal.

**Triple7** · 26 May 2018, 7:20 am

So they state that it's a succesfull month but on the other hand they openly doubt the intentions of TS? Because some players self-excluded or deposited just once. Out of 135 players.

Sounds like they're just searching for a lame excuse for the fact that they don't want to pay or simply don't have the money to pay. Perhaps they've spend too much in fees for getting positions at their website, having the name of a professional boxer and/or having a booth with a box ring in London.

**Agentti** · 26 May 2018, 9:48 am

Originally Posted by Triple7

So they state that it's a succesfull month but on the other hand they openly doubt the intentions of TS? Because some players self-excluded or deposited just once. Out of 135 players.

Sounds like they're just searching for a lame excuse for the fact that they don't want to pay or simply don't have the money to pay. Perhaps they've spend too much in fees for getting positions at their website, having the name of a professional boxer and/or having a booth with a box ring in London.

Yeah they are , they made too many CPA and hybrids from the start and it blew on their faces. I´ll just copy our text that we wrote on the askgamblers complaint. This info was given to us by their second affiliate manager at the time when we had problems receiving the first payment. She no longer works with N1. :

"One of their affiliatemanagers Ana opened up the situation and problems that rose with the original commission payments for March at the time we had problems receiving the commissions and I think this is one of the main reasons for not wanting to pay the commissions for April too..

She said that at that time when she began working at N1 , she had 3 different affiliate commissions models : Hybrid , CPA and RS. In about a week , she was told that the investors together with marketing dep cut of all CPA and Hybrids deals because they were losing money with those deals. So basically they went full force and handed out CPA and Hybrid deals left and right at that time and it blew on their faces.

She was lucky because she had just started and did not need to communicate to her affiliates that she will have to change the CPA/Hybrid deal to RS as she had no affiliates yet but for example Roman , the affiliate manager we started with , had this issue on his hands. At the time of March commissions payment due , Roman was forcing us too to change the CPA deal to RS and we did not agreed to it as we had been working with them under a month. This was one of the problems that caused us to back off and our alarm bells went off. We wanted our money and head home , away from N1.

Basically it was a case study of not having a proper strategy for the business in the beginning and they lost a lot of money with the affiliate commissions with a lot of affiliates and now , as it would be time to pay for their own errors and mistakes done, they are now trying to get away with these kind of methods as decribed before."

**vardan** · 27 May 2018, 9:34 am

Originally Posted by Agentti

Raised a question about the self exclusion with a CPA deal. So if player for example deposits 4000€ within a month and self excludes with in a month , is it fair that the affiliate does not get the CPA fee but casino gets to keep the 4000€ ? No answer here and it was confirmed that they do not refund the money to the self-excluded player. I think the question went to the legendary "i will specify this matter"-bin

It seems to me that self-exclusion is getting another tool for unethical aff programs to steal our revenue. I have an issue with 138 Partners regarding to self-excluded player, and until a few weeks ago that was the biggest argument for them to not pay my commission(rev share). Now we have agreed to wait until the end of the period when the player has the right to ask for refund.

Self-exclusion is normal and players must have such an option to control their health and money, but it does not mean that programs should use it to refuse to pay our commissions.

If a player has self-excludes and is not being refunded (the program must prove that fact too), the affiliate should receive his money, it is the logical solution, because the program has revenue from that deposit, therefore the affilaite should have his part from that.

Agentti must receive his commissions as they have agreed since the beginning, after that they can negotiate a new deal if there is enough willingness to continue the partnership.

**ladyhammercasino** · 28 May 2018, 3:55 am

Good day!
We are happy to inform you that our anti-fraud department will provide results of the investigation on Friday, 1 of June.
We apologize for the delay and appreciate your patience.

**Former Member 14** · 28 May 2018, 4:52 am

@ladyhammercasino - You've only been around for a very short period of time BUT you have managed to gain some-very-bad press. The AM who posted at AGD, didn't do you any favors. Likewise, this Affiliate Manager's post looking for affiliates on BlackHat World (blackhat SEO forum), not to mention the bucket-load of spam your program distributed, really makes the program look extremely suspect...just sayin!

**ladyhammercasino** · 1 June 2018, 6:53 am

Good day!

We appreciate your patience while the investigation was in progress.
Today our anti-fraud department has finished it and provided us with the results.
The main aim of the investigation was to find out any violation of the terms of the project or any fraudulent activities.
As a subject of investigation all players of the affiliates were checked in details.
As a result we have the following data:
From the total amount of FTDs - 1/3 have duplicate accounts.
From the total amount of FTDs - more that 80% made only one deposit and stopped any activity.

