Vegas Affiliates - Rogue

[vegas.aff]

Hi Christine,

Basically this will be done on a case by case basis provided there will be good exposure. We have even done that and increased commissions but it is subject to review.

We are here to work with affiliates and grow stronger as partners. I am not trying to strong-arm anyone. I have had to deal with the changes and you know what I went through to get things turned around so as not implement the quota terms retroactively.

I would just appreciate a little support from our partners. After all I'm here to ensure success for VA with the tools I am given and the new ones we are creating.

If anyone would like to promote us through new accounts we are willing to discuss this. Definitely.

BR,
Seb

 

[Engineer]

Engineer was asked to refrain from posting negative and libellous comments about VegasAffiliates or we would have been well within our rights to close his account.

Note that we did not close his account but merely warned him after numerous unfounded and opinionated comments that were stated as fact and clearly were not.

Nothing that I have posted is untrue. VA retroactively bundled the casinos, which is a breach of the original contract that I entered into 5 years ago. Bundling was never mentioned in the T&Cs, but it widely understood by everyone that the casinos there were not bundled.

While I can understand your point about the casino wallet system not being ideal for affiliates who may have benefited in the past from separated results, please keep in mind that this calculation was not an official term and was bound to change.

My opinion is that something like bundling cannot be "bound to change" unless both sides agree to the change. The fact that the casinos were not bundled in the past was a major reason affiliates promoted more than one of VA's casinos in the first place. One of the main reasons I put so much time and energy into VA's brands was because they weren't bundled. Had they been bundled, I would have promoted only one casino to limit my exposure.

This was a change we had to make due to concerns regarding a possible negative growth within our casino group. Affiliates were being paid out on overall negative results for the group of casinos. This was pushing us in a dangerous direction and we have had to make changes in order to ensure growth in the new markets we are now targeting due to the closure of Microgaming in the US.

I think there are other ways to get out of a hole besides screwing your marketing partners. Revamp the casinos, offer better creatives, update the banners more frequently, offer special promos to affiliates.... Basically I think the company should "grow" its way out of the problem instead of trying to "save" its way out.

We did not and were not going to close any accounts.

Thank you. I will sleep a little easier tonight (seriously).

Merely reminding a partner (and that's A partner as it was only one instance) that he has an obligation towards us the same way we do him.

I wasn't the only one. I talked with another webmaster via email about his/her experience. I won't "out" him/her like you did with me, though. If he/she wants to step forward and post, he/she will. Guard Dog has confirmed cases separately as well.

The Bundling issue is not something that we are able to reverse, due to circumstances we had to implement this as we were being very negatively affected. We have had to make certain changes to remain competitive and this way are able to offer affiliates better terms in other areas.

VA had "no bundling" for over 5 years. Why does VA need to bundle now? Revenues are probably down due to MGS leaving the US, but do you think it is fair that affiliates get their earnings sliced to a fraction of what they once were so that the "shareholders" can maintain a constant (or near-constant) earnings level? Personally (obviously) I don't think that's fair.

The bundling is something that you are required to reverse as an affiliate program. I am not sure that you realize that affiliates do not, generally, promote programs that bundle. By VA offering no bundling for years and affiliates promoting it heavily because of that, then removing it.. well I hope that helps you to realize why VA would then become rogue. Affiliates put in thousands of hours promoting you because you did not bundle. Please consider that.

Exactly.

Honestly I do understand you, but the bundling is still not something that I have control over or that we are able to reverse.

I think you could easily reverse this with just a few lines of code.

Many other affiliate programs have implemented worse changes and have been marked as predatory. Not Rogued.

VA isn't being singled out. For many months, affiliates have been trying to get VA to understand that retroactive changes that harm affiliates are not acceptable. At a certain point -- sometimes sooner, sometimes later -- affiliate programs that implement unfair retroactive changes are rogued or labeled as predatory here.

Moving forward.......

I agree with the earlier posts that suggest splitting the existing accounts into multiple accounts (one per casino). Having a new account to use doesn't help. Having the old account split into 5 accounts (which would effectively eliminate the retroactive bundling) is a great idea. I'd be happy to move forward if you can do this. Is this something you can at least consider? No need to respond right away -- talk it over, think about it. It'd be nice to get this resolved in a fair way, where everyone is happy with the outcome.

 

[pdjoe]

I agree with the earlier posts that suggest splitting the existing accounts into multiple accounts (one per casino). Having a new account to use doesn't help. Having the old account split into 5 accounts (which would effectively eliminate the retroactive bundling) is a great idea. I'd be happy to move forward if you can do this. Is this something you can at least consider? No need to respond right away -- talk it over, think about it. It'd be nice to get this resolved in a fair way, where everyone is happy with the outcome.

I'm just looking for a little clarification here. If we affiliates did open new accounts for each casino......would we be bound by the new "quota" term? If so, I wouldn't touch that !

 

[Engineer]

That's a good point.

I think brand new accounts (with no existing player base) would be bound by the new T&Cs with the minimum activity rule, which states:

Should there be no reasonable marketing activity on the part of the Member for over sixty days this Agreement will be deemed to have been terminated by the Member (Applicable only to new member accounts created after 1st September 2009).

But if the old, existing account was split into multiple accounts, with the players from each casino mapped to the appropriate "child" account, I would propose that the original, affiliate-friendly T&Cs be in effect for those accounts.

 

[vegas.aff]

We are only offering a NEW single seperated account for affiliates who will be marketing us and providing new traffic. We will not seperate old accounts.

We have had a good takeup on this offer with plenty of partners marketing us and generating new traffic through a new account.

 

[Webzcas]

You still haven't confirmed that you will cease talk of legal action against affiliates publically conveying their unhappiness with your new terms, which as far as the bundling is concerned is predatory and retroactive.

This is very very relevant and hence requires an answer.

 

[vegas.aff]

We have already confirmed that we talked of libellous postings being a breach of contract. We have not talked of legal action. In any case we deny this statement and retract anything that may have been misunderstood as such.

 

[Guard Dog]

We have already confirmed that we talked of libellous postings being a breach of contract. We have not talked of legal action. In any case we deny this statement and retract anything that may have been misunderstood as such.

ok - will Vegas Affiliates stop threatening account closure and confiscation of earnings? That has been done on several accounts. And, BTW, V.A. did talk of legal action in Budapest as well in at least 1 other situation.

 

[Webzcas]

We have already confirmed that we talked of libellous postings being a breach of contract.

Commenting on the actions your program has taken is not libellous when said comments are factual. Blacklisting/Roguing/Not Recommending a program due to said program changing terms and conditions retroactively is not grounds for legal action on your part. Indeed said action would fail as there would be no case to answer.

Let me be frank here and I am sure I echo what many other affiliates are afraid to convey.

What I am reading in this thread, such as what Bonustreak, Engineer & Guard Dog have posted - in addition to your own posts Sebastian, just sets off really loud alarm bells with regards working with your program.

Vegas Affiliates would be best advised to step back, take stock and realise that to be successful, you do not crap on your partners from a great height.

Threats of lawsuits and account closures are rogue actions, make no mistake - especially when you have no grounds for either action. Combined with your predatory term changes you have implemented makes your program as affiliate unfriendly as can possibly be.

 

[Engineer]

We have already confirmed that we talked of libellous postings being a breach of contract. We have not talked of legal action. In any case we deny this statement and retract anything that may have been misunderstood as such.

Thank you.

We are only offering a NEW single seperated account for affiliates who will be marketing us and providing new traffic. We will not seperate old accounts.

Please reconsider this. A new account doesn't solve the issue of the retroactive bundling. Further, the predatory new "minimum activity" clause would apply to a new account.

 

[Webzcas]

Vegas Affiliates Blacklisted by Online Casino Reviewer

 

[WCD Admin]

I felt like there was a legal threat against me by VA after I rogued their casinos. I told Engineer about it when I realized he was going to rogue the casinos.

Threat is a perception of the receiver - it depends on the context and tone of the person transmitting the statement. Libel and "breach of contract" are legal terms - those terms were used with me, and I perceived threat. When I asked straight up would they sue me, I was not given a straight answer. Instead I was left to wonder. What that did was make me more paranoid and increase the context indicating "threat"

That is all I'm willing to say about this at the moment. VA needs to turn a new leaf and act like partners in order to weather this storm. I would promote them again if they did. I like the person I have been working with there and there are some good things about their casinos.

Better late than never.

 

[bonustreak]

Please if there are any others that are feeling pressured or threatened to be quiet can you step forward. I feel there is a need to see exactly what the extent is of these threats.

 

[bb1webs]

I have never agreed on anything in Budapest, I came to the understanding that you were not budging on your bundling and that you were accepting whatever came your way from affiliates

Hi all (VA),

I gotta say ... the above is what I thought too.

having said that: and that there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, then yes, VA is wrong, and hasn't a leg to stand on in the matter of claiming they did no wrong.

You once promised you wouldn't bundle, now you are. That simple.

And I don't think you're (VA) getting it. Engineer may sound like he's whining over something rather small or perhaps you'd choose the words .. "lesser evils", but you miss the point that the reason he chose to invest so much time, energy and resources into promoting the VA brand was because in his eyes .. bundling was important. Still is.

Taking that away from someone who signed up based on THAT point ... is akin to a bait and switch, one of the oldest and yes, unethical moves history has ever known.

......


Now my take is that I have stayed somewhat quiet about this VA situation because they made some positive offers which seem sincere.

but I have to call VA on the claim they contacted us and this was discussed and agreed to: rather every person I have talked with: says they were NOT asked anything. I may have received a newsletter, but I know I wasn't asked to respond on the matter ... at least in any official manner of which I was aware.

myself personally, ... I'd agree to allowing you to bundle because yes, I'd rather have a little less than none at all, and I appreciate being given the chance to make that choice.


The thing is though, I'm not so sure i was ever given that choice. It feels like I was told how things are going to be. Period. End of story.

I had honestly been figuring on losing the little bit of money I make with VA every month; because I knew I couldn't meet the new quota.

So ya, I didn't much care what VA thought of anything I did, I wasn't going to meet their demands anyway. I put up rogue/blacklist warnings. On my site you're either on the shit list, or you're not, so call it what you will. VA was on the shit list and deservedly so.

But then they decided to come back around to being more honorable and the quota thing was only to happen to the new affs. So I began taking down the pages and warnings I had up, ... INCLUDING the announcement I no longer would guarantee play at those casinos (at the end of my 30 day grace period)

All this BS costs me money. Now as things stand, I probably lose the play at VA anyway, because of my warnings (I hope not, since they weren't up very long), or if I hadn't done what I had ... I'd lose the play due to VA's new T&Cs (if they had went thru with them).

So basically because of the mickey-mouse approach to business ... its likely they've effectively done away with me anyway.


I would imagine there might be others out there much like myself who at this point are not in a very enviable position.

My credibility begins to suffer when I am seen putting up and then taking down warnings, like maybe I'd been paid off to put a casino back in the respected column.

Or it makes me look like I don't know what the hell is going on.

As mentioned .. none of those scenarios are enviable

BS begins to hurt me on a much larger level than just worrying about losing one aff account. And that doesn't make for a generous mood towards a company that can't seem to get out of its own way and shows little concern about the collateral damage it has created.

 

[inspiration]

Well you know when they bite ya in the ass ya gotta run bud...........which means stop thinking and remove ......... once removed your players base dries up anyway I am told.....for whatever reason....... does it not ?!

Some here still have their testimonials on their page and seem quite happy campers !! So much for protecting newbies.......and support......totally uncool.

 

[lots0]

The solution to the Vegas Affiliates problem is quite simple.

Do Not promote them and warn every new aff you can about them.

You can also blacklist them... although, I find a few well written articles that lay out their attitude toward and treatment of affs work wonders. ;D

I also find it rather humorous that the Vegas rep, said that the groups that they PAY (CAP, GPWA, APCW) are all in agreement with Vegas affs over the retro bundling. Hey Vegas rep if you pay me(enough)... I'll say it is OK too...

I would also like to emphasize something that Andy said, about the FACT that he has had to reprogram the AGD spider several times to get past the obstacles that our "Partners" the online casinos have put up to stop affiliates from learning about changes in the casino's T&C's. Why would the online casinos do this?
The answer to that question is obvious and we all know it... Even if we don't want to talk about it.

 

[bb1webs]

once removed your players base dries up anyway I am told.....for whatever reason....... does it not ?!

I hope this is one of the very rare instances in which you're wrong sir Rick because it is (to my memory) the first time I have ever seen all my casinos in the red , and apparently not much action because they were barely in the red, each of them.

Hope its just a weird coincidence because it wouldn't be good for anybody ... if my stats suddenly went to acting anything but how they've done in the past. I never made a ton of money with VA but I usually came closer to 4 figures than not, (if i had to guess),

We all know they excel at retainment. (That was my imporant reason for gioing with them Dave: so in a very big sense, if they screwed with me in any way of removing players/shaving then they've effectively taken out of the equation the very reason that I went with them).

And I'm not accusing them of anything. Everybody knows that I'll report how this works out .. as the months go by and reveal themselves. That I'll tell the truth and that I'd love to be here this time next year telling everybody about how wrong I was about VA.

*actually I'm not wrong since i didn't accuse them of anything, I just pointed out that it was funny my stats reflected Rick's estimate.

And now I'm off to be .... not wrong, somewhere else.

Cheers

 

[greek39]

I just have this hunch a suspicion but has anyone felt VA and Grand Prive are one of the same? Can anyone come close to replicating this theory of mine.

greek39

 

[prk]

Having managed VA for about 4 years (a lifetime ago), I can vouch that VA and GP are 2 entirely distinct entities. Only thing in common between the 2 groups is Microgaming as a casino software provider.

Cheers,

 

[KasinoKing]

I just have this hunch a suspicion but has anyone felt VA and Grand Prive are one of the same? Can anyone come close to replicating this theory of mine.

Nope.
VA may well have changed their terms to something many affiliates don't like, but I haven't seen them steal everyones money, take their players and then spam the hell out of them to join their new sister casinos...

KK