Betfred Affiliates predatory T&Cs

[Engineer]

In the Betfred Affiliates T&Cs:

4.1 Throughout the Term, you shall prominently incorporate and continually display the most up to date Links provided to you by Betfred on the Partner Site in a manner and location agreed between you and us and you shall not alter the form, location or operation of the Links without Betfred' prior consent. If and when we approve your application, the Partner Site should display the appropriate Links within 4 weeks of being notified that you have been accepted. If you fail to so display the Links we may terminate this Agreement immediately on notice.

12.4 If you do not deliver 1 new customer registration within a period of three months (billed months) we may terminate this Agreement immediately by delivery of written notice to you.

Does Betfred Affiliates plan to remove these predatory clauses? If so, when?

[FictionNet]

Bloody hell. I just started to give Betfred a try. Grrr. When did this happen?

[slotplayer]

don't even get me started on all the problems I've had with this group.

[thebookiesoffers]

to be fair I had problems when they moved affiliate platforms to the incomeaccess thing but once that got sorted they have been good with me.

i must say though i don't like those clauses even though they won't and don't effect me, they do come across as the big firm trying to bully the little guy

[FictionNet]

don't even get me started on all the problems I've had with this group.

No deal. Spill it!

[slotplayer]

No deal. Spill it!

its just that it takes weeks to get a response on anything if I'm lucky.
I know I'm a small affiliate but all the other programs get back to me pretty quickly.

[SlotsAff]

This isn't great - I'm sure they don't enforce it but they need to clarify it for all

[Engineer]

If they don't plan to enforce it, they should delete it. Otherwise, it can be enforced in the future by less friendly employees.

[slotplayer]

its section 6.5 that bothers me regarding nco.

At the end of a calendar month, Betfred shall record your total share of Net Revenues and/or CPA Payments (as appropriate), if any, during the previous calendar month ("Revenue Share"). In the event that a Revenue Share in any calendar month is a negative amount, Betfred shall be entitled but not obliged to carry forward and set off such negative amount against future Revenue Shares which would otherwise be payable to you. However Betfred shall also be entitled but not obliged to zero the negative balance that would otherwise be carried forward

[Engineer]

Yeah, clause 6.5 is very wishy-washy.

[HodgeyBoy]

Appreciate the comments Guys - getting affiliates to review Terms is actually quite useful for me because it highlights the different ways in which people interpret them.

I've always tried to improve T&C's where ever I've worked and it's a process that can get pretty 'interesting' and frustrating. Agree that 6.5 is a bit vague, it is a term that is repeated in the T&C's of many affiliate programmes that don't in fact enforce any negative carryover so in that respect Betfred are no different from anyone else but I agree that it might be possible to improve the wording. I'll see what I can do with that one.

4.1 just seems very heavy-handed. I know why it is there; other AM's will I'm sure agree that every programme gets an awful lot of applications from affiliates who aren't as dedicated as the people here at GPWA. They may have signed up before realising how much hard work is involved and some simply list URL's that have never ever been live. These aren't people who could promote betfred but chose not to, I'm talking about people that aren't promoting anybody! This clause exists to give programmes the ability to close such accounts so more time can be focussed on the affiliates who are actually doing the job.

12.4 is one that I've looked at before. It's one of those terms that lots of programmes have but that I have never enforced. This immediately begs the question 'well why do you have it then?' and I agree, if I get my way it would be removed. I'd reserve the right to terminate the agreement with and the potential lifetime revenues of affiliates who are proved to be fraudulent but for those that simply are happy with the size of their player base or are happy to let their account 'wind down' should not , in my opinion, have lifetime revenues removed.

I would like to change this term but I can't promise that I can make it happen but we will raise this and see if we can at least work on the wordings so that they are more acceptable.

[SlotsAff]

Thanks for the reply HodgeyBoy - good luck

[Louis - Income Access]

Hi Guys

You're absolutely right about these terms being a bit troublesome. However, I think it's important to clarify the difference between having troublesome terms and actually ENFORCING them.

Betfred have a sparkling record since moving to Income Access of being one of the most affiliate-friendly programs. Anthony and his team have done everything in their power, at every step of the way, to do things in a way to show respect for the affiliate community, so please give him appropriate time to get a solution presented and I'm sure he will do so.

Slotplayer, regarding slow response times, PM me if you're ever having trouble getting a response and I will make sure someone gets back to you ASAP. Anthony and his team have to manage thousands of affiliates so it's normal that some things might slip through the cracks but it is not for lack of dedication.

Cheers

[thepogg]

I do have to say at this juncture that my recent interactions with Anthony have been absolutely exemplary.


ThePOGG

[Engineer]

Anthony is a nice guy, but one day he will move on. Whoever takes over could enforce clause 12.4 if they wanted to, to make themselves look like they were saving the company some money. "Hey boss, look at all the money I saved -- how about a 10% raise?"

The fact that it hasn't been enforced yet isn't really relevant. If it's there, it can be enforced. If there are no plans to enforce it, then why keep it?

Further, I'd just like to point out that this was originally brought up in early October over here. I don't know how or if Anthony tried to get 12.4 deleted back then, but I hope we won't have to wait another 3 months to see this changed.

[kwblue]

You're absolutely right about these terms being a bit troublesome. However, I think it's important to clarify the difference between having troublesome terms and actually ENFORCING them.

Wrong We at AGD have heard many, many times about programs who 'will never enforce' the terms. It simply isn't true and at some point they always enforce them. That is why it is important for affiliates to stop promoting places that have these terms in their contract.

Tomorrow AGD will mark BetFred as predatory until which time they remove the terms which can only steal commissions from hardworking affiliates.

[HodgeyBoy]

Appreciate where you're coming from kwblue, but I'd appreciate a little more time before you mark us as predatory...

If I am to resubmit these terms to Betfred's Lawyers with suggested changes of wording along with evidence here from GPWA members about how these terms are interpreted it's going to take longer than 24 hours to get a response.

The last time I asked for changes I was unsuccessful but I am willing to try again to get those 'clauses that no one ever uses anyway' removed as well as tightening up wording on others where necessary. I appreciate where you and others are coming from but I don't think 24 hours is realistic in legal terms.

[slotplayer]

great Anthony,

and can you address my post in this thread about the deposit amounts?
http://www.gpwa.org/forum/waiting-patiently-202453.html

[kwblue]

Appreciate where you're coming from kwblue, but I'd appreciate a little more time before you mark us as predatory...

If I am to resubmit these terms to Betfred's Lawyers with suggested changes of wording along with evidence here from GPWA members about how these terms are interpreted it's going to take longer than 24 hours to get a response.

The last time I asked for changes I was unsuccessful but I am willing to try again to get those 'clauses that no one ever uses anyway' removed as well as tightening up wording on others where necessary. I appreciate where you and others are coming from but I don't think 24 hours is realistic in legal terms.

I understand, but we have a duty to warn affiliates when such terms are in a contract. We certainly would like to give you time, but we do not want 100 affiliates signing up while we 'wait'. That's not fair to them.


I'm not sure it was intentional, but putting quotes around that phrase seems very callous and uncaring. You may want to change that as I don't think this is how you meant it to come across (I hope not, anyway).

[Louis - Income Access]

Hi KWBlue,

I think you misinterpreted my statement.

I was not saying that Betfred shouldn't change the term. I was saying that this term has existed for quite some time and Betfred have never enforced it up to this point. So I think with that in mind, it is reasonable to give them a buffer of time to get the term changed, rather than immediately decrying them as predatory. It is important to note the difference between a brand actively engaging in predatory behavior and a brand with a predatory term that COULD be used to do so, because often programs don't realize they have predatory terms until someone notifies them, so they should be given a reasonable amount of time to correct or adjust them.