Affiliate Union

[ThePOGG]

I'm starting to see the upper tier as something to be built up into rather than a launching platform myself. The First tier is more accessible for everyone, carries less risk and is likely to be the level that the vast majority of issues would be dealt with at. It seems like the strongest position to start from....


Biti - can you provide an email address so I can add your name to the contact list?

TP

 

[TheGooner]

Try Membership Tier and Legal Fund Tier as labels.

 

[AussieDave]

@ThePOGG - If nothing changes, nothing changes. A partner agreement, made at some previous date in time, which are always made in 'good faith', and (for example) didn't contain a player quota etc., etc., should not be retroactively changed.

The trend I've noticed, is where a program changes its Brand Name, and subsquently use this to retroactively change past agreements. Other flavours of the same intent is where a program merges with, or is absorbed into a sister program. Brightshare, Red Returns et al all got absorbed into FA. Referback and Wagershare merged to become Buffalo. (just a couple of examples).

Another point I'd like to raise, over and above agreements being changed, are dubious actions by a program. Lets use the "WP hacker". Seems the main, and onging supporters of these "hacks" were casinos from the Buffalo Partners stable.

Facts don't lie... There was enough proof provided, to prove, BP were in bed with the "hacker". It's issues like this, that also cause affiliate partners a lot of grief. If not directly, then indirectly, by having their content stolen (scraped) and used against them. I can't prove it, but going on my experiences of being targeted by this scraping and Brand hijacking, I'm of the opinion, my data, and many other affiliates data was being provided to the "hacker" by BP.

NB - not to hack our sites, but to outrank our SERP's.

It took the GPWA 2 years to finally kick BP to the curb, as a result of the "hacker" fiasco. Even though, for those two (long) years, more than enough factual evidence had been posted, to prove that BP had not severed ties to this "hacker". Worse, when an aff account seemed to be closed, within a day or two a new account/tracker(s) were issued.

Shenanigans like this hurt affiliates, just as much as retroactively changed partner agreements.

From my point of view, programs have been essentially a law unto themselves. As affiliates, all we want is a fair, and ethical playing field. If programs wont deal in fairness, then those who choose to 'shaft us', need to be made accountable.

In closing, when Cindy et al owned the GPWA, programs were kept in-line. Affiliates need to regain that power, again. Otherwise, things are just going to get worse and worse.

 

[ThePOGG]

Guys, I like what you're saying, but at this point I've just fundamentally restructured the system to take into consideration both your points of view yet I still do not have either of your email addresses on our list to contact. I actually agree with the points you've both made, but you're now getting to the point where you have had a very loud voice in the development of the structure of the organisation - it should be members or those who are serious about becoming members that shape how this works.

TheGooner - good name suggestions.

AussieDave - I agree, but the entire structure is organised in such a way as to allow the membership to dictate the agenda so this should not be an issue (though, again, dealing with an issue like the hacking issue is resource heavy).

For those of you who are not aware yet, that's Kindred rectroactively adding a Minimum Activity Quota today.....

TP

 

[BetOnlineUK]

For those of you who are not aware yet, that's Kindred rectroactively adding a Minimum Activity Quota today.....

Saw that and it is a hefty min quota for the smaller affiliate, what chance have we got.

"
6.6. The Company reserves the right to reduce the Affiliate’s Commission/change the Reward Plan if:
1 the Affiliate substantially reduces its efforts to promote the Company, except in markets where affiliate activity is restricted (e.g. Netherlands), and/or
2 the existing Reward Plan results in a financial loss to the Company, and/or
3 the Affiliate does not generate a minimum of 6 New Depositing Customers in a period of 3 months, except in markets where affiliate activity is restricted (e.g. Netherlands), and/or
4 in the event of legal/regulatory changes to a market."

Just seen no.2 is this the new predatory term? Surely making it up as they go along

 

[ThePOGG]

what chance have we got?

Have I got your email address yet? We're going to be too slow to do anything about this but it's time to take a stand against this type of action!

TP

 

[BetOnlineUK]

You don't but here it is info [at] bettingoffers.bet

 

[nwalker]

Have I got your email address yet? We're going to be too slow to do anything about this but it's time to take a stand against this type of action!

TP

What does a stand actually mean?

Stop promoting them?. The big affiliates that easily reach the quotas are unlikely to stop. The small affiliates that can't will either have to negotiate separate terms based on their relationships with the program, or stop promoting them and lose their existing players or keep promoting them and accept a reduction if that's what it comes to.

The decision by Kindred has already been made. Do you not think that they have considered the consequences before acting?

I'll be affected by this.

This is a good real life example and it would be interesting to see what the "Union" would do and what the desired outcome from that action would be.

It might help people understand the thought processes and those sitting on the fence who don't quite know what will be achieved.

 

[BetOnlineUK]

I promote them somewhat, but I would definitely struggle to get the quota in the required time and then have to worry about doing the same for the next period. I too would be interested to see how the Union would approach this type of issue.

I certainly would not promote them for the reduced rate if that were to be the case. Trying to get hold of someone to raise the issue with them would be a laugh and I would not have any bargaining chips with our figures to thrash out a custom deal.

I hate quotas with a passion and have already dropped off some brands because of it, at this rate I will not have any to promote.
In my eyes and I expect in many others if you are actively promoting the brand this should suffice and you should be paid the % you signed up for. Introducing quotas at a later date constitutes theft

 

[ThePOGG]

Hi nwalker,

This is covered a few posts back:

First Tier: These are the affiliates that are willing to participate in press released to cover programs that change their terms for the reason of reducing the revenue they pay affiliates.

The system works the same as previously suggested - all members get a vote all votes are counted equally. Any member can table an issue for consideration, a brief is distributed to members, members vote on the issue. A majority of 55% is required before any action is taken. If a majority is achieved a template press release is put together and distributed to members who can base their own articles on it. All members who voted in favour of the action will be expected to post an article.

Each participating member will be asked to link to one other member's article within their post. Order would be randomised each time so you're not always giving/receiving links for the same site.

The point of this is that by ensuring that a large number of articles are published that reflect the negative actions of the programs associated alongside ensuring a link structure that helps these articles rank we exact a price for taking this type of action. Affiliates that would be too negatively impacted can 'opt out' by voting against the action. In this manner those that aren't going to be hugely impacted are free to stand up for those who are and programs are consistently punished if they choose to mistreat their affiliates.

If done right this could even have positive SEO implications for the participating affiliates, making this at least a push/win strategy if not a win/win.

Btw - yes we are impacted by these changes at Kindred, far more so than we were by the changes at Genting and I've already informed the program that we will not agree to these changes. If they are forced on us we will drop this program (meaning, we won't agree to having them added to our contract, not we'll drop them if they ever apply them). Do I think the suggested action would necessarily stop Kindred? No. But I think if there is a consistent price to be paid when programs change the rules after they already have our traffic it will make doing so a less attractive option in the first place.

TP

 

[BetOnlineUK]

Btw - yes we are impacted by these changes at Kindred, far more so than we were by the changes at Genting and I've already informed the program that we will not agree to these changes. If they are enforced on us we will drop this program. Do I think this would necessarily stop Kindred? No. But I think if there is a consistent price to be paid when programs change the rules after they already have our traffic it will make doing so a less attractive option in the first place.

I have not agreed to the changes but would be interested to see if they are in contact to try to enforce me or if it will be the pop-up in the affiliate center.

It would be quite easy for me to drop them figure wise but I should imagine your action would be much more effective.

 

[ThePOGG]

I should imagine your action would be much more effective.

I can't say for certain that us all working together would make the difference we all want it to. I can however say that it's self-evident that what we as an industry have done about this practice in the last decade and a half has made no difference what-so-ever. Surely it must be time to try another strategy?

TP

 

[nwalker]

But I think if there is a consistent price to be paid when programs change the rules after they already have our traffic it will make doing so a less attractive option in the first place.

But what price, some negative publicity? That doesn't help existing affiliates, it may help inform future affiliates about the type of program they will be dealing with. It's unlikely to bring about a reversal.

The underlying problem we have as affiliates is the contracts that we sign allow for this very thing to happen.

We have allowed this to happen in the first place by being an affiliate and accepting those terms in the contracts when we first signed up.

Affiliates have a choice. Either be an affiliate and find some way to work with the terms as supplied. Don't be an affiliate or be an affiliate and try and change the type of contracts the industry has.

I'm in the first category but would like to be in the last.

 

[ThePOGG]

But what price, some negative publicity? That doesn't help existing affiliates, it may help inform future affiliates about the type of program they will be dealing with. It's unlikely to bring about a reversal.

You're right - it's too late to undo what's already happened.

But these operators are paying for positive exposure for their brands. Do you really think they want the rankings flooded with affiliates saying that they cannot be trusted? This isn't about undoing the past, it's about stopping the rot. We don't just need to target other affiliates, we target the players they are trying to reach. If a program cannot be trusted to keep their word when working with a partner they make money from why shouldn't affiliates highlight the business ethos of the company to the players they are trying to attract?

Yes many affiliates that currently work with them have their hands tied as they cannot afford to drop the program entirely. But there are hundreds of other affiliates not currently working with them that can do something about it. And many more who's figures aren't significant enough to stop them dropping the program.

TP

 

[nwalker]

If a program cannot be trusted to keep their word when working with a partner they make money from why shouldn't affiliates highlight the business ethos of the company to the players they are trying to attract?

I agree 100%, unfortunately human behavior isn't that predictable. I know of affiliates who still play at Sky Casino , have Sky TV and watch Sky Sports despite losing their Sky affiliate accounts.

Memories are short and individuals only seem to make a stand if they don't have much to lose.

I'm sorry I appear so skeptical, but you only have to look at history to see how it informs the future.

 

[Biti]

I consider Unibet as one of the market leaders. They changed their terms now that they can change the commission whenever they want to whatever they want.

To be honest, I never worked very closely with them as I see it as a very saturated brand and a very predative program. But the players I've send, I've send assuming that the commission is the commission that I will receive for those players as long as they play, lifetime. That was the deal.

I hate the bs arguments that are brought up all the time. All that UKGC and ACA compliance stuff, has nothing to do with quota or something.

I think this is a good challenge: a market leader and also a party that is quite strong in SEO, at least in the markets where I operate.

I've replied them that I consider this changes as applicable just for new traffic, not for existing players.

 

[ThePOGG]

Memories are short and individuals only seem to make a stand if they don't have much to lose.

The point is that affiliates have always felt like they have no choices. So they come on forums and complain. And that's where it ends.

I'm trying to offer an alternative. The point is to allow those of us who it isn't going to cost too much to make the stand for everyone. No-one should be asked to sacrifice their livelihood to make a stand, especially when these changes are already hitting their pockets. I fight for you when it doesn't hit me too hard and you fight for me the times it doesn't hurt you too much to do so. With enough of us there are always a good number to fight.

However if affiliates would rather say 'it might not work so let's not bother trying' then there's no purpose to any of this conversation. And honestly we deserve to be treated this way because we're not even willing to try and stand-up for our own rights!

TP

 

[Biti]

I agree 100%, unfortunately human behavior isn't that predictable. I know of affiliates who still play at Sky Casino , have Sky TV and watch Sky Sports despite losing their Sky affiliate accounts.

Memories are short and individuals only seem to make a stand if they don't have much to lose.

I'm sorry I appear so skeptical, but you only have to look at history to see how it informs the future.

Yes. Everybody runs their business the way they want it. We're all captains on our own ships. In my opinion, accepting everything from the programs you're working with, puts you totally in their hands.

Within a few years, the market will be dominated by stock market listed companies, perhaps some PLC's (like Betway) and (crappy) pump-and-dump white labels, ran by affiliates that are able to drive decent amounts of traffic and drive it to some affiliate-casino 2.0 construction. All those casinos that are are offering a bit too good deals, of which you meet the owners in person, are very easy to work with, will be taken over by bigger parties, out or forced to put themselves on a white label. That's the consequence of the near end of the all-country serving .com casino. Every country has a bunch (or better said: a shitload) of rules and it's impossible for relatively small business to compete in Spain, Italy, Denmark, Czech, New Jersey, UK etc.; They simply have a too low turnover, hence way too much overhead costs.

For stock listed companies, but also for some PLC's like Betway, you're just a cost. In fact, you're just tolerated as a business partner, as long as it's good for them. If the relationship is not profitable anymore or they simply need to cut some costs, you're revenue and player base is at stake.

When I see what's happening the last few months, I think, to speak in cycling terms, a leading group is going to escape right now. It's about organizing the mass to gain back some ground or just work all alone and try to get that leading group back on your own.

Or to speak in clock-terms. It's perhaps not 12 o'clock, but half past eleven has passed some time ago already.

 

[KasinoKing]

However if affiliates would rather say 'it might not work so let's not bother trying' then there's no purpose to any of this conversation. And honestly we deserve to be treated this way because we're not even willing to try and stand-up for our own rights!
TP

I'm in on the "Union" thing. Got to give it a try at least.

KK