Are GPWA Sponsored listings misleading?

[mojo]

What's the point of this place if its just a place for The Corfman brothers to collect cash and suck innocent webmasters into scamming affiliate programs. Wasn't GPWA the place itself that accused CAP of doing some dirty business themselves?

Not sure what to say. I hope you are joking AL.

[Betpartners]

When one starts a thread or a poll on a contentious issue it is fair to question the motive behind such an action and i stated quite clearly in my opening post why i posted this poll up.

It was based upon comments made in a thread involving Europartners which i have in fact linked to and i felt that this was an issue that needed debating for good or bad and that the GPWA was more than up to the job in handling such a debate.

Now i feel that says more about the GPWA's integrity than anything else, the fact that one can post up a poll that in effect calls in to question a main part of GPWA's operation, i personally can only but admire Michael and his colleagues for having the balls to allow this and not only allow it but participate also.

And that attitude goes to the heart of GPWA.

Do i think that GPWA would take the side of a webmaster/affiliate over a program no matter what they pay?

Without doubt i do if the facts support the affiliate, i do not think for a second that the GPWA would risk its credibility as a vocal defender of affiliate rights to make a quick buck.

The GPWA to me is one of the few places that occupy this high ground, can they improve, yes they can, can their integrity be called into question, no it cannot not.

I dont look to make brownie points and pamper to Michael or the GPWA, hell i was in a minority questioning GPWA right to go after CAP, any search of my posts will clearly show that i have been very quick to take the opposing side on subjects that the GPWA or majority have taken.

But my limited experience on here and private communication with Michael and others at the GPWA have shown me what this organsiation is like, an organsiation i admire and respect, an organsiation that i truely belive is striving to be open and a place that affiliates can find refuge in.

I believe that Michael should do certification, i am on record of saying, i belive they should clearly monetize their work over and above what they do now, again i am on record saying that.

I dont begrudge Michael making as much money as he can, because i do not believe that the money that comes in will tarnish their reputation or make them any the less effective.

If CAP taught us anything it is that money can and does play a significant factor in effecting one judgement if the money is allowed to become the overiding reason for ones existance.

GPWA have seen this and know this and so for me i am very confident that the GPWA will never allow this to happen, so as far as i am concerned they should be allowed to make as much money as they can as long as they stay true to their beliefs.

Maybe i am rambling on here but i feel that in parts this thread has slipped slightly.

It is right that we question something if there is reason to and for me the method of sponsored listings is fair game.

But questioning Michael and the GPWA integrity is not.

Why is it not? because there is no reason to, there is no justification, they have done nothing but be open and transparaent in my limited time on here and while i will question aspects of the GPWA i will also defend them passionately on issues of integrity.

This thread was purely about are the listings misleading, not anything else and if this thread does go off in another direction then we have done nothing but spoil a potentially good debate that could only help affiliates and programs alike.

Yes i think the listings are misleading to newbies, but is there a better place for newbies than the GPWA when it comes to affiliate rights, a better place for affiliate info and expert advice, a better place for resources, is there a place more open?

So i would suggest some perspective from some of us is required, the GPWA may not be perfect but it is more perfect than almost any other defender of affiliate rights.

I would never use this place if i thought otherwise, so while i do question the GPWA i also admire them immensely.

[Chalkie]

This thread was always going to be interesting and full of opinions.

It has shown some peoples misconceptions, shown that GPWA has such great support along with coming up with some good ideas.

The fact that Michael spent so long online and commenting only goes to show that this is a subject that is contentious and needs adressing.

The best thing about this thread, however, is the fact that there has been no falling out, accusations or pointing fingers.

We all know deep down that Michael is one of the most upstanding figures in this industry, however, i had not better bang on anymore about that for the worry of being accused of being a creep.

The poll shows the consensus to be that people do feel mislead, the thread has shown that people do take the GPWA on face value and clearly proves that the majority feel that a bolder statement should be made reference the sponsored listings.

It also shows that GPWA are NOT just here to make as much money as possible eskewing the well being of affiliates and members. Although, as Betpartners says, i too am happy for Michael to earn as much as possible from the GPWA, it is money that is well deserved. It also shows that Michael is openly looking for ways to improve.

It is true of this industry that small and new affiliates get the shitty end of the brush so i suppose to make everything clear and not confuse a new face has to be a good thing.

Betpartners has to be applauded for this thread/poll and anyone that knows him, will know that it was meant as constructive and not a pop at any one or entity.

