Rival & GATM, another month of deductions. What's yours?

[TheGamblingGuru]

Anyone receive Deckmedia commissions yet? Usually they pay on the 1st no matter what. Not this month for me (for the first time ever)

I received this email from Deckmedia on Mar. 8th....

Payment Date Change
Despite our official payment date being the 15th of each month, we have been sending Wallet payments on the 1st of each month for quite some time. Due to a change in the day that we receive important data back from a processor, we have had to change wallet payments to the 6th of each month. I apologize for this change however this is still a lot earlier than most programs and still very early in the month. If you have any questions about this please drop me an email or add me to Skype/MSN and I will be happy to answer any questions.

____
____

 

[Daera]

And Rival pays close attention to that mindset and acts on it, and will continue to act on it as long as that type of mindset is prevailing!

Riddle me this then...would you feel the same way if you were losing $100 per player sent, based on a certain CPA deal you had with one of the Rival Casinos?
____
____

I don't like getting these nasty surprise deductions. It really sucked big time when we had eWalletXpress taken out of Affiliate Edge a few months back. Really hurt... but, it's part of this business. So yes I would feel the same, but would never be happy about it. I don't think it's unfair.

 

[TheGamblingGuru]

I don't like getting these nasty surprise deductions. It really sucked big time when we had eWalletXpress taken out of Affiliate Edge a few months back. Really hurt... but, it's part of this business. So yes I would feel the same, but would never be happy about it. I don't think it's unfair.

So what would be a fair solution to that CPA deal then?

The casino already has a new player with all their details but you don't have your $100 per player.
____
____

 

[Daera]

So what would be a fair solution to that CPA deal then?

The casino already has a new player with all their details but you don't have your $100 per player.
____
____

Good point. I didn't think about it that way. I'll have to think on that one.

 

[TheGamblingGuru]

Good point. I didn't think about it that way. I'll have to think on that one.

Curve-balls are tricky sometimes aren't they..
____
____

 

[Simmo!]

So what would be a fair solution to that CPA deal then?

The casino already has a new player with all their details but you don't have your $100 per player.
____
____

I'd say that was pretty straightforward. If the deal was $100 CPA with no dependency on a deposit then they should pay. If it's dependent on a deposit then it's fair that the casino receive that money before they shell out.

 

[KasinoKing]

I'd say that was pretty straightforward. If the deal was $100 CPA with no dependency on a deposit then they should pay. If it's dependent on a deposit then it's fair that the casino receive that money before they shell out.

^ What he said.

(Do Rival even do CPA?)

KK

 

[TheGamblingGuru]

I'd say that was pretty straightforward. If the deal was $100 CPA with no dependency on a deposit then they should pay. If it's dependent on a deposit

Yes, lets say it was, and the said players made one or two that met the minimum required...

then it's fair that the casino receive that money before they shell out.

Ah, but that was not part of the *wording* of the original agreement. The deal, aka contract, said nothing about whether they actually collect the money or not, IMO that's a whole nother can of worms that was not part of the original agreement/contract and I believe that any court in the land would agree.

The *Deposit* was the action required, collecting that *Deposit* is an entirely separate action.

Are past agreements and contracts open to re-negotiation at certain time-frames without both party's consent and based on current "market trends" or are they actually "Contracts" based on the original agreement? Remember Grand Prive

Slippery slopes there IMO if we allow programs to change original agreements and contracts to suit their fancy when it may be in their interest but not ours.

And this holds true of the *Rev Share* contract that we all entered into with most of them as well. Can someone show me where in their original terms that we agreed to, that it states they can do what they are doing now?

Either it is a *Contract* or it isn't.
____
____

 

[TheGamblingGuru]

^ What he said.

(Do Rival even do CPA?)

KK

Most all programs do, including Rival programs. It all just depends on how good of a negotiator you are and what you can offer the program and how bad the program wants you to pimp their product. Everything is negotiable my friend.

____
____

 

[dominique]

IMO all these programs better add to their T&Cs that they can deduct processing failures from aff pay.

There is no such clause and hence, legally, they can't.

If you sell a TV to someone and get paid, and someone steals the TV out of his car after he takes posession, can he stop payment on your check because his TV is gone?

Only if the contract guarantees that the TV arrives safely at his house.

If it's not in the T&C, they have no right to do it.

If they add it in, they have every right to do it.

 

[TheGamblingGuru]

IMO all these programs better add to their T&Cs that they can deduct processing failures from aff pay.

There is no such clause and hence, legally, they can't.

If you sell a TV to someone and get paid, and someone steals the TV out of his car after he takes posession, can he stop payment on your check because his TV is gone?

Only if the contract guarantees that the TV arrives safely at his house.

If it's not in the T&C, they have no right to do it.

If they add it in, they have every right to do it.

Exactly Dom, well said!
____
____

 

[Simmo!]

If the T&C's say the affiliate share is a proportion of the money received by the operator then they are covered I would have thought?

At the risk of annoying people, if I were in the casino's shoes and I was expected to shell out a % of money I hadn't received I wouldn't consider it fair.

A second thought: it's not in an affiliates long-term interests to put the squeeze on a smaller outfit. One of two things could happen: either the operator will go under or they will find other ways to get their share through methods you will probably never know about.

If you think those methods are deceitful, then you surely have to question whether you should be presenting an operator to players who you yourself don't trust. If it's the former then you'll lose your entire database overnight.

What I am trying to say is that this is a catch22 and requires some slack. If you work with small companies *in any industry*, you are trading off an element of stability for services that perhaps can't otherwise be found. It's an accepted business risk anywhere you go. In a previous life, I was responsible for sourcing suppliers. If one of those suppliers went under owing us money or product it was, quite rightly, me who took the flack for not understanding and presenting the risks to the business.

And also like in any other industry, the reason problems get exacerbated is inefficient communication. In this case I'd suggest that the casinos need to be generally more communicative and explain exactly how these problems affect them and to what degree and if they don't, affiliates need to find that out so they understand what risks they run not just here, but in future.

I don't mean this offensively Rob so please don't take it that way. Just that I think that the effect of these sorts of problems could be better understood by everyone getting to know a bit more about who they are dealing with.

Cheers,

Simmo!

 

[KasinoKing]

^ What he said... AGAIN!

Exactly what I would have said if I was more articulate.

Rival could have come up with all sorts of "sneaky" ways to grab that money back off affiliates, but instead they have been totally up-front & honest about it. I know which I prefer!

KK

 

[TheGamblingGuru]

If the T&C's say the affiliate share is a proportion of the money received by the operator then they are covered I would have thought?

At the risk of annoying people, if I were in the casino's shoes and I was expected to shell out a % of money I hadn't received I wouldn't consider it fair.

A second thought: it's not in an affiliates long-term interests to put the squeeze on a smaller outfit. One of two things could happen: either the operator will go under or they will find other ways to get their share through methods you will probably never know about.

If you think those methods are deceitful, then you surely have to question whether you should be presenting an operator to players who you yourself don't trust. If it's the former then you'll lose your entire database overnight.

What I am trying to say is that this is a catch22 and requires some slack. If you work with small companies *in any industry*, you are trading off an element of stability for services that perhaps can't otherwise be found. It's an accepted business risk anywhere you go. In a previous life, I was responsible for sourcing suppliers. If one of those suppliers went under owing us money or product it was, quite rightly, me who took the flack for not understanding and presenting the risks to the business.

And also like in any other industry, the reason problems get exacerbated is inefficient communication. In this case I'd suggest that the casinos need to be generally more communicative and explain exactly how these problems affect them and to what degree and if they don't, affiliates need to find that out so they understand what risks they run not just here, but in future.

I don't mean this offensively Rob so please don't take it that way. Just that I think that the effect of these sorts of problems could be better understood by everyone getting to know a bit more about who they are dealing with.

Cheers,

Simmo!

No, not at all my friend...good post with several good points!
____
____

 

[Daera]

IMO all these programs better add to their T&Cs that they can deduct processing failures from aff pay.

There is no such clause and hence, legally, they can't.

If you sell a TV to someone and get paid, and someone steals the TV out of his car after he takes posession, can he stop payment on your check because his TV is gone?

Only if the contract guarantees that the TV arrives safely at his house.

If it's not in the T&C, they have no right to do it.

If they add it in, they have every right to do it.

You are so good with your analogies. The Analogy Queen!
I always see things in a different light because of the analogies you use.