Affiliate Lounge ROGUE - changing of laws

[lauferb]

I just noticed the following change of law in Affiliate Lounge (thanks to another thread in this forum):


6.4. Affiliate Lounge reserves the right to terminate this Agreement by a notice in writing (an email being sufficient) if the Referral Company does not actively promote the Participating Sites. Not actively promoting the Participating Sites shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, the Referral Company shall be deemed to be ‘not actively promoting’ the Participating Sites if the Referral Company fails to get at least 5 new Referred Players within in any three consecutive months’ period.

I have to say that this new law will make me personally vote "ROGUE" for Affiliate Lounge and change my affiliation deal to someone else (thanks a lot there are many good affiliation deals today)

I don't agree that affiliate gets profits only when he brings new players every month, it's none of anyone's business what an affiliate does, if he brought players that continue to play, he needs to continue to get the profits also if he stops promoting and bringing new players

another thing is that I find it not ethical that a law like this is "created" all of a sudden by the affiliation network after affiliates already did the work and brought players to the network

[lauferb]

GAU made a decision to boycott Affiliate Lounge
more information is here

[kwblue]

I'm confused.... This was alerted and rogued back in October:

http://www.affiliateguarddog.com/ter...filiateLounge/

and then alerted here at GPWA as well:

http://www.gpwa.org/forum/affiliate-...tc-184044.html

[GCG]

I blacklisted affiliate lounge because of added the minimum player rule and because of their attitude...

[Chalkie]

GAU were one of the latter to rogue Aff Lounge, however, did so to fall in line with everyone else, the facts and as a matter of course due to membership vote.

As with any program issues, the more that do so the better.

[Anthony]

I think since lauferb is new to GPWA this is all new information to lauferb eventhough you were reporting it to the affiliates back in October.

Just a guess.

I'm confused.... This was alerted and rogued back in October:

http://www.affiliateguarddog.com/ter...filiateLounge/

and then alerted here at GPWA as well:

http://www.gpwa.org/forum/affiliate-...tc-184044.html

[lauferb]

I think since lauferb is new to GPWA this is all new information to lauferb eventhough you were reporting it to the affiliates back in October.

Just a guess.

yes,
thanks Anthony and sorry for creating confusion kwblue

[kwblue]

No worries at all guys... I wasn't sure if there was some new info I should be aware of or if this was the same issue that we rogued them over as well.

I have no problem raising the flag again on these jokers.

[MichaelCorfman]

Just as a note, they have agreed to talk with me later this week since I am in London and some of the upper-management team is also. I certainly don't want to promise anything, and have not said anything in the forum about this yet because I don't want to create a false sense of optimism that things will change with them, but sometimes these sorts of meetings can result in a program having a deeper appreciation of the importance of taking a different position. And when that happens there can be changes for the better.

Michael

[lauferb]

I also have an update:

I talked with somebody from the marketing section there in skype, I told him that I affiliate them and don't agree with the retroactive change of their laws.
very fast I understood that there is no point to be angry on this person since he is just employee there and part of this job is to deliver these bad news so people will be angry at him instead of the management and the decision makers.

I think that it's very easy to convince affiliate lounge to change their laws back, only thing to do is to prove to them that it is their interest to do so

how?

simple:

the new laws basically say that they are not interested in small affiliates and only are interested in the big ones,

but big affiliates will also suffer from these new laws, since also big affiliates dont want to loose their income if they choose to stop promoting affiliate lounge

so what we need is to show this to the big affiliates and get their support to the demand that the laws will be changed

and if both the big and small affiliates support this and affiliate lounge understands that not changing the laws will result in a boycott of all their affiliates, they'll have no choice but to change the laws back

[MartenIsaksson]

I would like to inform you all that Affiliate Lounge have updated the terms and conditions in November. With that update we removed all terms that were predatory against affiliates. You will no longer find any requirement of minimum depositing players or removal of dormant account policy.

Please let me know what you think of the updated terms and I hope this change will make Affiliate Lounge to an even more attractive affiliate program.

Best Regards
Mårten Isaksson
Affiliate Lounge

[Engineer]

That's nice Marten, but how do we know Affiliate Lounge won't retroactively change the T&Cs in the future, like they did in 2010?

At that time, AL decided to implement a quota. The rule applied to all affiliates, not just new affiliates. With the quota in place, if Affiliate Lounge wasn't able to convert an affiliate's traffic into 5 depositors in 3 months, Affiliate Lounge could close the affiliate account and steal the residual income from the existing player base.

It's one thing to implement something like this for "new" affiliates. But to force it on existing affiliates is unethical. Retroactive changes that hurt affiliates are not acceptable.

I actually would like to promote some of the brands under the AL umbrella, but after the stunt in 2010, I don't have a lot of faith, even with the new recent changes. Why should anyone trust Affiliate Lounge now? What's stopping the company from implementing a new, retroactive quota clause in late 2012 or early 2013?