In order to verify the players we have taken 10 players via random selection and requested full verification of the account.
During the week (7 days) none of the players have provided any documents.
In accordance with the analysis conducted by the anti-fraud department this type of behavior indicate higly-motivated traffic.
Due to this reason the administration of the casino is ready to provide Revenue Share part of the commission without CPA part.

**Former Member 14** · 1 June 2018, 5:43 pm

Originally Posted by ladyhammercasino

Good day!

We appreciate your patience while the investigation was in progress.
Today our anti-fraud department has finished it and provided us with the results.
The main aim of the investigation was to find out any violation of the terms of the project or any fraudulent activities.
As a subject of investigation all players of the affiliates were checked in details.
As a result we have the following data:
From the total amount of FTDs - 1/3 have duplicate accounts.
From the total amount of FTDs - more that 80% made only one deposit and stopped any activity.

In order to verify the players we have taken 10 players via random selection and requested full verification of the account.
During the week (7 days) none of the players have provided any documents.
In accordance with the analysis conducted by the anti-fraud department this type of behavior indicate higly-motivated traffic.
Due to this reason the administration of the casino is ready to provide Revenue Share part of the commission without CPA part.

I'm not discrediting what you've outlined.
However, words are cheap; especially in this industry. Hence, what's needed here is hard, factual proof.

If the OP (Agentti) hasn't anything to hide, and has been forthcoming with ALL facts and truths, then I doubt he'd have any issue with allowing this "proof" to be shared. Until such factual data is supplied, then it's just the affiliate programs word, which, reiterating, isn't any proof at ALL.

Originally Posted by ladyhammercasino

From the total amount of FTDs - more that 80% made only one deposit and stopped any activity.

While on the surface that may seem like a high % figure - it's not overtly unusual.

However, there could be all manner of reasons, other than incentivized traffic (which seems to be your sole focus here), which could give reason to, and likely substantiate, the fact for this high % factor. I've seen (experienced) similar results myself from Rev-Share, and this is from casinos/programs I have the highest respect/trust in.

Hence, trying to make this a "CPA" issue, when, it can also happen with Rev-share or a Wagering Model, is a moot point.

Edit:

Originally Posted by ladyhammercasino

Due to this reason the administration of the casino is ready to provide Revenue Share part of the commission without CPA part.

That statement leaves me somewhat mystified... Basically you've come out and said... The OP (Agentti) has likely/probably been using incentivized traffic in this "CPA" deal. This type of marketing practice, is, well...highly unethical, and verges on fraud.

Why would any program want to continue a business/commercially based partnership, with an affiliate who they believe is untrustworthy???!!!

**TheGooner** · 1 June 2018, 6:34 pm

I appreciate AussieDave's views on this and agree in the main - except for the elephant in the room - the different pay incentives between CPA and rev-share.

Originally Posted by AussieDave

Why would any program want to continue a business/commercially based partnership, with an affiliate who they believe is untrustworthy???!!!

Because rev-share is a better way to prevent fraud and this leaves it open for the affiliate to "prove" themselves as not the cultprit?
I think we all know that CPA is prone to cheap routines and rorts - ALTHOUGH we don't know that happened here - we just know it's low value traffic.

Fraudulent traffic happens for many reasons, it's not just affiliate based, but can be caused by bonus hunters, or even certain traffic types if the affiliate sources "paid traffic" from poorer countries who will simply always be low value players.

Let's see if the affiliate takes up the offer - and provides the same volume and type of traffic under rev-share.
If so - then they'll be paid only for sustainable and real profits - which is a long term benefit for both.

If not - well - why not?

I think that it's hard to fault the program for going down this route after seeing the traffic / customer type so far.
They know the current traffic is not valuable - maybe not as a fault of the affiliate - and give an opportunity for longer term testing.

Thread: N1 Partners / N1 Casino , AVOID / Refusing to pay owed affiliate commissions

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

N1 Partners / N1 Casino , AVOID / Refusing to pay owed affiliate commissions

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

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to universal4 For This Useful Post:

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

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

The Following User Says Thank You to Former Member 14 For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to Triple7 For This Useful Post:

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

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

The Following User Says Thank You to Former Member 14 For This Useful Post:

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Former Member 14 For This Useful Post:

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions