Retroactive Terms Poll - Playshare

[matted]

I dont see how it can be acceptable.

1. It is retroactive
2. You pay for the big win - and then don't see a dime as it is all played back.

I do think high roller terms are needed to protect both affiliate and operator - Either the aff is saddled in "debt" and will never break even - or the operator clears the neg and then pays the affiliate when the big win is played back (which often happens)

Again, I think the entire commission structure needs to be fixed. Instead of a net of all players, I'd like to see every player to be unique. If a player wins over a month, there is no payout on that player until that player is back in the black. But at the same time, the players who's losses have exceeded wins pay as usual. Essentially, this "fences" every player and protects both the affiliate and the operator.

 

[Betpartners]

I voted Playshare Partners' retroactive High Roller Term is not acceptable

The reason is fairly simple for me and it is that while i accept that we all need to move with the times and i accept a lot of what J Todd has said it just seems to me that affiliates are always the easiest targets when it comes to making cutbacks or whatever you call it.

A contract is a contract, now if you want to change that contract for all future players etc fine, that i can live with and make a decision if i want to accept that new contract and promote in the future.

But not on past players, that contract should stay as is.

But that is a double edged sword, would i complain if an affiliate program changed a contract that was actually a benefit to the affiliate and that was retroactive?

So by saying no this is wrong and it should be not be retroactive i have to accept that i cannot expect any program to change a contract for the better and make that retroactive.

Though not sure that has ever been done to be honest

 

[Daera]

Hi Michael,

I think that many people have a problem with the fact that the new clause applies to players acquired in the past. Whether we call that "retroactive" or something else doesn't matter to me -- just as long as we are all on the same page.

Affiliates signed up and promoted these casinos with the understanding that there would be no negative carryover, period. To change that policy is fine, as long as it doesn't affect earnings derived from the existing player base.

Do programs with no negative carry-over promise new affiliates that there won't be a negative carryover on your players for life? No negative period? I've seen programs say that our players will be ours for life, as long as they keep playing. But not that a no-negative carryover is for life.

I don't know much about how other industries implement term changes. I get letters in the mail from time to time from credit card card companies, etc., informing me about changes in terms. They usually apply those changes to all customers, regardless of when they joined. But they usually give notice in writing, 30 days or so before the changes go into affect.

Personally, I think that it's fair for any program to make changes to their terms, and apply the changes to all affiliates and all of their players. I think they should be required to give us a 30 day notice of these changes though. Isn't that normal for most businesses?

From a business perspective as an affiliate, I think the marketplace is harder than it was before. But is is also harder as an operator, and I think to cast a program as rogue because they adjusted their terms in a fashion that is allowed under the terms of the contract that affiliates entered into with them is not a reasonable posture to take. I think it is fine to say that they have a history of adjusting their terms in a fashion that means you cannot count on the same earnings forever is fine, and to consider that to be a mark against a program. But in my book a solid program that makes a change like this should not have the same mark against them as the mark against an affiliate program that cheats and steals. That feels completely unreasonable and unfair to me.

I agree that things are not only tougher these days for affiliates, but also for operators. Look at all the offline businesses that are going out of business, bankrupt, workers laid off... because they're struggling through our economic low right now. They're allowed to make necessary changes to make it through these difficult times. It's hard for everyone these days.

I also think that the word "rogue" shouldn't be used loosely. Before we know it players are calling casinos rogue because they didn't get a bonus they asked support for, etc. I don't think this high roller policy is an unreasonable one. Nor do I think it's so bad that a group should be consider rogue. We don't call every program that has a negative carryover rogue.

I always prefer a no negative carryover. But 2 of my favorite programs have a negative carryover, which doesn't usually affect me too much. A high roller policy is much better then just carrying over all negatives.

I agree that term changes should apply to earnings going forward, but that maybe it's not reasonable to expect our earnings model on existing players to be etched in stone that can never change.

 

[inspiration]

The new term is fair when they really fence bonushunters winning money over 10k.

I do not know exact numbers but usually these are one of the big burdens a casino has to deal with, that's why there are high wager requirements to limit the chance of having to pay a lot for people with small wallets.

If I send a highroller the risk is for the casino. If the player loses they get all the benefits. What I want to say it has to be fair in all aspects.

 

[Daera]

The new term is fair when they really fence bonushunters winning money over 10k.

I do not know exact numbers but usually these are one of the big burdens a casino has to deal with, that's why there are high wager requirements to limit the chance of having to pay a lot for people with small wallets.

If I send a highroller the risk is for the casino. If the player loses they get all the benefits. What I want to say it has to be fair in all aspects.

You threw me here about bonuses. What do bonuses have to do with this? Sorry, I'm having a blonde moment.

 

[dominique]

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).

That's what inspiration is referring to.

And it makes sense.

Now, I understand (am I wrong?) the whole thing doesn't apply to Jackpots, which are taken care of in another way.

It also makes sense NOT to include true high rollers here, since they are an asset, whether they make the occasional high win or not, their high deposits offset the win.

But if someone deposits $50 or a few hundred and wins big, it makes sense to have a "big winner" or "fencing" policy. This player is truly losing everyone money.

Other than that, I still think that such a policy should be applied immediately upon the win, and that ot should not apply to players acquired before the policy took effect.

This is not as big a deal as it may look, since older players are proven good value players for the most part and we will see the money played back. Over a year or so most player will be new anyway, and the "grandfathered" players will be the good, steady players both casinos and affs want to see because they provide a steady flow of income. Wins are offset by deposits here also.

 

[Daera]

Thanks for explaining that Dom. Sometimes I have brain farts. LOL

 

[bonustreak]

I think it is very important to not confuse this vote is nothing about making a program rogue, we don't even make that sort of decision here at AGD, what we do is decide if a term or a program has predatory terms and conditions.

I have faith that Lawrence will do all in his power to smooth things out for affiliates as best as he can. Playshare has always been an upstanding program and I agree this had to be done to close a loop hole, I am just not happy about how it is being done. With a few tweaks I am sure all will be better.

 

[Daera]

I completely agree with what you said Bonustreak.

Just to be clear, this isn't a new term or term change that just occured with Playshare Partners is it? I've known of it for at least 4 or 5 months, if not longer. Does anyone know exactly when they started the high roller policy? Just curious.

 

[slotplayer]

It's clearly outlined in the terms.

Frankly I get really scared if reputable brands are adding retro active terms because I did not agree to this when I signed up.

By completing the Membership Application to the PlayShare Partners Program (the "Program") and clicking "I Accept" on the form, you (hereinafter "You" or the "Affiliate") hereby agree to abide by all the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement.

PlayShare Partners reserves the right to amend, alter, delete or add to any of the provisions of this Agreement, at any time and at its sole discretion, without advance notice to you. Your continued (i) participation in the Program, (ii) use of the PlayShare Partners Affiliate website and/or PlayShare Partners Marketing Tools (as hereafter defined), or (iii) acceptance of any Affiliate commissions from PlayShare Partners confirms your irrevocable acceptance of this Agreement (and any modifications thereto), subject to your continued compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
IF ANY MODIFICATION TO THIS AGREEMENT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO YOU, YOUR ONLY RECOURSE AGAINST PLAYSHARE PARTNERS IS TO TERMINATE YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAM.

The term of this Agreement will commence when the Affiliate completes and submits the membership form and it is officially accepted by PlayShare Partners. Except as stated otherwise herein, the term will be ongoing unless and until either party sends written notification to the other that it wishes to terminate the Agreement. Upon receipt of written notification by either party, the Agreement will be considered to be terminated immediately. Termination is at will, for any reason, by either party. For purposes of notification of termination, email is considered a written and immediate form of notification.

Upon termination:
. The Affiliate must remove all references to the Clients from the Affiliate's websites and communications, including, without limitation, removing all PlayShare Partners Marketing Tools and disabling all links to the Client's sites;
i. All rights and licenses granted to the Affiliate under this Agreement shall immediately terminate and all rights shall revert to the respective licensors, and the Affiliate will cease all use of any trademarks, service marks, logos and other designations of the Clients or PlayShare Partners;
ii. The Affiliate will be entitled only to those earned and unpaid commissions as of the effective date of termination; provided, however, PlayShare Partners may withhold the Affiliate's final payment for a reasonable time to ensure that the correct amount is paid. The Affiliate will not be eligible to earn or receive commissions after this date;

iii. If this Agreement is terminated by PlayShare Partners on the basis of the Affiliate's breach, PlayShare Partners's only obligation shall be to pay to the Affiliate earned but unpaid commissions as of the termination date, but shall not pay any further commissions on players referred to PlayShare Partners by the Affiliate;

 

[dominique]

PlayShare Partners reserves the right to amend, alter, delete or add to any of the provisions of this Agreement, at any time and at its sole discretion, without advance notice to you. Your continued (i) participation in the Program, (ii) use of the PlayShare Partners Affiliate website and/or PlayShare Partners Marketing Tools (as hereafter defined), or (iii) acceptance of any Affiliate commissions from PlayShare Partners confirms your irrevocable acceptance of this Agreement (and any modifications thereto), subject to your continued compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
IF ANY MODIFICATION TO THIS AGREEMENT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO YOU, YOUR ONLY RECOURSE AGAINST PLAYSHARE PARTNERS IS TO TERMINATE YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAM.

This is a nonsense clause that is standard to include to discourage law suits.

Courts routinely throw this out in favor of general contract law, which states that contracts have to be fulfilled exactly as agreed on. Terms like the above fall in the " invalid, unreasonable and unenforceable " category and are routinely tossed aside.

In the eyes of the law, a contract is a contract is a contract. Period.

 

[triple777s]

Voted - Not acceptable

 

[Guard Dog]

There has been no response from Playshare on this issue depsite the assurances that there would be.

Quite disappointing - maybe this will wake Lawrence and Playshare up to get that response they promised everyone?

 

[Simmo!]

For what it's worth they haven't dropped the ball just yet. Lawrence made a point of coming up and asking me for my take on the issue in Pest and it is obvious that it is still a topic back at Playshare HQ, although no indication of outcome was apparent.

 

[Guard Dog]

For what it's worth they haven't dropped the ball just yet. Lawrence made a point of coming up and asking me for my take on the issue in Pest and it is obvious that it is still a topic back at Playshare HQ, although no indication of outcome was apparent.

That is definitely good to know! Silence becomes deafening after awhile and I would certainly love to put this story to rest.

 

[Lawrence]

Hi there,

My most sincere apologies for the lack of communication lately... I know it's not an excuse, but we have been travelling to and from Budapest, getting affiliate payments processed, as well as trying to maintain our service levels. It's not easy

As Simmo mentioned, we were at BAC, and I did manage to speak to a few people about this particular situation. We are committed to getting this resolved in the fairest possible way but it is going to require some more work and discussion on our side.

I will endeavor to keep you updated on this forum...

Regards,
Lawrence.

 

[mojo]

There has been no response from Playshare on this issue depsite the assurances that there would be.

Quite disappointing - maybe this will wake Lawrence and Playshare up to get that response they promised everyone?

Thanks for keeping it on the front burner. I am convinced this will never be answered. Playshare does not want to answer to this.

 

[inspiration]

Thanks for keeping it on the front burner. I am convinced this will never be answered. Playshare does not want to answer to this.

I am sure Lawrence is professional enough to know many of us want an answer lets say before the end of this month and no additional postphonements.

I will keep his word for it.

 

[pdjoe]

I am sure Lawrence is professional enough to know many of us want an answer lets say before the end of this month and no additional postphonements.

I will keep his word for it.

Sorry Inpiration but Playshare can't be trusted because they have changed their terms and contracts with affiliates.

Any program that changes as they see fit without their partners approval, can't be trusted.

Changes can't be made retroactively!

Just my feelings here

 

[inspiration]

I knew I would be burried alive by posting that but do you honestly think for one minute program contracts have real value these days? If PSP tells me their contracts were very generous to affiliates but due to overall costs increase e.g. licenses, fees on money transfers, processors, promotions, employees, affiliate share up to 35% and swallow the negatives it would be too much of a challenge rather than a continuity of their business.

Their future business model needs to uphold the same level of both player and webmaster satisfaction to be competitive and succesful for the long term. Those retro changes itself and the lacking communication certainly have not been the moves of PSP. But moving on I think we do not want PSP to make the ultimate cost cutting decision - closing the affiliate program - if they can not uphold their bottom line for the future.