Are GPWA Sponsored listings misleading?

[Betpartners]

Hope i do not get my ass kicked here and i really do not want to annoy Michael or anyone at GPWA but i think this question should be asked.

In addition i did a search and could not find a similar poll, if there is one then i apologise and by all means remove this one.

I am asking this question because of statements made in this thread

http://www.gpwa.org/forum/euro-partn...ud-178554.html

and a feeling i get that a few people agree with some of the opinions expresed in regards to the sponsored listings on here.

From what i gather GPWA makes it clear the listings are not recommendations of a particular program and not a certification, others feel this is disingenuous and that anyone visiting the site and that looks at the listings takes it that they are in fact a recommendation by default.

[pompeyrayuk]

Had to vote yes although not misleading so much to me, new members may as I did at first think they are endorsed programmes.

[MichaelCorfman]

I made a post in the thread pointed to in the initial poll question post that I would like to repeat a portion of here. Also, I'd like to emphasize that I welcome feedback of this nature. I know the current system is not perfect by any means. Suggestions on how to improve the current system while still providing a method to fund the effort that goes into maintaining the GPWA and APCW sites and services will receive careful consideration.

4. I am aware that some folks don't like Europartners. But I'm also aware that many folks do like Europartners and have a history of good relationships with them. I believe the forums show this to be the case for anyone who takes the time to look at the experience of fellow webmasters with them.

5. In my opinion, it is frequently a mistake to work through third parties rather than directly with affiliate programs. If you choose to work through a third party, then you should realize that the experience you have can be a bad one even if the affiliate program itself is a good one. I can say that based on past experience, Casino City never works other than directly with the property we are promoting. We've learned that lesson many times, and don't care to learn it any more.

6. Sponsor levels are not indicative of our opinion of a program. From a business perspective, we could not afford to run this community if the sponsorship fees we receive were all bronze level sponsorship fees. And also from a business perspective, if we only offered a uniform sponsorship level, some programs that really should be here might feel it was not worth it. With the open discussions we allow, including both positive and negative comments about programs, it is not always easy for some programs to justify even the moderate sponsorship fees we charge to be able to cover our costs.

7. I welcome suggestions on how to improve transparency. I am a big believer in operating in a transparent manner, and in allowing issues to be raised even when those issues might be a pain in the neck for me personally. Doing a good job is not always easy, and I care far more about doing a good job than having an easy job.

8. There is a poll started by betpartners in the thread http://www.gpwa.org/forum/gpwa-spons...ng-181576.html. I welcome any feedback that might be provided to us in both that poll and in comments posted in response to the poll.

Michael

[mojo]

This has been a sticking point not only here but for other forums as well with much discussion.

My main worry is the newer affiliates. It's quite natural for a new affilialte to see a program here and assume that it is endorsed.

I suggest a due diligence link on each program with an affiliate rating system. Also perhaps updates from AGD or something like that with related hot topics on issues. At least so that newbies can read and make their own decisions.

Just some thoughts. Implementing something like this is easier said than done, I know.

[MichaelCorfman]

I suggest a due diligence link on each program with an affiliate rating system. Also perhaps updates from AGD or something like that with related hot topics on issues. At least so that newbies can read and make their own decisions.

Just some thoughts. Implementing something like this is easier said than done, I know.

Thanks for the feedback mojo. I've actually had discussions with Andy over at AGD, and I expect us to begin doing something like that. But you are right, some of this is easier said than done. It would already have been done if that were not the case, since it is something we plan to do. But it will happen.

Michael

[Chalkie]

On the face of it one could be forgiven for thinking that the GPWA sponsored listings are misleading, however, when one takes an interest in the forum and spends time reading the boards then i cannot see how people can fail to see the the GPWA sponsored listings are misleading! That is, if you consider a sponsor to be an entity that is endorsed. I personally do not, but i would expect sponsorship to be subject to some terms which i am sure that they are. Thus allowing removal of a sponsor that is proven to be completely rogue etc.

If someone comes along here or anywhere else for that matter and just looks at the sponsored listings and then thinks to themselves - ah, the GPWA endorses xxx program - then they are not very savvy imo.

We are all business men and women and as such should take due diligence. Anyone that takes for granted what is printed on a webpage where financial implications are involved is nuts!

As support for this theory, imagine the mind set of a person who has come to the GPWA for the first time, they will not have a knowledge of our standards and morals etc, so why should they take for granted what is said by the GPWA. After all, as far as the new visitor is concerned, the GPWA is an unknown quantity.

Before taking for granted what is said, they will most likely get a little involved or even just have a read of the boards, during this process they will see that quite clearly the GPWA is not endorsing the sponsor but moreso using them to be an ends to a means. (which incidently i feel is fair enough).

On this basis i feel that there is no need to make a point of the fact in the program sections personally. Although making this point in the about us section may be a reasonable thing for sponsors to expect.

[Betpartners]

I should have pointed out i have voted yes,

I agree with a lot of what Chalkie says but due diligence is something that also comes with experience and i fully understand why GPWA has to charge something, i am on record that i belive in certification and charging fees.

My reason for yes is that, all arguements for and against, i still think that to newcomers at the very least and those that just lurk or even those that do a google on a program and get a gpwa answer can be forgiven for thinking that these programs are recommended.

It does appear to be a common misconception and the fact that programs are categorised in either platinum, gold, silver bronze etc can give the impression that one is rated above another when in reality it is simply not the case.

I dont know the answer to this for GPWA because they do need to raise money to keep the site going etc, well i do actually, it is certification but at this time that procecedure seems to have been discredited, but that apart it is a difficult issue to resolve.

A text saying we dont endorse these programs etc may devalue the listings, i dont know, but as things stand i do belive that an improvement of some kind is required.

[Chalkie]

I should have pointed out i have voted yes,

I agree with a lot of what Chalkie says but due diligence is something that also comes with experience and i fully understand why GPWA has to charge something, i am on record that i belive in certification and charging fees.

My reason for yes is that, all arguements for and against, i still think that to newcomers at the very least and those that just lurk or even those that do a google on a program and get a gpwa answer can be forgiven for thinking that these programs are recommended.

It does appear to be a common misconception and the fact that programs are categorised in either platinum, gold, silver bronze etc can give the impression that one is rated above another when in reality it is simply not the case.

I dont know the answer to this for GPWA because they do need to raise money to keep the site going etc, well i do actually, it is certification but at this time that procecedure seems to have been discredited, but that apart it is a difficult issue to resolve.

A text saying we dont endorse these programs etc may devalue the listings, i dont know, but as things stand i do belive that an improvement of some kind is required.

I too agree with a lot of what you are saying, but then, we normally sing from the same hymn sheet anyway.

What i feel is this, it is quite clear that GPWA is not an industry certification organisation and at present appears not to be aiming in that direction either! To do so would require a complete change of constitution i imagine.

It has been seen in the past that so called certification organisations are open to fraud, abuse and not very reliable. Ecogra are attempting to fill a void in this department at present and it appears that they are not being received very graciously for various reasons.

I have racked my brain recently trying to figure how we could have a 100% genuine certification organisation free from corruption. I cannot for the life of me figure the answer, every avenue seems to become a dead end!

So for me, the best answer is to have:

An organisation whom openly accept money from affiliate programs to give them sponsorship status.

A organisation where we can all live in the knowledge that transparency is rife!

An organisation where things are discussed and people are not supressed just because the management dislike the expressions contained within.

An organisation led by management that are not greedy, however, have an appetite for fairness and honesty.

We have this in the form GPWA.

So for me, yes, more information and clearer data to show that sponsors are not certified or endorsed, however, not at the cost of maybe putting sponsors off!

The advancement of the monthly payment module is an excellent step forward in this direction.

[Chalkie]

I have racked my brain recently trying to figure how we could have a 100% genuine certification organisation free from corruption. I cannot for the life of me figure the answer, every avenue seems to become a dead end!

Even a govt dept would not work, (not because we are of course international in our nature) but because govt departments are probably more likely to be riddled with fraud than a private entity. Especially when the figures in this industry get involved.

[Skinski]

I had to say yes, but more so for the newcomer. I myself am one that failed to realize this very thing until I was a member here for a while.

Naive ? Maybe I am, but hearing of the credibility the GPWA has is why I joined here, so I had a tendency to think any site here was "legit".

[mojo]

Some newbies may not read everything but I think many more do.

I think we are responsable to provide as much truth as we can. The newbies of today could be the leaders of the future. There should be perpetual knowledge passed on and a willingness to give back once they find they have a grip on things IMO.

I clearly remember being new and reading and reading here. I didn't know what things like bundling was. Simple things like that can save affiliates a lot of grief. There is simply to much information for a new person to learn all at once. Even a basic pluses and minuses list for programs here clearly linked to each of their forums would be helpful. If programs operate efficiantly there should be nothing for them to worry about and they would welcome this.

But it will happen.

That's terrific Michael and it's understandable that it would take time for a project like this.

[Chips]

I had to say yes, but more so for the newcomer. I myself am one that failed to realize this very thing until I was a member here for a while.

Naive ? Maybe I am, but hearing of the credibility the GPWA has is why I joined here, so I had a tendency to think any site here was "legit".

.
I echo that comment. In my earlier days here, even though I was somewhat active in the boards, I took the levels as the credibility of the program. I feel that most any newcomer to the industry and the GPWA can easily be mistaken as I and Skinski were.

No I don't have an answer, perhaps the ratings like AGD has along with the listing in the overviews would be a plus. But, truth be known, I was unaware of the program reviews for a long time.

This is deep. Maybe a disclaimer would be a band aid to this for now? Thanks Michael for having an open mind and forum, much respect to you for listening to your members.

[joeyl]

Of course it's misleading.

The sponsor aff programmes must adhere to the affiliate programmes code of conduct without exception.

If they don't, they are gone.

It's not about some like, some don't. It's about every member of the GPWA is important as another. If 1 member has a genuine issue. You stand side by side together until the issue is resolved. That starts at the top.

If that means the GPWA cannot continue to operate under the current funding model, then close it, or find another way to fund it. 2nd tier aff earnings, membership fee, donations, sell t-shirts and toffee apples if you have to.

Misleading the membership in any way shape or form perpetuates the status quo. A status quo that in all honesty, I genuinely believe the boss wants to tackle.

I would'nt be here otherwise, because there are glaring issues.

Cheers.

[pompeyrayuk]

On the face of it one could be forgiven for thinking that the GPWA sponsored listings are misleading, however, when one takes an interest in the forum and spends time reading the boards then i cannot see how people can fail to see the the GPWA sponsored listings are misleading! That is, if you consider a sponsor to be an entity that is endorsed. I personally do not, but i would expect sponsorship to be subject to some terms which i am sure that they are. Thus allowing removal of a sponsor that is proven to be completely rogue etc.

Hear what your saying me olde mate but isnt a sponsor someone who pays YOU to do a certain thing or things NOT someone who pays YOU to comply with YOUR giudelines/requirements.

FTR YOU isnt relating to you lmao

[joeyl]

But..

These aff programmes aren't "sponsoring" the GPWA. They are buying access to webmasters for a reason, and post they are GPWA "sponsors" on thier aff programme mainpage, which links from a GPWA badge to these.

"The GPWA Sponsor Affiliate Program seal is awarded to sponsor affiliate programs that agree to follow the GPWA code of conduct."

Cheers.

[Betpartners]

Maybe the answer is a simple prominent link to a page saying "GPWA Sponsorship explained" and on that page GPWA clearly outlining what sponsorship does in fact mean.

Can be no misunderstanding then of the veracity and meaning of a GPWA sponsored program

[penny-slot-machines]

Would the GPWA accept Grand Prive as a "sponsor"?

[MichaelCorfman]

Would the GPWA accept Grand Prive as a "sponsor"?

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, and NO. Oh, and also NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, and NEVER. I was going to say over my dead body. But that is not good enough since I'll be dead someday, and it better not happen then either. Or maybe it would be a good thing in that case ... it just might jolt me back to life.

Michael

[Nandakishore]

I have voted YES although the listings are not misleading to me because I don't attach any value to them except for their sponsoring this forum, which is in our interest. I don't think it makes any sense in doing a due dilligence which you can only do if you are not financed by the object of due dilligence. I assume that all who sponsor fulfil the GPWA code of contact, but I am sure that a Platinum sponsor does not fulfil the code of conduct more than the others. I think even a newbie should understand that after a while, and if he does not, he can always use the forum to get feedback from others.

[MichaelCorfman]

Hear what your saying me olde mate but isnt a sponsor someone who pays YOU to do a certain thing or things NOT someone who pays YOU to comply with YOUR giudelines/requirements.

FTR YOU isnt relating to you lmao

Actually, in the case of the GPWA, both should be true. One of the conditions for a program to be a sponsor of the GPWA is that they sign a contract that incorporates the GPWA code of conduct. Among other things, that means sponsor affiliate programs represent the following:

• Abides by all laws, regulations, and license requirements of the jurisdictions within which they operate.
• Is truthful in all promotions and publishes only accurate information about their operations.
• Publicly discloses any rules and registration procedures affecting affiliates or the public.
• Uses only ethical means of promotion either directly or indirectly through others.
• Pays both affiliates and players promptly in accordance with published terms and conditions.
• Promptly responds to complaints either by affiliates or by affiliates on behalf of their players.
• Accepts responsibility for compliance with the terms of the sponsor code of conduct.

A few weeks ago we updated the text linked to by sponsor seals to also place increased emphasis on the forums as a source of information with the following statement:

Affiliate programs are run by people, and people sometimes make mistakes, so GPWA sponsor affiliate programs may sometimes fail to comply with the code of conduct. Good affiliate programs act in an ethical fashion, take responsiblity for their mistakes, and work hard to ensure they are corrected. The GPWA operates independent forums for sponsor affiliate programs to create an environment where there is visibility around the interactions between affiliates and sponsor affiliate programs. This transparency enables affiliates to review the experiences of their peers and factor that information into considering whether they wish to work with a particular affiliate program.

If you have experience with , either positive or negative, please share your opinion with your fellow affiliates in the GPWA forum. And if you believe that has failed to promptly rectify any breach of the code of conduct, please post your observations in the GPWA forum so they can respond.

I'm all in favor of making much of this more clear to folks in more places, and I agree 100% that there are more of these sort of changes that should be made. That was my feeling even before this poll. And I'm happy to have the constructive criticism and associated poll taking place here to reinforce to me the importance of doing further work in this area.

Michael