I too agree that should proper certification come back to this industry - there would be no better organisation than the GPWA to implement it!

[MichaelCorfman]

Sounds all fair and dandy.. But when push comes to shove is GPWA going to back a webmaster when they have been wronged or are they going to look the other way? I'm having a hard concept of the fact these programs are not actually endorsed in which they are just Promoted/misleaded on the site.

Yes, the GPWA will back a webmaster when they are wronged. Although it can be complicated in situations where speculation rather than clear facts are involved.

I would like to point out that the thread that was the impetus for this poll was begun because of the fact that Euro Partners is a sponsor program here, and a webmaster cited a negative experience working with a program they represented through a third party advertising agency. Then earlier in this thread it was suggested that Affiliate Guard Dog ratings be shown for programs (an idea that I stated earlier in this thread would be implemented). But I'd like to point out that the program at the heart of the controversy in that thread is actually a program that Affiliate Guard Dog has on its list of certified affiliate programs. And Andy does not receive any funding from Europartners, so there is not any possible financial bias introduced into his certification of that program.

The reason the GPWA does not actually endorse programs is because I believe we are not in a position to reliably do so. I believe the best we can do is to share the opinions and experiences of fellow members with one another with respect to particular programs. And I actually have a philosophical problem with the concept of endorsement. I think it is very often too hard to evaluate the information available to reliably put that sort of stake in the ground and make definitive statements, and the facts and statements available can change from day to day. When, for example, do you move from endorsement to non-endorsement of a program if some problems develop? The move from endorsement to non-endorsement will always be delayed, and so it will be wrong for a while always before such a transition takes place. And for a new program that seems to have good management, how much of a track record is required for endorsement? Even if there are going to be problems later, things will usually look good for a while because there will be an initial investment and desire to make a good impression on everyone even if the business is not run in a way that allows that to be sustained over the longer term.

So, in my opinion, what the GPWA is about is letting members share information with one another, not about the management of the GPWA making a decision that a program is endorsed or not endorsed.

And of course we have stated standards as documented earlier in this thread, and programs are accountable for complying with those standards because any member here that sees a program deviate from those standards can post about it for all to see, and if the program in question does not respond in a reasonable fashion then the interaction is plain for all to see.

So where does this leave us, and what am I currently thinking are the appropriate courses of action based on what I believe I have learned from thinking about the material in this thread?

Here is a current list of actions I plan to focus on based on the discussion in this thread. They are actions intended to make available information more visible and to help the GPWA do a better job of helping affiliates (and particularly new affiliates) make decisions regarding who to work with:

1. Add support for AGD program rating information on sponsor affiliate program pages when available. This has been planned for a while, but on Friday the actual implementation plans were fleshed out so the work could be done.

2. Add affiliate payment information for a program to the program's page using data gathered from the new affiliate payment system deployed on the GPWA website last week.

3. Make the links from affiliate program pages to the forums to affiliate programs much more prominent so that new affiliates are more likely to use that information in a decision about whether or not to work with an affiliate program.

4. Incorporate changes into the GPWA website to help make it clear that higher sponsor levels are based on the level of support provided to the GPWA by a sponsor program and that sponsorship levels do not correspond with some sort of recommendation level for a particular program.

5. Create some type of guide for affiliates (particularly newbies) on choosing affiliate programs that can be linked to from various places in the site that explains how to choose an affiliate program, and that clearly emphasizes the importance of looking through the forums and also makes is clear that sponsorship is not an endorsement as indicated in item 4 above.

I welcome suggestions for additional actions.

Michael

[Nandakishore]

The actions proposed by Michael are excellent. I also think that instead of starting an endorsement program, it would be much more useful to start quantifying the outputs of the affiliate programs point by point. One such point is the Payments Information which has now been introduced. I can very well imagine something similar can be done by introducing a complaints statistics. Everytime an affiliate registers a complaint with any affiliate program, he uses the kind of mechanism used to register the payment information to register his complaint information. I know from my experience in the software industry that this kind of statistics can be very effective. Just as software developers I knew took this type of feedback from the users very seriously, I am sure the affiliate programs will do the same.

[joeyl]

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all positive steps forward. Good. I think these are a good thing.

When, for example, do you move from endorsement to non-endorsement of a program if some problems develop?

This is the $64,000 question Michael.

You might have to set up an affiliates complaints mediation service, and the sponsors agree to adhere to your rulings, to answer it.

It's a tough one. Because I know you've already thought of it, and have obviously decided it's not where you want to go.

[TheGooner]

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!

I think that the problem is that WE ARE NOT all business men and women.

Many of the newbies here are enthusiastic amateurs or part-timers who are relatively new to the area and DO take the sponsorship level as an implicit endorsement.

And this mis-understanding is encouraged by valuable sounding titles like "bronze, silver, gold, platinum", trying to confer value and status that is simply dependant on the size of the monthly check.

Let's be straight up front and call them $1K, $2K, $5K, $10K a month sponsors if it's important to distinguish their level of spend here. Or if it's not important to identify the spend then simply give the sponsors exposure commiserate with their spending level without giving them an artificial value based title that attempts to imply status. And clearly make the entries as advertising not GPWA endorsements.

Experienced affiliate know better as you say Chalkie (and others agreed), but I'd estimate that 80% of complaints in the GPWA forum seem to be from these inexperienced people, many of whom have jumped into a CPA deal with these (errm ... shall we say tough dealing) programs and been subsequently disappointed.

I have no issue with sponsors at the GPWA - but I have problems with continually reading about newer affiliates having problems with GPWA sponsors when the primary driver for signing the deal was a tacit GPWA endorsement of "platinum status".

[Yoav]

I voted Not.

Would the GPWA advertise an affiliate program for free? probably not.
Would an affiliate post anything here if they had to pay for it? probably not.

So it's a pretty much win/win/win here. For the affiliates that can discuss here freely, the affiliate programs that can buy the inventory, and the GPWA, by doing their job and connecting all 3.

It's like blaming TV for people eating McDonald's. Some people like it, some have bad experience with it. But you can't really blame TV for advertising them, can you?

Just another good 'ol classic business model.

[Betpartners]

I voted Not.

Would the GPWA advertise an affiliate program for free? probably not.
Would an affiliate post anything here if they had to pay for it? probably not.

So it's a pretty much win/win/win here. For the affiliates that can discuss here freely, the affiliate programs that can buy the inventory, and the GPWA, by doing their job and connecting all 3.

It's like blaming TV for people eating McDonald's. Some people like it, some have bad experience with it. But you can't really blame TV for advertising them, can you?

Just another good 'ol classic business model.

But if the meat at Mcdonalds was contaminated would TV then take their money.

And TV is not an advocate for a certain sector like GPWA is.

Huge difference imo.

[MichaelCorfman]

Tomorrow (Monday), I expect to deploy a first change to the GPWA website in the area of planned changes for item 4 of changes I said were planned for the site in an earlier post in this thread, quoted below.

4. Incorporate changes into the GPWA website to help make it clear that higher sponsor levels are based on the level of support provided to the GPWA by a sponsor program and that sponsorship levels do not correspond with some sort of recommendation level for a particular program.

Specifically, on the directory of sponsor affiliate programs page (www.gpwa.org/affiliateprograms/), I plan to have us add the following paragraph as the first paragraph on the page:

The GPWA is made possible through the financial support of sponsor affiliate programs. As the only professional association dedicated to gambling affiliates we offer a wide variety of services to our members free of charge. The funding provided by sponsors in exchange for platinum, gold and silver promotion packages enables us to provide these services.

Note that the link for "platinum, gold and silver promotion packages" links to our sponsorship brochure that explains in some detail the contents of each promotion package.

Michael

[Betpartners]

Tomorrow (Monday), I expect to deploy a first change to the GPWA website in the area of planned changes for item 4, quoted below.



Specifically, on the directory of sponsor affiliate programs page (www.gpwa.org/affiliateprograms/), I plan to have us add the following paragraph as the first paragraph on the page:



Note that the link for "platinum, gold and silver promotion packages" links to our sponsorship brochure that explains in some detail the contents of each promotion package.

Michael

Michael i have to say well done for being so procative and responsive to the members opinions.

I know it is easy for us to sit here in judgement and say this and that without having to deal with the backend stuff, it is not as easy as we may think it is to make changes and integrate stuff.

I am also sure that as each change is done it can bring with it a whole set of new issues.

So credit to you for taking some of what has been said on the chin even if some of it was a bit too sharp and again you have shown why the GPWA is the premier place for affiliates to come to.

Well done

[LiveCasinoPartners]

.... 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. ...

I agree. The same happened to me when I first started. I have to admit that I was never confused here because by the time I found GPWA, I already knew what was going on with the "rating" systems. I started promoting all the wrong places because i was getting my casino target list from CAP's "certified" program lists. I quickly found out what I was doing wrong and changed my tactics.

