All 22 casinos in rewards player emails and links to CR website

**GCG** · 8 April 2011, 12:23 am

The confusion is in the fact that Rick keeps assuming that the Casino Rewards newsletters are being sent by an external marketing company where if you read my post I did not say that. Every post continually beats this theory like a dead horse. This is why I have asked him to read it again slowly. It wasn't aimed at you - I have no doubt you understood everything I've written from my very first post.

I recently opened a new account at a RA casino and got a promo for casino action (I have no account for this casino) to my NEW email address sent by crnewsmail dot com (site owner is Exact target inc, reg. on Jan 14 2011).

I have NEVER shared this email address to anyone, how exactly has this marketing company have aquired my email then if it was not casinorewards who ordered to sent these cross promotion emails?

link in email : xxhttp://click.crnewsmail.com/?qs=013248c8adbcbecc5cb38cab58453977587d54446ab065 bbdf0f05607ca9cafa

out click goes to : xxhttp://promos.c-rewards.com/directdownload-en.asp?aff_id=3_6623_10821_1928_12_1650_17&siteCod e=CA

</TD></TR><TR><TD>

</TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px !important; PADDING-LEFT: 0px !important; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px !important; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse !important; PADDING-TOP: 0px !important" border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=650><TBODY><TR><TD height=25 width=171>

</TD><TD style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 12px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold" bgColor=#ffe832 height=25 background=http://otiaimail.com/email/ca/ca_650x459_250810_goldcheque/images/ca_650x459_250810_goldcheque-en-gbp_04.gif width=301>sam</TD><TD height=25 width=178>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD>

</TD></TR><TR><TD>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

*For new players only
Terms & conditions may apply

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=600 align=center><TBODY><TR><TD>This email was sent to: xxxxxxxxxxx

<TABLE id=ecxTable1 border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=450><TBODY><TR><TD>This email was sent by: CasinoRewards
Beaufort House, PO BOX 438 Road Town, Tortola 11011 BVI

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

We respect your right to privacy - view our policy

</TD><TD width=150>

</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2 align=middle>
Manage Subscriptions | Update Profile | One-Click Unsubscribe

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

**GCG** · 8 April 2011, 4:38 pm

I have posted enough examples for anyone to read and make up their own mind.

As GPWA allows freedom of speech, I posted this information although I have not been feeling really comfortable doing so as I have (had?) a good relationship/earnings with RA.

As there are no other members / GPWA that want to contribute their opinion to this issue, I consider this case closed.

BTW : Do not expect from me posting in program sponsor threads again or to check their tracking, this has caused me enough trouble as is.

I rather read posts from others from now on.

**Dominique** · 8 April 2011, 4:55 pm

I don't consider it closed. I'd like to hear that cross promotion without tags will be halted.

I also like CR, but I don't think this is right.

**Smoking** · 8 April 2011, 4:58 pm

Originally Posted by Dominique

I don't consider it closed. I'd like to hear that cross promotion without tags will be halted.

I also like CR, but I don't think this is right.

+1 thx Dominique

**arkyt** · 8 April 2011, 5:44 pm

Originally Posted by GCG

I have posted enough examples for anyone to read and make up their own mind.

As there are no other members / GPWA that want to contribute their opinion to this issue ...

Thats pretty damned sad ... GPWA was founded on the principle of webmasters helping webmasters yet the majority of active members (and there are very few) here seem more interested in non-sense like favicons and joke threads.

For what its worth this is not personal, at least not from me and I while dont want to speak for you or anyone else, I've got a good feeling based on your posts that its not personal for you either - its simply about right and wrong.

In that respect I ask WHERE is GPWA? Why has an official statement not been made?

**slotplayer** · 8 April 2011, 7:44 pm

Originally Posted by GCG

I recently opened a new account at a RA casino and got a promo for casino action (I have no account for this casino) to my NEW email address sent by crnewsmail dot com (site owner is Exact target inc, reg. on Jan 14 2011).

I have NEVER shared this email address to anyone, how exactly has this marketing company have aquired my email then if it was not casinorewards who ordered to sent these cross promotion emails?

link in email : xxhttp://click.crnewsmail.com/?qs=013248c8adbcbecc5cb38cab58453977587d54446ab065 bbdf0f05607ca9cafa

out click goes to : xxhttp://promos.c-rewards.com/directdownload-en.asp?aff_id=3_6623_10821_1928_12_1650_17&siteCod e=CA

</TD></TR><TR><TD>

</TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px !important; PADDING-LEFT: 0px !important; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px !important; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse !important; PADDING-TOP: 0px !important" border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=650><TBODY><TR><TD height=25 width=171>

</TD><TD style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 12px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold" bgColor=#ffe832 height=25 background=http://otiaimail.com/email/ca/ca_650x459_250810_goldcheque/images/ca_650x459_250810_goldcheque-en-gbp_04.gif width=301>sam</TD><TD height=25 width=178>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD>

</TD></TR><TR><TD>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

*For new players only
Terms & conditions may apply

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=600 align=center><TBODY><TR><TD>This email was sent to: xxxxxxxxxxx

<TABLE id=ecxTable1 border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=450><TBODY><TR><TD>This email was sent by: CasinoRewards
Beaufort House, PO BOX 438 Road Town, Tortola 11011 BVI

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

We respect your right to privacy - view our policy

</TD><TD width=150>

</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2 align=middle>
Manage Subscriptions | Update Profile | One-Click Unsubscribe

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I received a similar promo today.

**MichaelCorfman** · 8 April 2011, 7:46 pm

Originally Posted by arkyt

In that respect I ask WHERE is GPWA? Why has an official statement not been made?

Although not posting ourselves in this thread much to this point, the GPWA has been very involved in this thread. I know that Anthony has been actively working both with some of the posters in this thread and with Casino Rewards in order to try to help make sure the questions were understood and in terms about providing some feedback to help the answers be more responsive.

In terms of official statements, there are a few I can make at this point in time:

1. Earlier in this thread the following question was asked:

Originally Posted by GCG

Next : what can be done about this ?

According to the GPWA code of conduct :

Responsible Promotion and Procedures

Sponsor Companies will be truthful in all promotions and publish only accurate information about their operations. Any rules and registration procedures affecting affiliates or the public will be made publicly available by the Sponsor Companies. Sponsor Companies will not use unethical methods of promotion either directly or indirectly through others.

I'd like to be clear about the intent of this clause of the code of conduct. It is primarily aimed at activities like stealing player lists from other companies, black-hat SEO techniques, and dishonesty in marketing relationships, either directly or by working with marketing partners that engage in these sorts of activities.

My personal view is that Rewards Affiliates is a reputable business with respect to these sorts of matters and I do not see any evidence in this thread that they participate in the types of activities that I would view as violating the spirit of the code of conduct in this area.

2. Is cross-marketing unethical?

I think there are different degrees of cross-marketing. Personally, I don't think any of them are unethical unless they are done in contradiction to the way a company says it does business. I do think it is very important for affiliates to understand the nature of any cross-marketing that an organization does, and to factor that into decisions about whether the relationship with a particular affiliate program makes sense from a business perspective. And I think the willingness of a company to provide a detailed understanding of how it works in this area is a measure of whether a program is one to be trusted. On that front I do view that Renee has made some pretty long posts that I know took her time to prepare to try to answer questions that have been raised, and she has my respect for doing that even if the responses have still left some in the position of scratching their heads.

3. How does Rewards Affiliates rate on the cross-marketing scale?

Different people are going to have different opinions about this. In a perfect affiliate world, once an affiliate was involved, there would be absolutely no way for a player to start playing at another property without being credited to some affiliate. On the other end of the spectrum, a program could very aggressively try to move existing players tagged to an affiliate to other sites where they were not tagged. Rewards Affiliates has made it clear that they do not operate in the perfect affiliate world, and, to be honest, I'm not sure anyone does.

They operate in a way that will have some predictable level of existing players sign-up at new properties without being credited to a referring affiliate. They have provided some statistical information they believe shows the level is not large enough to be a significant concern to affiliates. But it is also clear that at least some affiliates are skeptical that those statistics cover all of the issues that matter in estimating player migration, so there are going to be honest differences of opinion about its extent. The biggest question I see in this area relates to resolving questions around mail received at some newly established e-mail accounts, and I know there is some auditing being done on that front.

My personal opinion is that player migration does matter, but I think how good a job a program does at retaining players matters more. So, in my book a good retention program that sometimes results in players taking up play at another site is better than a program that does not have a well designed retention program. In operating Casino City, we tend to ignore most of our subjective views on these factors and focus primarily on what the numbers tell us. How many potential players do we send and what do we earn from them? Whether a program earns more with higher overall retention and less credit for players migrating to other sites or earns more with lower retention and higher revenue from transitions to other sites does not matter to us.

Michael

**arkyt** · 9 April 2011, 9:08 am

Originally Posted by MichaelCorfman

In terms of official statements, there are a few I can make at this point in time

Those statements seem to be coming from Michael, CasinoCity operator moreso than they are coming from Michael, GPWA operator - a site originally founded on the principle of "affiliates interest(s)" ... IMO, in that respect your comments come across clearly biased and out of touch with what GPWA had always strived to be. Will you be seeking a .com extension for the GPWA anytime soon?

**GCG** · 9 April 2011, 12:39 pm

Affiliates has made it clear that they do not operate in the perfect affiliate world, and, to be honest, I'm not sure anyone does.

Rewardsaffiliates is a big program and sure can spend a bit more effort regarding tracking of the lead generated by affiliates by properly :

1. tagging emails, newsletter & cross promotional offers.

2.1. adding affiliate tracking to casinorewards.com

2.2. adding affiliate tracking to the inner casinos pages that link out to casinorewards.com :

2.2.1. xxhttp://www.casinoshare.eu/about-us.asp linking to casinorewards.com

2.2.2. xxhttp://www.casinoshare.eu/security/privacy.asp --> links to xxhttp://cr.crnewsletter.com/main/unsub.asp / xxhttp://cr.crnewsletter.com/main/ which is a full copy of casinorewards.com

2.2.3. xxhttp://www.casinoshare.eu/banking/deposit.asp links to --> xxhttp://www.casinoshare.eu/banking/deposit.asp

2.2.4. xxhttp://www.casinoshare.eu/promo/loyalty.asp links to xxhttp://www.casinorewards.com/members/vipclub_sm/login.asp (login here / forgot password etc)

2.2.5. promotions newsletter archive xxhttp://www.casinoshare.eu/promo/newsletters.asp links to xxhttp://www.casinoshare.eu/promo/newsletters.asp

etc etc

They operate in a way that will have some predictable level of existing players sign-up at new properties without being credited to a referring affiliate. They have provided some statistical information they believe shows the level is not large enough to be a significant concern to affiliates. But it is also clear that at least some affiliates are skeptical that those statistics cover all of the issues that matter in estimating player migration, so there are going to be honest differences of opinion about its extent. The biggest question I see in this area relates to resolving questions around mail received at some newly established e-mail accounts, and I know there is some auditing being done on that front.

I think if tracking would be done properly affiliates would see their profits jump significantly.

Now a significant proportion of the traffic sent is not properly tracked and subsequently potential profits generated by affiliates leads are not accounted for.

In operating Casino City, we tend to ignore most of our subjective views on these factors and focus primarily on what the numbers tell us. How many potential players do we send and what do we earn from them? Whether a program earns more with higher overall retention and less credit for players migrating to other sites or earns more with lower retention and higher revenue from transitions to other sites does not matter to us.

You simply can not compare rentention with less credit for players migrating as you do not know how much these migrating players could have potentionally earned for you, both if they would have stayed and how much they have spent by playing at different CR casino now referred by casinorewards.com.

Originally Posted by MichaelCorfman
In terms of official statements, there are a few I can make at this point in time
Those statements seem to be coming from Michael, CasinoCity operator moreso than they are coming from Michael, GPWA operator - a site originally founded on the principle of "affiliates interest(s)" ... IMO, in that respect your comments come across clearly biased and out of touch with what GPWA had always strived to be. Will you be seeking a .com extension for the GPWA anytime soon?

It would be nice to see a different approach to affiliate issues other than "explaining the given explanation from the sponsor"

Dominique

I don't consider it closed. I'd like to hear that cross promotion without tags will be halted.

I also like CR, but I don't think this is right.

If a seasoned affiliate is concerned about these issues, than GPWA should be too IMO rather than explaining their money flow.

If rewardsaffiliates is open for discussion about how they can improve tracking to the casinorewards.com site and tagging mailers properly, I think a lof affiliates here would be very happy to send them a lot more traffic.

**Anthony** · 9 April 2011, 1:44 pm

Originally Posted by GCG

Rewardsaffiliates is a big program and sure can spend a bit more effort regarding tracking of the lead generated by affiliates by properly :

1. tagging emails, newsletter & cross promotional offers.

2.1. adding affiliate tracking to casinorewards.com

2.2. adding affiliate tracking to the inner casinos pages that link out to casinorewards.com :

2.2.1. xxhttp://www.casinoshare.eu/about-us.asp linking to casinorewards.com

2.2.2. xxhttp://www.casinoshare.eu/security/privacy.asp --> links to xxhttp://cr.crnewsletter.com/main/unsub.asp / xxhttp://cr.crnewsletter.com/main/ which is a full copy of casinorewards.com

2.2.3. xxhttp://www.casinoshare.eu/banking/deposit.asp links to --> xxhttp://www.casinoshare.eu/banking/deposit.asp

2.2.4. xxhttp://www.casinoshare.eu/promo/loyalty.asp links to xxhttp://www.casinorewards.com/members/vipclub_sm/login.asp (login here / forgot password etc)

2.2.5. promotions newsletter archive xxhttp://www.casinoshare.eu/promo/newsletters.asp links to xxhttp://www.casinoshare.eu/promo/newsletters.asp

etc etc

I think if tracking would be done properly affiliates would see their profits jump significantly.

Now a significant proportion of the traffic sent is not properly tracked and subsequently potential profits generated by affiliates leads are not accounted for.

You simply can not compare rentention with less credit for players migrating as you do not know how much these migrating players could have potentionally earned for you, both if they would have stayed and how much they have spent by playing at different CR casino now referred by casinorewards.com.

It would be nice to see a different approach to affiliate issues other than "explaining the given explanation from the sponsor"

If a seasoned affiliate is concerned about these issues, than GPWA should be too IMO rather than explaining their money flow.

If rewardsaffiliates is open for discussion about how they can improve tracking to the casinorewards.com site and tagging mailers properly, I think a lof affiliates here would be very happy to send them a lot more traffic.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m

athPr> <m

athFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m

athPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font

inor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> Rewards believe they have a retention policy that is designed to keep your player playing at your referred casino. Is there a chance a player goes to another casino, yes there is. The player can go to another portal, the player can go back to your site, the player can click a link in the newsletter, and 0.1% do. Rewards believe counting the last cookie is the fairest tracking system. They feel there are a lot of disadvantages to affiliates using the first cookie, the affiliates that have been around the longest greatly benefit from it. Overall I believe most affiliates do prefer last cookie counting.

I do feel Rewards Affiliates is a reputable program and one of the good guys out there. That being said, I think it is very important affiliates know how their marketing and newsletters work and GCG efforts are a good thing for transparency.

Because of the tracking system they incorporated, where the last cookie counts. There are players with multiple affiliates attached to them. I believe logistically it would be a monumental task, if possible at all, to modify the system they have in place. An open conversation should continue to take place and I will to go over these points with Rewards Affiliates.

**mojo** · 9 April 2011, 2:48 pm

Originally Posted by MichaelCorfman

Renee, Anthony or I can fill you in on some of the background details about what happened with a cross-marketing issue with another program. In the case I have in mind, where there was a real issue, the program involved was able to set things right by actually going back and tracking down acquisitions that had not been properly credited.

Michael

I am having a problem grasping what is happening here. What is the difference between what is happening with rewards that is different than what happened with 'another' program?

I think that is what I am missing. Regardless of the business plan or however long it's been going on. That is irrelevant. The 'other' program took a lot of heat, stopped cross marketing and compensated affiliates.

I too consider Rewards one of the good guys. I'm not trying to offend anyone. However, this is a pecedent setting thread. If we open this door, then the horse will bolt. The other program also stated, if I remember correctly, that the effect was less than 1% as well. That is also irrelvant IMO.

Thank you to those who spoke up about this.

Dominique
I don't consider it closed. I'd like to hear that cross promotion without tags will be halted.

I also like CR, but I don't think this is right.

Ditto. I haven't heard that the cross promotion will be halted.

**Anthony** · 9 April 2011, 3:55 pm

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m

athPr> <m

athFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m

athPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font

inor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> Paula you are not offending anyone, It is good everyone is asking questions.

The difference is sending an email with the intent to move a player from an affiliated account to a house account.

With Rewards there can be multiple affiliated players attached to multiple affiliates. What is fair to affiliates, if a player that has two affiliates which affiliate get the credit? The first, the last, the one with the most deposits, the one with the most players? How do they halt what they are doing now? Plus the door has been open for 10 years and there many other companies that list their brands, how do we address that?

The option of having the first cookie count makes the tagging of emails easier. But one of reasons many have promoted Rewards affiliates was the fact the last cookie counted and the affiliate’s efforts were not spend promoting brands to build earnings of the long established affiliates.

It can't be both ways. I believe Rewards strives to do the best they can for affiliates. No program is perfect and I don't like any chance for an affiliated player to stop earning for the affiliate that referred them. I do understand the logistical issues they face with how they set up their program. Like I said earlier, an open conversation should continue to take place, but I don’t view RA as a predatory program.

**arkyt** · 9 April 2011, 4:30 pm

Originally Posted by mojo

What is the difference between what is happening with rewards that is different than what happened with 'another' program?

...

If a seasoned affiliate is concerned about these issues, than GPWA should be too IMO rather than explaining their money flow.

BINGO! Cross promotion without tags is cross promotion without tags period!

The fact that a low click through rate was stated is irrelevant. The fact that the program doing it has an active manager is irrelevant. The fact that the manager and the program is popuplar with the party crowd, is irrelevant. They are openly cross promoting without tags and that has never been acceptable with affiliates.

Casino Rewards openly admit that they are in fact cross-promoting without affiliate tags, yet GPWAs stance appears to be so what, they are the good guys; so we should all ignore this wrong ... FTR, GPWAs official comments in no way shape or form have the interest of affiliates in mind, but instead seem to value their own pocketbooks much more!

Does the GPWA exist to assist affiliates / hold their interest in a high regard OR does it exist so that the ownership can rake in money while ignoring the well being of affiliates?

**mojo** · 9 April 2011, 5:24 pm

Originally Posted by Anthony

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m

athPr> <m

athFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m

athPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font

inor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> Paula you are not offending anyone, It is good everyone is asking questions.

The difference is sending an email with the intent to move a player from an affiliated account to a house account.

With Rewards there can be multiple affiliated players attached to multiple affiliates. What is fair to affiliates, if a player that has two affiliates which affiliate get the credit? The first, the last, the one with the most deposits, the one with the most players? How do they halt what they are doing now? Plus the door has been open for 10 years and there many other companies that list their brands, how do we address that?

The option of having the first cookie count makes the tagging of emails easier. But one of reasons many have promoted Rewards affiliates was the fact the last cookie counted and the affiliate’s efforts were not spend promoting brands to build earnings of the long established affiliates.

It can't be both ways. I believe Rewards strives to do the best they can for affiliates. No program is perfect and I don't like any chance for an affiliated player to stop earning for the affiliate that referred them. I do understand the logistical issues they face with how they set up their program. Like I said earlier, an open conversation should continue to take place, but I don’t view RA as a predatory program.

Thanks Anthony. Going to break this down for myself, hope I'm not being to repetitive but trying to be clear.

The difference between the other program and Rewards is the motivation. Rewards is not trying to steal players. I believe that. The other program was.

However, isn't the end result the same?

As far as tagging the affiliate, I can see that is problematic with such a large program. Is there no solution?

Bottom line is that Rewards would like affiliates to accept this. Partly because it's gone on for years. Because something has happened for years does not mean it can't be changed. Are we talking about how to correct it? Am I getting warm at all? lol

I think GPWA is just trying to mediate as best they can arkyt. It's a tough job because it's impossible to make everyone happy. I agree affiliates really need to speak up.

**Dominique** · 9 April 2011, 6:29 pm

Originally Posted by Anthony

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m

athPr> <m

athFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m

athPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font

inor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> Rewards believe they have a retention policy that is designed to keep your player playing at your referred casino. Is there a chance a player goes to another casino, yes there is. The player can go to another portal, the player can go back to your site, the player can click a link in the newsletter, and 0.1% do. Rewards believe counting the last cookie is the fairest tracking system. They feel there are a lot of disadvantages to affiliates using the first cookie, the affiliates that have been around the longest greatly benefit from it. Overall I believe most affiliates do prefer last cookie counting.

I do feel Rewards Affiliates is a reputable program and one of the good guys out there. That being said, I think it is very important affiliates know how their marketing and newsletters work and GCG efforts are a good thing for transparency.

Because of the tracking system they incorporated, where the last cookie counts. There are players with multiple affiliates attached to them. I believe logistically it would be a monumental task, if possible at all, to modify the system they have in place. An open conversation should continue to take place and I will to go over these points with Rewards Affiliates.

Anthony, the "last affiliate cookie" is not an issue at all.

The issue is the cross promotion within the group without any tags.

If I send Auntie Dot to Golden Tiger and then CR sends a promo mail to her without tags and she moves over to Lucky Emperor without my tag, I have lost Auntie Dot to cross marketing. My work is for nothing. Yet without me CR would not have Auntie Dot as player, and I was the last referring affiliate.

Michael says:
In operating Casino City, we tend to ignore most of our subjective views on these factors and focus primarily on what the numbers tell us. How many potential players do we send and what do we earn from them? Whether a program earns more with higher overall retention and less credit for players migrating to other sites or earns more with lower retention and higher revenue from transitions to other sites does not matter to us.

That's kind of like grading on a curve. I do this a lot too, but looking at it closely, in the long run revenues will continue to slide lower and lower this way, since when we don't hold programs accountable, more and more start doing the same thing and the curve sinks lower and lower.

**joeyl** · 10 April 2011, 3:03 am

Come on Anthony. This firm can cross promote all day between thier 22 seperate doors if they track who's who.

The error is always in the house's favour. It's tiresome now.

Arkyt has it bang on. Without Renee, this firm are pants.

Now, who at Rewards is responsible for taking CGC's email and blatantly cross promoting to a sister property?

**GamTrak** · 10 April 2011, 3:48 am

Originally Posted by Dominique

The issue is the cross promotion within the group without any tags.

IF THIS is what is happening then there is NO excuse and not acceptable. I've not paid much attention to this thread as I have not promoted these brands very much in the past, but if cross promotion without tags is going on then I would remove any links I do have with them and go on about my business no matter who, what or WHY. IMO a reputable firm would NOT do anything that will take money from its affiliates.

**GCG** · 10 April 2011, 5:06 am

By Joeyl :

Come on Anthony. This firm can cross promote all day between thier 22 seperate doors if they track who's who.

The error is always in the house's favour. It's tiresome now.

Arkyt has it bang on. Without Renee, this firm are pants.

Now, who at Rewards is responsible for taking CGC's email and blatantly cross promoting to a sister property?

Yes she is a million dollar girl for this company but she also has to listen to her bosses wishes, I know she must have a difficult time now.

The issue is about cross promoting internally (links to casinorewards.com on all casino sites main+innerpages) and externally (1. Several newsletters sent per week with untagged links to : all 22 casino logos, winner stories linked to various casinos, casinorewards.com (by asking players to logon to Rewardsriches [xxhttp://news.crewards-images.com/link/cr_promo/page.asp?page=login.asp#EN ] (lottery promo for players)=casinorewards.com / The Rewardsbuddies tool (a player can refer up to 10 other possible players to build on the casinorewards.com player network; the player will get paid for the rewards not the affiliate. In one word : A Pyramid scam which Rewardsaffiliates is using for its own benefits to outsmart affiliates toearn even more for the leads ALREADY referred by the affiliate. [ xxhttp://www.casinorewards.com/main/buddy_main.asp ])

2. Promotional offers to woo players away to other CR casinos (links are not tagged with an affiliate code)

Originally Posted by Dominique

The issue is the cross promotion within the group without any tags.

By Mojo :

IF THIS is what is happening then there is NO excuse and not acceptable. I've not paid much attention to this thread as I have not promoted these brands very much in the past, but if cross promotion without tags is going on then I would remove any links I do have with them and go on about my business no matter who, what or WHY. IMO a reputable firm would NOT do anything that will take money from its affiliates.

Better to test than to trust a program, sad but true.

Probably now you can understand why they are always seeking to add more casinos to their network because their business concept is very profitable as they do practically anything to maximize THEIR potential earnings for leads that ORIGINALLY came from the affiliate.

**arkyt** · 10 April 2011, 10:09 am

Originally Posted by mojo

I think GPWA is just trying to mediate as best they can arkyt. It's a tough job because it's impossible to make everyone happy.

Michael once told me that GPWA does not exist to "mediate" affiliate issues ... I think Anthony has made an honest effort to serve as a "liaison", but I don't see any actual "mediation" going on here.

Frankly, the current GPWA pulls in approximately ¾ of 1 million dollars ($750,000) a year in sponsorship monies alone – they are not in any hurry to upset their sponsors, on the contrary they will do what ever they can to keep them paying. In my opinion there is a very clearly defined conflict of interest here.

GPWA was founded on the principles of webmasters helping webmasters - the site strived to keep the best interest of affiliates in mind - that is clearly NOT the case today! No doubt about it, today the GPWA is a business and the best interest of owners trump those of the affiliates who make the site what it is.

**Anthony** · 10 April 2011, 10:38 am

Again, I don't like any chance for an affiliated player to stop earning for the affiliate that referred them.

Right now multiple players are attached to multiple affiliates.

So what is fair to affiliates?

Who do you think should get credit from a newsletter email

The first referring affiliate, the last, the one with the most deposits, the one with the most players?

Shouldn't this be a discussion about solutions?

As far as the property specific email GCG received, we are following up on that now.

Thread: All 22 casinos in rewards player emails and links to CR website

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GCG For This Useful Post:

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dominique For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to arkyt For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to mojo For This Useful Post:

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to arkyt For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to mojo For This Useful Post:

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Dominique For This Useful Post:

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to joeyl For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to GamTrak For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to GCG For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to arkyt For This Useful Post:

Posting Permissions