Retroactive Terms Poll - Playshare

[dominique]

Other than the retroactiveness (meaning violation of contract) my issue with this is the first month. IMO the player should be fenced IMMEDIATELY upon winning, as is the case in the new Casino Coins term.

That would be the issue I have with the term itself.

 

[Guard Dog]

I have the same issue. I think we all understand that if a player wins $400,000 and loses it all immediately in the next month - that is difficult for the program to absorb (even though programs have been doing this for years and most continue to do this).

Here is what I see based upon your own example:



Let me know if I am wrong.... But if you look at the 1st table (your relatively-new high roller clause) and compare it to the 3rd table.... It is plain to see that you are removing $6,000 in affiliate commissions that have nothing to do with the 'High Roller'.

 

[alex777]

I am not an affiliate with this program, but I can say only two thing That term is good for casino operators only, and bad for affiliates.

So, I would not join and promote anything with terms like this.

 

[inspiration]

I think the numbers in your example are not correct

With Highroller policy :

M1

20,000 regular
-400,000 HR
-120,000 net rev HR
-100,000 all net rev
0 all net rev @ 30%

M2
20,000 regular
400,000 HR
-400,000 HR carryover
0 net rev HR
20,000 all net rev
6,000 all net rev @ 30%

 

[Guard Dog]

I fixed my image - thanks for catching that mistake (which was in the first example only, with the new High Roller clause). Everything else was correct as far as I am seeing.

 

[inspiration]

will the commissionwarehouse (playerspalacecasino) program get the same clause because they are part of G3??

Yes the other numbers seem to be correct IMO

J........30% @ 400,000 ........ the good times are over now ?

 

[Guard Dog]

will the commissionwarehouse (playerspalacecasino) program get the same clause because they are part of G3??

Yes the other numbers seem to be correct IMO

J........30% @ 400,000 ........ the good times are over now ?

Commission Warehouse got the term at the same time Playshare did as far as I can tell. It's in their terms currently: Commission Warehouse Affiliates | Terms and Conditions

Section 9.

 

[Engineer]

Other than the retroactiveness (meaning violation of contract) my issue with this is the first month. IMO the player should be fenced IMMEDIATELY upon winning, as is the case in the new Casino Coins term.

That would be the issue I have with the term itself.

Let me know if I am wrong.... But if you look at the 1st table (your relatively-new high roller clause) and compare it to the 3rd table.... It is plain to see that you are removing $6,000 in affiliate commissions that have nothing to do with the 'High Roller'.

I agree with both of these comments. If you're going to fence, commissions from the other players shouldn't be affected.

But I think the retroactiveness should be addressed first.

Lawrence, what do you think about applying the high roller policy only to players referred after the new clause went into effect? I think that is the fairest way to handle a change like this -- do you agree?

 

[inspiration]

If there is more than one high-roller, the negative balance carried forward will be split proportionally between them.

I do not like that either.

Let's assume you have player 1 won $11,000
player 2 won $49,000

On average this is $30,000

The advantage of the split is not on our side for player 1 either, I could start earning once he loses $11,000 so I have to wait for the average being met.

 

[mojo]

This term is complicated but there is another problem I would like to get out there for consideration.

The threshold is set at 10k. So if your player hits 9999.99 this doesn't apply. The first 9999 is forgiven. However, your player hits 50k and the whole amount is carried forward. The first 10k should also be forgiven. In other words, the carryover should be 40k.

It's a win win for the casino. Besides the '1st month' confiscation of funds, then there is the threshold.

My two major problems with the HR term. (I have quoted from another thread.)

First:

April
5 players earn you 2K
1 player hits 10K

You lose all earnings under the HR rule in April. Then in May your 10K player plays it all back. You are even on THAT player but you have still lost the 2K from your other players in April. Why is that? Why is your HR back to even but you have still lost out your April earnings from other players. Who gets those eanings (2K)? The casino can make a good sum from our earnings.

