Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39
  1. #21
    DanHorvat's Avatar
    DanHorvat is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2008
    Location
    Actual location may vary.
    Posts
    1,630
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    1,064
    Thanked 1,094 Times in 657 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hublot View Post
    It almost makes sense to hire at min. 5 people a month to sign up and deposit and play to ensure that you get paid...free bankroll contests etc
    It would only be ethical to do so.

  2. #22
    Sherlock's Avatar
    Sherlock is online now Public Member
    Join Date
    December 2013
    Location
    WC
    Posts
    2,536
    Thanks
    763
    Thanked 1,991 Times in 1,096 Posts

    Default

    We affiliates should make such a pool and play there with some credit system. 5ndp.com is available. And btw we should not play when revenue is negative, making from the program no-negative-carryover as a bonus.
    There is no upper age limit but people over 60 years old are not recommended to trade bitcoin in consideration of price volatility and risk tolerance.

  3. #23
    DanHorvat's Avatar
    DanHorvat is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2008
    Location
    Actual location may vary.
    Posts
    1,630
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    1,064
    Thanked 1,094 Times in 657 Posts

    Default

    We'd quickly run out of players. I'm already a member of Pinnacle and can't help anyone.

    But I like where this is going.

  4. #24
    MrBinaryAff's Avatar
    MrBinaryAff is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    August 2014
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    744
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 231 Times in 188 Posts

    Default

    In Binary options it's sometimes worse, you need 5 depositors a month AND 30 registrations. Doesn't make any sense. You can bring 25 new clients, but for example only 29 registrations. And some extra fees will be applied
    My website: http://mrbinary.co.uk/

    Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MrBinaryAff
    Like my pictures on Instagram: https://instagram.com/mrbinary

  5. #25
    MJM
    MJM is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    501
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked 257 Times in 155 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherlock View Post
    We affiliates should make such a pool and play there with some credit system. 5ndp.com is available. And btw we should not play when revenue is negative, making from the program no-negative-carryover as a bonus.
    This is quite literally conspiracy to commit fraud - great way to get everyones affiliate accounts closed. Sorry to be "that guy" on this thread because it sucks when programs do this - but the answer is still pretty simple.

    Affiliates need to have enough traffic to meet these quotas, or work with bookmakers who don't have it. It really is that simple.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to MJM For This Useful Post:

    universal4 (5 December 2018)

  7. #26
    Sherlock's Avatar
    Sherlock is online now Public Member
    Join Date
    December 2013
    Location
    WC
    Posts
    2,536
    Thanks
    763
    Thanked 1,991 Times in 1,096 Posts

    Default

    Look, I will not do that, because I have no time, in other words the ROI made on this is very low.

    Technically, you are right. In fact, I do not care. My rule in life is that I let everyone to steal from me or cheat me, but then it is for me a freeride to do whatever I want. And I am really doing that in my life and business. Somehow this strategy is so far more successful than to be the good whinging boy.

    What the programs with retroactive quotas did is absolutely unlawful. It was their decision to scam me after promising 30% revenue share lifetime without quotas. When I signed up for pinnacle, there was no clause that they can scam me anytime and even if it was, it can not be applied in this case. If you tell me I have to go to the courts for so relatively low money I am just telling you: no it has no value for me. But if I can, I will get the money from them by any way that has value. The programs started a nasty way and they deserve to pay for that any price. Anyone "stealing" from them has my support. Anyone destroying the brands, has my support as well. Those scammers do not deserve to block a space on market. Pinnacle is part of a betting history, once a phenomena. Now they are the history. There were times when I as a bettor was reporting them bad lines and did not bet in my favor. I respected them more than anyone. Now they can just fo.

    In this case I would feel much better to scam them than not to scam them. Sadly for me, as I said, it has no value for me to do this thing. So I was fooled again and life goes on.

    Btw. if they close you and account that pays you zero, what is the loss for you? None.
    There is no upper age limit but people over 60 years old are not recommended to trade bitcoin in consideration of price volatility and risk tolerance.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Sherlock For This Useful Post:

    Moonlight Cat (5 December 2018)

  9. #27
    DanHorvat's Avatar
    DanHorvat is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2008
    Location
    Actual location may vary.
    Posts
    1,630
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    1,064
    Thanked 1,094 Times in 657 Posts

    Default

    I did some math (which I should have done before) and it turns out the lifetime value of a customer I refer to Pinnacle is almost $2,000. Steady over last ten (!) years. And then this millenial chatbot that'll get replaced in a year tells me, I quote, "you need to send us some traffic in order to get something in return".

    I agree with the part about scamming a scammer. Being a stoic victim doesn't really appeal to me.

    Though each person is responsible for his own actions, and even if you scam a scammer, you're a scammer yourself. There's always a choice of not being one. But a part of the role of being a man is getting your hands dirty to defeat the bad guys.

    Scam the scammers, I say. Beat them in their own game. Bend their own rules so they bite them in the ass.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to DanHorvat For This Useful Post:

    PromoteCasino (5 December 2018)

  11. #28
    Join Date
    December 2018
    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrBinaryAff View Post
    In Binary options it's sometimes worse, you need 5 depositors a month AND 30 registrations. Doesn't make any sense. You can bring 25 new clients, but for example only 29 registrations. And some extra fees will be applied
    This just sounds terrible!

  12. #29
    DanHorvat's Avatar
    DanHorvat is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2008
    Location
    Actual location may vary.
    Posts
    1,630
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    1,064
    Thanked 1,094 Times in 657 Posts

    Default

    Just to follow up on this, all negotiations with the Pinnacle "head of affiliates", which I suspect is actually a chatbot and not a person, have been fruitless.

    I'm thinking about starting a syndicate so all members can negotiate with increased leverage. If some program has a minimum activity quota and you're a small affiliate who can't meet it, then negotiating as a member of a larger group may fix this.

  13. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DanHorvat For This Useful Post:

    AussieDave (8 January 2019), Betreels Casino (8 January 2019), PromoteCasino (8 January 2019), TheGooner (11 January 2019)

  14. #30
    AussieDave's Avatar
    AussieDave is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2005
    Location
    from the land downunder
    Posts
    3,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    888
    Thanked 884 Times in 533 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanHorvat View Post
    I'm thinking about starting a syndicate so all members can negotiate with increased leverage. If some program has a minimum activity quota and you're a small affiliate who can't meet it, then negotiating as a member of a larger group may fix this.
    Now that's a brilliant idea, which I'd full support
    ---
    A world of casino slot games at Spin City Slots
    ---
    Do the right thing, even when no one is looking. It's called integrity.
    ---

  15. #31
    Perffy is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    40
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    That is really bad, that you have worked many years for some bookie, have sent them a lot of players and they have earned many from that and suddenly they decide to change their t&c and to screw you.
    Unfortunately I am observing that with many other bookmakers. The good old years when I was earning commissions from 10-20 bookies every month are gone

    By the way when after red this topic i have checked my Pinnacle account and found out that i have balance of around 150$ on it. Pinnacle was never one of my favorite bookmakers and i have never received a commission from them, so i dont know if i am able to withdrawal that funds, but if is possible, why not ?

    I think in the past i had an Player account with them and they send some commissions through the player account and i played that money. So how do u get normally paid by Pinnacle ?

  16. #32
    TheGooner's Avatar
    TheGooner is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,908
    Thanks
    1,687
    Thanked 3,721 Times in 1,794 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanHorvat View Post
    I'm thinking about starting a syndicate so all members can negotiate with increased leverage. If some program has a minimum activity quota and you're a small affiliate who can't meet it, then negotiating as a member of a larger group may fix this.
    I'd certainly be keen to talk with you about this - we have low signup volumes these days - but generate higher value players.
    I'd like to group together and negotiate so programs are just looking at the $$$ value - not the signup volume.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TheGooner For This Useful Post:

    DanHorvat (13 January 2019), Triple7 (12 January 2019)

  18. #33
    AussieDave's Avatar
    AussieDave is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2005
    Location
    from the land downunder
    Posts
    3,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    888
    Thanked 884 Times in 533 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGooner View Post
    just looking at the $$$ value - not the signup volume.
    Your long enough in the teeth to recall that's how it used to be, both with casinos and sportbooks. Then some bright-spark thought of the idea to rob affiliates, and introduced quotas - thieving bastards.

    Players quotas are a load of BS...

    How can 5 NDP's a month, who, lets say have combined drop $100 each, be compare as better value, to 1 player who drop $2K? Simple, they can't. I'll always stand by my words... If players are depositing, and the gaming entity is making money from those players, then regardless of anything, the aff program pays the affiliate their rightful commission on those loses.

    Anything else is just criminal!
    ---
    A world of casino slot games at Spin City Slots
    ---
    Do the right thing, even when no one is looking. It's called integrity.
    ---

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to AussieDave For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (15 January 2019), PromoteCasino (15 January 2019), Triple7 (15 January 2019)

  20. #34
    DanHorvat's Avatar
    DanHorvat is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2008
    Location
    Actual location may vary.
    Posts
    1,630
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    1,064
    Thanked 1,094 Times in 657 Posts

    Default

    Quotas are a predatory contract term designed to shave affiliates eventually. The bigger you are, the more they'll shave you when you stop sending new depositors. The very existance of a quota is an intention to shave.

    In this proposed group, quotas wouldn't exist and neither would any other dishonest term because introducing such a term would mean the deal with the entire group is broken.

    There are at least a dozen ways to approach this. But the key component is always the same - the ability to react as a group. It will always be a matter of balls. If the group or the separate members aren't capable of removing Pinnacle when Pinnacle goes rogue, then there's no way this can work. If there's one guy that keeps promoting xybet because he needs the €100 they're sending him every month, but the group decided xybet is rogue, then that guy breached the terms of the membership and can't be a member anymore.

    That's why only people with character can join. Regardless of the size of the website or years spent in the industry.

    This is, basically, all about manipulating leverage so everyone does what is expected of them so everyone wins. Establishing protocols for all scenarios. I'll see if I can prepare some sort of a paper about the group and I'll send it over to you two. Perhaps to some other guys I know from the forum.

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DanHorvat For This Useful Post:

    PromoteCasino (15 January 2019), Triple7 (15 January 2019)

  22. #35
    Strider1973's Avatar
    Strider1973 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2012
    Posts
    98
    Thanks
    58
    Thanked 58 Times in 37 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanHorvat View Post
    Quotas are a predatory contract term designed to shave affiliates eventually. The bigger you are, the more they'll shave you when you stop sending new depositors. The very existance of a quota is an intention to shave.
    I don't see it that black and white.

    If you were the owner of an affiliate program, wouldn't you prefer to have partners (=affiliates) who continue to promote you instead of just wanting to cash in on past efforts (and promote other programs on the top spots on their websites)?

    This is why it's common to have revenue share percentages that increase the more FTD / revenues you bring them per month. I think this is completely ok, not only to reward the bigger affiliates, but also to incentivise them to continue to send you players every month.

    What is absolutely NOT OK is to change the terms
    retroactively. And this is one of the big problems in this industry.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to Strider1973 For This Useful Post:

    Triple7 (15 January 2019)

  24. #36
    AussieDave's Avatar
    AussieDave is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2005
    Location
    from the land downunder
    Posts
    3,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    888
    Thanked 884 Times in 533 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanHorvat View Post
    If the group or the separate members aren't capable of removing Pinnacle when Pinnacle goes rogue, then there's no way this can work.
    And there lays the problem. The same problem from day dot, that's been the 'cancer' in every idea like this.

    As LotsO (an old timer who AFIK is no longer in the industry) once said... Getting affiliates to work together, is like herding cats... suspicious cats!

    Character, and the balls to stand up against tyranny are commendable virtues. However, when $500 (lets make it realistic) means putting food on your family's table, but expect 'members' to drop said-program, I think is being unrealistic. Reiterating, this idea of forming a group where 'it's one for all, all for one' has fallen flat on its face every time.
    ---
    A world of casino slot games at Spin City Slots
    ---
    Do the right thing, even when no one is looking. It's called integrity.
    ---

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to AussieDave For This Useful Post:

    Triple7 (15 January 2019)

  26. #37
    Triple7 is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    January 2015
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    2,508
    Thanks
    1,805
    Thanked 2,221 Times in 1,189 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Strider1973 View Post
    I don't see it that black and white.

    If you were the owner of an affiliate program, wouldn't you prefer to have partners (=affiliates) who continue to promote you instead of just wanting to cash in on past efforts (and promote other programs on the top spots on their websites)?

    This is why it's common to have revenue share percentages that increase the more FTD / revenues you bring them per month. I think this is completely ok, not only to reward the bigger affiliates, but also to incentivise them to continue to send you players every month.

    What is absolutely NOT OK is to change the terms
    retroactively. And this is one of the big problems in this industry.

    I agree with this.

    The problem is that things are always introduced and forced retro-actively. T&C's are very onesided documents, written by a legal team of one of the parties. It's take it or leave it. I do understand brand are wanting active affiliates but retroactively is the wrong way.

    And there lays the problem. The same problem from day dot, that's been the 'cancer' in every idea like this.

    As LotsO (an old timer who AFIK is no longer in the industry) once said... Getting affiliates to work together, is like herding cats... suspicious cats!

    Character, and the balls to stand up against tyranny are commendable virtues. However, when $500 (lets make it realistic) means putting food on your family's table, but expect 'members' to drop said-program, I think is being unrealistic. Reiterating, this idea of forming a group where 'it's one for all, all for one' has fallen flat on its face every time.


    I agree it works just if acting dodgy has consequences for a program, but it could lead to problems, especially for webmasters operating in smaller, regulated markets.

    Like Belgium. I have just 8 casino brands there with an affiliate program. Of this affiliate programs Kindred, Ladbrokes, Bwin, and Betway are simply rogue. Circus is rogued on, for example, Ask Gamblers too and it's a complete joker company, while Golden Palace forced retroactively quota too more than once. Live Partners the same thing.

    I do not work with Betway, because what they did was way over the limit, but I work with Kindred, Ladbrokes, etc. If I would have to remove every 'rogue program', I would have just one casino left to promote. But, in case a rogue program would enter the market, I would not start to work with them. And if a program is not a significant part of my income, I would drop them too.

    Just to give an example. Like Aussie Dave I do not see people dropping brands that are generating a significant part of the income of an affiliate. In an ideal situation people would, but there is all kind of situations in which it won't happen.

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Triple7 For This Useful Post:

    AussieDave (15 January 2019), Strider1973 (15 January 2019)

  28. #38
    DanHorvat's Avatar
    DanHorvat is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2008
    Location
    Actual location may vary.
    Posts
    1,630
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    1,064
    Thanked 1,094 Times in 657 Posts

    Default

    Having variable rev share percentages is an incentive, having a monthly FTD quota that reduces your rev share to 0% is intention to steal. Pinny stole $3k from me this way, and I'm still an active partner that promotes Pinny.

    In my particular case, Pinny is a mismatch for the market and represents a very niche choice, hence the low FTD numbers. But I send them players whose average value is $2000 per head, which is an awesome performance on my end.

    Quote Originally Posted by AussieDave View Post
    Reiterating, this idea of forming a group where 'it's one for all, all for one' has fallen flat on its face every time.
    I am well aware that all similar ideas stumbled on this step. When you look closer, that happened because of two things:
    1. trying to fix the business practices of the operator
    2. trying to have all affiliates partake

    Think about Skybet for a minute. What happened in reality is a call for boycott by all affiliates, and of course it didn't work because the big affiliates didn't want to stick their neck for the small affiliates. Why would they. Why lose 10k when no one will even say thank you. With this group, what would happen is an attempt to negotiate better terms with Skybet (with a decent chance of success as our group is a big affiliate), and if it would fail then we'd drop them and call all members to do the same or leave. Some would leave. What would remain is a group of people who collectively dropped Skybet. And, at any given moment you'd know from the outside or from the inside that that group stands together.

    You can't prevent an operator from going rogue. That's why there needs to be a protocol for what we're doing when, not if, that happens. We'd likely only drop an operator as a last resort, if all lengthy negotiations fail and the operator clearly went rogue so much that it doesn't even care to make exceptions for important affiliates anymore.

    Question is - will they? What exactly would it take to make this Pinnacle employee person lift quotas on e.g. 14 affiliates that are members of the group? How many individual affiliates, how many FTDs, how much total revenue? What kind of negotiation strategy? Do we need 100+ members to be taken seriously or is 5 enough?

    How much leverage does it take to have all members continue to be quota-free when an operator decides to retroactively introduce a quota for all affiliates as a business decision?

    Quote Originally Posted by AussieDave View Post
    Character, and the balls to stand up against tyranny are commendable virtues. However, when $500 (lets make it realistic) means putting food on your family's table, but expect 'members' to drop said-program, I think is being unrealistic.
    I agree. Water always flows downstream and an affiliate will always choose what's financially better for him. That's why membership in the group needs to be financially beneficial. But the little bit about human psychology that I know tells me that people will be reluctant to leave such a group.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triple7 View Post
    Like Belgium. I have just 8 casino brands there with an affiliate program. Of this affiliate programs Kindred, Ladbrokes, Bwin, and Betway are simply rogue. Circus is rogued on, for example, Ask Gamblers too and it's a complete joker company, while Golden Palace forced retroactively quota too more than once. Live Partners the same thing.
    Note a key difference, in this situation we wouldn't be forcing a brand to change their T&Cs for the entire market or worldwide. That's just not a fight you can win. We'd just arm wrestle the operator to give you the good T&C version. It's a matter of negotiating with far more leverage than when you're a single small affiliate.

    In any case we wouldn't leave an affiliate without options on the market. If there are eight brands and all are rogue, let's greenlight five that represent lesser evil, tolerate two more, and only choose one to be cut completely.

  29. #39
    Sherlock's Avatar
    Sherlock is online now Public Member
    Join Date
    December 2013
    Location
    WC
    Posts
    2,536
    Thanks
    763
    Thanked 1,991 Times in 1,096 Posts

    Default

    You can negotiate if on the other side are not idiots. At Pinnacle sit really big ones. How can they ask me yesterday why they get less traffic? They do not even realize properly that they stole and pissed us off.

    They are not Skybet, they really need affiliates.
    There is no upper age limit but people over 60 years old are not recommended to trade bitcoin in consideration of price volatility and risk tolerance.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •