Retroactive Terms Poll - Roxy Affiliates

[bonustreak]

Really we need to blame MG in the end for all these changes I think because it was their decision to puss out and leave the USA, not the operators! I can completely understand the operators are in a struggle now and need to cut some corners but they need to do it right and not screw over their partners in business while cutting the corners. The opt in is an excellent idea Joe!

 

[The_CPA]

I have to agree, Joe.
Although I can't personally say I've had any good months with them lately, there were a few in the past 10 years that were OK.

Pure and simple though,...when they changed their terms a couple of years back,they allowed afffiliates the opportunity to stay on their original deal or switch.

IN FACT, I recall them EXTENDING the choice to switch or stay on their original agreement beyond what they initially stated the deadline would be because some affiliates said they didn't hear, or know there was a change in the offing.

Casino Rewards/Reward Affiliates has handled terms changes professionally, and with seemingly sincere appreciation for their affiliate partners.

This is the model/example any respectable program should follow. JMO

 

[JTodd]

How could taking the first month's income (and not properly fencing) be a gift? I would (in all seriousness) love to hear how you can back that statement up.

First, I misread the first line that the negative balance DOES affect first month's earnings. I thought it did not. But does it go into affect immediately upon a big win and freeze the affiliate loss at $2,000? If so, it's not totally bad... is it?

Guess I'm just too old school, man. I remember many times when whales won big and crushed my earnings so badly at some sites that I never crawled out of the hole. That crap carried forward forever back then. One place I was negative $85,000... and that was my share, not the affiliate program.

When some programs implemented "No Negative Carry Over" it was awesome. However, they didn't plan on what the industry has become today. That's no fault to the affiliates who signed up in good faith under those T&C's, but I fear that if we (as webmasters) don't give a little to help these programs be more profitable we may see more and more Grand Prive type of activity.

Perhaps the solution is to allow webmasters to chose a mix and match arangement with the programs? One affiliate may choose to have a "High Roller Protection" agreement where they have a $2000 commission stop-loss and the player is fenced. Another webmaster may choose to opt-out of the "protection", go $20,000 in the hole, and take their chances that the player will play it all back.

I dunno. Just hate to see affiliate programs grasping at straws and my friends hurting because of it. Wish I had an answer that would work for everyone.

 

[Bonus Paradise]

My opinion on this HR policy:

It happened to me, that I had a big winner at a program.
and then the next month he played all away, we did get over 5K even the casino had no win at all from that player and still had to pay me.
So imagine how many more times this happens in total,
the casinos sure lost out much money.
So I can understand that they are now trying to find a way protect themselves for such cases.
So with this HR policy now this could not happen anymore.


I agree with others here, if fence the player,
then do it immediatly, not only the next month.

I am voting not acceptable.

btw, do progressive winners also count for this?

 

[Simmo!]

Agree wih JTodd there has to be give and take. Affs and Operators have to help each other if we are truly a partnership. I also like Roxy and want them to be around for years. That is why I could live with the term. JTodd also makes a good point about the negative carry-over which, by it's removal, also means that we are probably getting more than 30% (or whatever) from most of our players over the long term.

However - it was applied retroactively (I wasn't consulted either FYI). If we have a contract, changes that affect the value of a contract should be agreed by both sides prior to the change or else quite clearly, it's not a partnership.

So for exactly the same reasons as the Playshare term, I voted no because if we start to accept un-agreed retroactive changes to our contracts that affect our earnings, we set a precedent and EVERYONE WILL DO IT. And we can only blame ourselves.

It's a matter of principle as much as anything.

One thing I'd add. Remember when the S.A Mg's got together about 3 or 4 years ago and did that sweeping retroactive change? I took a whole load down at the time (Referback, Fortune, Roxy, VPL etc). They eventually backed down, but it was a great lesson for me.

Although they have gradually come back onto my sites, they have nowhere near the exposure they had before because it made me change my strategy. And as much as I like the people there, I always harboured a nagging feeling that at any of those programs, company policy may well override our relationships - and here we are.

That's why I now share my players around some 30-40 programs and am no longer reliant on just a few.

 

[Simmo!]

Incidentally, just an aside. From a business perspective, I view the affiliate program managers as a conduit between us the affiliates and the "company" we are dealing with. A relationship manager as much as anything. In most instances, they are in a position of trying to balance the requirements of an affiliate with those of the company, with the added burden of trying to stay employed

To that end, it really bugs me when afiliates rant and vent at the affiliate program managers who are really quite often stuck in the middle.

Just a thought.

 

[dominique]

The assumption everyone here makes is that the industry is in dire straits.

Is it really that bad?

 

[JTodd]

The assumption everyone here makes is that the industry is in dire straits.

Is it really that bad?

This is a mixed answer. Some programs and webmasters have actually had to leave the industry, so yes... for them it is that bad. For others, all these troubles may actually be profitable as their competitors leave the industry voluntarily or go out of business.

I truly believe that what's going on right now is exactly what we feared would happen in a post-UIGEA industry. Remember back in 2005 and early 2006 when we used to talk about this, Dom? About what we thought would happen should something like UIGEA get passed?


1) Some weak affiliate programs would go under...

2) Consolidation of affiliate programs for survival...

3) Changing relationships with their webmasters...

4) Fear some webmasters may not survive the transition...

5) Fear webmasters may not have a place in a regulated industry...


Obviously, some of these things have been going on for some time now. So I hope you understand my concerns that we are moving down the list as regulation looms on the horizon. This is why I am more apt to give a little to help the programs survive with webmasters viewed as an asset to be kept, rather than a liability which can be cut.

I understand some things are unfair and it's a slippery slope, but I am also trying to look 5 years... 10 years into our future. None of this will matter if several programs start chopping like Grand Prive, and whereas we need to defend our interests I would also like to have programs look at webmasters as partners they need to keep.

 

[dominique]

Well, with Microgamings renegging their contracts, I am inclined to attribute it to the withdrawal from the US combined with a bad economy.

I think primarily it is the world economy, which is starting to recover.

Do we want to emerge from an economic setback with a bunch of precedents that contracts can be altered by one (and only one, namely operators) party without agreement by the other party?

This is not good business practice, and it makes it impossible to establish player bases anywhere in good faith, believing one will actually get paid as agreed.

As partner, I am perfectly willing to stick it out through good and bad times, I don't want to see programs failing any more than they want to see affiliates failing.

Also, are these cuts designed to allow operators to continue to make the same profits as before the economic setback and make the affiliate carry the burden? Or are they a sharing of economic repercussions?

Will the future of this industry be governed by lawless behavior (not to be confused with non-regulated, one can adhere to basic business law without direct regulation by other bodies)?

Last not least, we all know that once a clause makes it into a contract, it is there to stay if the issuing party benefits.

So, if the economy recovers by year's end, are we stuck with these terms that were meant to assist operators pull through a bad time?

There are a lot of very serious issues to consider here, that may affect the industry for years to come.

 

[inspiration]

So, if the economy recovers by year's end, are we stuck with these terms that were meant to assist operators pull through a bad time?

Sure looks that way and if the economy suddenly starts to flourish we still drag those [retroactive active terms] with us for (for hopefully some good) years to come.

What do you think happens to the bottom line of those operators then?

They mave have more money to spend after the whole crisis is over and start investing for their own benefits with parts of our commission.

If we want the same bottom line we have to drink more coffee and work a bit harder and longer.

Sure it is about give and take ....... but they "take" when times are bad and "take" at times when profits will be good.

I just do not expect them to share their succes after they survived the worst.

 

[bonustreak]

Although they have gradually come back onto my sites, they have nowhere near the exposure they had before because it made me change my strategy. And as much as I like the people there, I always harboured a nagging feeling that at any of those programs, company policy may well override our relationships - and here we are.

Exactly and now some of the programs that I replaced these others with are now doing the same exact thing..lol Your also right on spreading the risk and do not rely on a few programs to earn.

At the end of the day I have many friends as aff managers and I know that they are only doing what the bosses above are telling them and it does no good to beat them over the head about these changes. We cannot stand for this to pass without a fight, the programs cannot do retroactive changes and they cannot change contracts without notifying the affiliates before hand. A choice would be awesome with this high roller term.

 

[WCD Admin]

It's really as simple as including affiliates in the changes being made:

Yes we should be able to compromise and act like partners to ensure that nobody gets squashed - I think most agree on this, but since we are acting like partners, shouldn't we also be treated like partners?

Shouldn't we be included in the discussion of a change that directly effects our bottom line? Or is it only the programs bottom line that is important?

This is a two way street and programs are quick to point that out - when they need to alter a term - but they seem to ignore that fact otherwise (like including us in the discussions).

------------

Affiliate Managers as Human Shields:

When a program hires an affiliate manager to go do their dirty work instead of calling the partners to the table, it's a lot like using the AM as a human shield. totally unfair. But it was the owners who structured it this way, not the affiliates. This is the arm of the company that we have been provided to interface with. It sure would be nice for some direct communications with these companies or their owners, but they have purposely set it up this way so they can make their decisions nice and neat in a meeting room and hand them down with absolutely no questions asked.

You can't blame us for being upset about being manhandled. The only way the message is going to get to the receiver is through the communication device. The only way for the communication device to get the message there as accurately and as passionately as we feel about it is uncensored. Unfortunately for the AM, it becomes their job to relay the passion that is being felt through the community because the owners are too chicken shit to deal with their partners face-to-face.

I like most of my affiliate managers just fine, but when the program starts ripping me off or whatever, I'm smart enough to know that relationship was built to do business with - that this person is given a certain range to work within. I have to train myself to see through this pseudo-relationship to the underlying business models, and at the end of the day, that's what I base my decisions on. Not the affiliate manager. This is how I feed my family.

Anyone in the position of affiliate manager should know this by now. We have seen countless AM's resign, get fired, etc, after getting stuck in the middle. Just something to think about. It's not affiliates fault for the stress of the AM. It's the owners fault for structuring something this way and then roasting their AMs on the fire by issuing unreasonable demands from their partners and making them deliver the message.

The stress/emotional toll on AMs is coming from (A) being forced to do dirty work (B) owners making them deliver very unsavory business practices to their so called "partners" (when it suits them)

 

[WCD Admin]

Dominique said:

Also, are these cuts designed to allow operators to continue to make the same profits as before the economic setback and make the affiliate carry the burden? Or are they a sharing of economic repercussions?

If they operate anything like Goldman Sachs, the cuts are to keep them rich and have nothing to do with the viability of the casino.

Personally, we have not felt the economic downturn at all. I have no idea why programs like to talk about that so much. All the evidence points to gambling being unaffected. Colorado raised their limits from $5 per bet to $100 per bet, and revenue tripled overnight.

edited to say: I'm not so sure I researched that last part very well (second paragraph, so someone can probably say look at Vegas, etc) not going to delete my post, but I concede in advance that I might have been wrong about that - especially in regard to land based gambling in specific. ;D - I should have said there is no evidence at our company that we are in any sort of economic slump.

 

[JTodd]

Well, with Microgamings renegging their contracts, I am inclined to attribute it to the withdrawal from the US combined with a bad economy.

..................................

Do we want to emerge from an economic setback with a bunch of precedents that contracts can be altered by one (and only one, namely operators) party without agreement by the other party?

..................................

Will the future of this industry be governed by lawless behavior (not to be confused with non-regulated, one can adhere to basic business law without direct regulation by other bodies)?

All valid points I am not inclined to disagree with. My reasoning for posting in this thread was not to imply that I had the solution, it was just to throw in my small contibution to the great pool of thoughts already in place here... which I have done.

 

[bb1webs]

Hi folks,

Please make no mistake about this ... it is ALL about precedent and nothing can be seen further by any thinking aff ... until this issue is addressed.

You cannot come in and change the rules of the game without our saying okay or we will burn you down.

PERIOD!

Now that said ... and understood this must be maintained if we are to be serious about believing in anything to do with our business ...

I ask re-read Bernie's post.

If a progarm is in trouble .. hell we're not stupid. We'd rather have some than none. Talk to us. Treat us like we treat you. As partners.

Affs are constantly given reason to be ranting, putting people in the middle etc. That's because .. and make no mistake .. we're on the end. And it ain't the kissing end either.

...

Now that said .. programs need to police themselves in how often they're crying wolf because about the 3rd time we all pitch in and give a specific program extra exposure because they're hurting is going to be when most of us say .. that's enough!

But we'd do exactly that up to the point of abuse ... or I think I can speak for many of us when I say we'd do that ... or a number of other things to help a situation which the very wiser minds than mind that inhabit our industry ... will come up with. Give them the chance!

 

[bb1webs]

Oh I would add to sponsors that they look at the new Bing SE, which as I've read in forums .. it is believed the success is due to Microsoft finally actually listening to the webmasters ...

you have some of the brightest minds in the world (IMHO) at your disposal with a financial interest in the outcome of the matter ... USE THEM!

 

[Nandakishore]

I find that, apart from few 'rogues', the affiliate programs are quite responsible and correct, BUT most of them lack training in communication with their partners. If someone could start a seminar or webinar on 'How to create and maintain a Win Win partnership' or something like that, he or she could mint some good money.

 

[Guard Dog]

I find that, apart from few 'rogues', the affiliate programs are quite responsible and correct, BUT most of them lack training in communication with their partners. If someone could start a seminar or webinar on 'How to create and maintain a Win Win partnership' or something like that, he or she could mint some good money.

I like the idea I think both affs and affiliate managers could use a little 'tweaking' at times. Nobody is perfect for sure! (Except my wife, of course)

Communication, for me, IS the key to driving traffic. The folks I talk to more are the programs I promote more, pure and simple.

 

[Nandakishore]

I like the idea I think both affs and affiliate managers could use a little 'tweaking' at times.

Why not use one of the next conferences to conduct a workshop on 'How to make Win-Win communications' or something like that. Participants should be affiliates and affiliate programs. The workshop moderator must come from outside the gambling industry.

 

[GamTrak]

It's true! They also added games like Craps (my favorite) as well as extended their hours to 24/7. Being that they are 45 minutes away from me I will visit more now that they have my favorite game.

Starting at 12:01 Thursday morning, gambling in Colorado changed. Casinos in Cripple Creek, Black Hawk and Central City raised the betting limits from five dollars to 100.

The casinos are also keeping their doors open all night and gamblers can now play Craps and Roulette. Some casinos in Cripple Creek celebrated the change by hosting a party.

"I think the industry needed a shot in the arm for the past five years. We’re looking for this to increase our revenue, to off-set the downturn in the economy and the smoking ban," said Marc Murphy with Bronco Billy’s.

State economists predict the changes will bring in an additional $30 million over the next year.

I wanted to add that the landbased casinos don't cheat thier employees/partners by changing the contract/wage without an agreement and neither should online casinos.

Colorado Casinos Raise Limits To $100, Add Games, Stay Open 24 Hours A Day

Personally, we have not felt the economic downturn at all. I have no idea why programs like to talk about that so much. All the evidence points to gambling being unaffected. Colorado raised their limits from $5 per bet to $100 per bet, and revenue tripled overnight.

edited to say: I'm not so sure I researched that last part very well (second paragraph, so someone can probably say look at Vegas, etc) not going to delete my post, but I concede in advance that I might have been wrong about that - especially in regard to land based gambling in specific. ;D - I should have said there is no evidence at our company that we are in any sort of economic slump.