Second:

" Since the regular terms of these programs using this HighRoller Term allows for there to be NO NEGATIVE CARRYOVER up to 10k, then this should also apply to any players that are quarantined.
IE: If a player wins 20k, then only 10k should be carried over.
If a player wins, 10,500.00, then only 500.00 should be carried over, and quarantined."

 

[alex777]

It's fair only if the High Rollers not affecting the actual earnings from other players. As long as they dont have a "special" separate stats system for high rollers, (for us) to track them individually, I think it's just another smart method to shave affiliates.

 

[JTodd]

God knows I stay out of these things for a reason. God knows I hardly ever post anywhere and why. But I did want to drop my 1/2 cent into this discussion. I'm not here to fight, so if you don't agree with what I say that's cool... but don't expect me to debate the issue with you. I'm just gonna drop the though and leave:

I don't have a real problem with this move by Playshare. I have always found them to be a very upfront organization that has dealt fairly with their affiliates, and I don't believe they would make this move without needing to. It's not been my experience that they enjoy upsetting their partners.

Yes, I agree it sucks that they cannot absorb all risk involved with high roller players, but in most every dispute between affiliate programs and webmasters we call ourselves their "partners". Yet here we seem to want the proceeds from that partnership with excuse from the risk.

This is a dynamic business and we have all had to drastically alter our business models at one time or another. Whether it's PayPal or NETeller who stop processing... Whether it's PPC's dropping all gambling terms... Whether it's credit cards blocking all transactions... Whether it's fear and intimidation from the US Government post-UIGEA... This business is in constant flux.

I do agree that allowing affiliate programs to take from their "partners" without resistance can be a slippery slop. But I also believe that if we are really going to call ourselves "partners" we must realize that an affiliate program may need to alter their business models as well in order to survive.

I don't make a living as an affiliate any longer, but I do appreciate the affiliate position perhaps more keenly than most other "advocates" on your behalf. I don't know everything about this situation... and these words are not supposed to be an absolute defense of an affiliate programs decisions... I just wanted to add my thoughts to this discussion and let the chips fall where they may.

Playshare has not followed the Grand Prive path of totally f----ing their webmasters, but this is a difficult position for everyone. Maybe even a position of long-term industry survival.

 

[The_CPA]

First:

April
5 players earn you 2K
1 player hits 10K

You lose all earnings under the HR rule in April. Then in May your 10K player plays it all back. You are even on THAT player but you have still lost the 2K from your other players in April. Why is that? Why is your HR back to even but you have still lost out your April earnings from other players. Who gets those eanings (2K)? The casino can make a good sum from our earnings.

Second:

" Since the regular terms of these programs using this HighRoller Term allows for there to be NO NEGATIVE CARRYOVER up to 10k, then this should also apply to any players that are quarantined.
IE: If a player wins 20k, then only 10k should be carried over.
If a player wins, 10,500.00, then only 500.00 should be carried over, and quarantined."

Absolutely correct.

I would only add that 10k seems a bit low IMO to be considered a high roller.
In fact, High Roller probably isn't even the right term.
High Winner is probably more accurate.
A player that deposits a couple of hundred and hits a Jackpot isn't really a High Roller, IMO.
20k wins seems more appropriate.

In either event, retroactive changes are just not OK.
If a program is in need of changes to remain profitable and in Biz, then I suppose there should be give and take on both sides.

1}Fence them the first month. IE: The month it occured in.
2}The first 10k is forgiven in accordance with the regular program policy as Mojo mentioned.
3} Consider upping it to 20k.
Seems a fair solution to BOTH sides IMO.
Affiliates need a little gravy too you know.
It's not like we,{as individual webmasters}, have the advantage of the Casino's entire player base to spread winners out over.

 

[mojo]

But I also believe that if we are really going to call ourselves "partners" we must realize that an affiliate program may need to alter their business models as well in order to survive.

I agree JTodd, not beating you up lol. But that is also a 2-way street. Affiliates should be in the loop on these changes to come to a mutual agreement as partners. Affiliates need to make a living too.

I see this thread as constructive and as Dom put it here:

No one wants to see programs fail. No one wants to see affiliates fail. None of us will do well without the other.

If times are bad, as partners we can come to agreements as to how to handle it and share the burden fairly.

 

[WCD Admin]

I've been slow to answer, partly because I am recovering from a small surgery. - I feel up to speed enough to make a couple of points.

The casinos need to stop advertising "Life Time Revenue" and "No negative carryover" ... put the exceptions in bold face from the beginning. It makes situations like this never happen.

Keeping out of the solutions here but addressing the problems:

Fair terms for all situations could easily be established and become industry norm. As affiliates, we don't want our programs out of business so when something in the contract is hurting good programs, we actually have to be considerate. I know this not easy given the rough road affiliates have forged with so many shady outfits, but still necessary if we want a good relationship with our partners.

Keep in mind that the programs that are bringing this to our attention are likely honest programs being hurt from their mistake (didn't you EVER wonder how they could afford to wipe out negatives every month?) - and the ones being quiet about it for all we know shave to make up the difference. After all, they know if they want to change something in the agreement they are in for a rough ride on the forums if it hurts the affiliates bottom line. Most would probably rather shave us.

edited to add: I am not trying to overlook the points everyone else is making. the programs and affiliates need to be able to sit down and agree on what IS a fair way to handle it, because as others pointed out, in some situations we get outed of our legitimate earnings.

 

[inspiration]

Keep in mind that the programs that are bringing this to our attention are likely honest programs being hurt from their mistake (didn't you EVER wonder how they could afford to wipe out negatives every month?) - and the ones being quiet about it for all we know shave to make up the difference. After all, they know if they want to change something in the agreement they are in for a rough ride on the forums if it hurts the affiliates bottom line. Most would probably rather shave us.

It is all about trust and I trust Playsharepartners for being honest and being upfront with matters of importance.

I think in order to bear the burden the solution would be something like adding another variable such as deposit amount. So players with 10k in deposits and winning 11K should not get fenced but zeroed out at the end of the mont, whereas the ones with low deposits like a few hundred and winnings over 10K should (not a highroller).

This prevents a casino from losing money from bonushunters, which is the idea behind this all IMO.

Just an idea.....

 

[Vladi]

A couple of points:

1. "High roller policy" is misleading. This policy bears no relation to deposit sizes. It is only relevant to the size of a player's win, which could have come from a $30 deposit.

2. I would have no problem with it if the player was fenced immediately. But wiping out the commission from other players in the first month, then not paying it back in subsequent months even when the big winner loses it all back is... well can somebody explain to me how that is not theft of commission because I am struggling to see it otherwise?

3. I thought the "high rollers" would be exactly the kind of customer programs would want. You take the good with the bad, sometimes they win, more often they lose. I just don't get it, except as in point 1 this has absolutely nothing to do with "high rollers".

All I can say is if you have any kind of control or influence over your players, send your high rollers elsewhere where this policy does not exist... until the other program brings it is retroactively then you're just SOL.

 

[The_CPA]

It is all about trust and I trust Playsharepartners for being honest and being upfront with matters of importance.

HMM. I'm just an old, dumb Ozark Mountain Hillbilly, so I have a hard time "Trusting" anyone that would change my financial agreement after the results are produced. Especially if it's on a straight commission, lifetime basis.

Retroactive changes open Pandora's Box.

What will come next folks? :'(

 

[mojo]

HMM. I'm just an old, dumb Ozark Mountain Hillbilly, so I have a hard time "Trusting" anyone that would change my financial agreement after the results are produced. Especially if it's on a straight commission, lifetime basis.

Retroactive changes open Pandora's Box.

What will come next folks? :'(

This term is fundementally wrong. I still havn't gotten an answer as to why playshare interprets it differently than star partner.

It's not about trust. It's about a flawed term.

Agreed. What will come next?

This thread is VERY important because it opens the door for more of the same. Serious thought is required.

 

[mojo]

All I can say is if you have any kind of control or influence over your players, send your high rollers elsewhere where this policy does not exist... until the other program brings it is retroactively then you're just SOL.

Vladi's insightful post sums it down to the above which I wholeheartly agree.

For those programs that enact the HR term, why would affiliates choose your program? Is there a plus side?