Even though LiveCasinoPartners is a "platinum sponsor" I do feel that the designation of platinum, bronze associated a level of "value" insinuates a greater or lesser performance.

When LiveCasinoPartners joined GPWA we had to sign a significant contract stating the types of behavior that was expected from GPWA from our program. It was pretty clear what was expected from us, and I am 100% sure that GPWA's methods and ethics are intact. I thinks it is just the syntax used to designate a program could be clearer to not mislead the new affiliates.

[Nandakishore]

Hats off Michael for the very prompt implementation of some of the suggestions coming out of this thread. I think the link to the sponsorship brochure will help to make it clear to anyone who cares to get informed about the sponsorship program that the sponorship grade has nothing to do with the quality of the affiliate program. Only the GPWA seal of approval is directly related to the quality of a program (only with respect to their accepting GPWA's code of conduct) and this seal is the same for Platinum, Gold and Silver sponsors.

[jarvi]

I was just on a sponsor's site and the GPWA logo is shown under the heading "Approved By". This perhaps contributes to the misleading nature of the sponsorships. Maybe it can be incorporated into the terms just what can be said on their sites regarding the sponsorships.

Michael, on a related note, the site I refer to above doesn't have the click to verify image, just an image without a link. (PM me if you wish to know the program as I don't ned to out them in this thread because I'm sure many are like it). I think it is important that the images all are the click to verify version. Not sure if you have a system for checking these and if not, perhaps you can have a think about how to keep tabs on them.

[penny-slot-machines]

I think that the problem is that WE ARE NOT all business men and women.

Many of the newbies here are enthusiastic amateurs or part-timers who are relatively new to the area and DO take the sponsorship level as an implicit endorsement.

And this mis-understanding is encouraged by valuable sounding titles like "bronze, silver, gold, platinum", trying to confer value and status that is simply dependant on the size of the monthly check.

Let's be straight up front and call them $1K, $2K, $5K, $10K a month sponsors if it's important to distinguish their level of spend here. Or if it's not important to identify the spend then simply give the sponsors exposure commiserate with their spending level without giving them an artificial value based title that attempts to imply status. And clearly make the entries as advertising not GPWA endorsements.

Experienced affiliate know better as you say Chalkie (and others agreed), but I'd estimate that 80% of complaints in the GPWA forum seem to be from these inexperienced people, many of whom have jumped into a CPA deal with these (errm ... shall we say tough dealing) programs and been subsequently disappointed.

I have no issue with sponsors at the GPWA - but I have problems with continually reading about newer affiliates having problems with GPWA sponsors when the primary driver for signing the deal was a tacit GPWA endorsement of "platinum status".

Some excellent points made by gooner, i thought

I would add that the opinions expressed on threads like this are from a very select group of GPWA members. It's worth taking that point into consideration

Firstly, I'm sure that many members will not even bother to read a thread like this. Secondly, there will be many lurkers that never join in this sort of debate and thirdly, there may even be other members that don't wish to join in this sort of debate with their real opinions, just in case they offend the GPWA management

I would also add that there are many GPWA members who's first language is not english. I asked a few people today what they thought the words "sponsor" and "support" mean and (to my surprise), a few of them were not really confident about their meaning and thought "support" could mean help running the website, or advice.

So,

Perhaps rather than use the word "sponsor", the GPWA could use the word "advertiser"

Also, perhaps, rather than use the word "support", the GPWA could use the word "money"

That really would be 100% transparent - to use terminology that would be understood irrespective of first language, education, business background, experience...

[mojo]

I was just on a sponsor's site and the GPWA logo is shown under the heading "Approved By". This perhaps contributes to the misleading nature of the sponsorships. Maybe it can be incorporated into the terms just what can be said on their sites regarding the sponsorships.

Michael, on a related note, the site I refer to above doesn't have the click to verify image, just an image without a link. (PM me if you wish to know the program as I don't ned to out them in this thread because I'm sure many are like it). I think it is important that the images all are the click to verify version. Not sure if you have a system for checking these and if not, perhaps you can have a think about how to keep tabs on them.

Great catch jarvi. I wasn't thinking about how the seals were displayed on the affiliate sites. Obviously it should not be misleading as well.

Excellent point. Poor GPWA has their work cut out for them. In the end though, I think we will see great things.

[raphnix]

Some excellent points made by gooner, i thought

I would add that the opinions expressed on threads like this are from a very select group of GPWA members. It's worth taking that point into consideration

Firstly, I'm sure that many members will not even bother to read a thread like this. Secondly, there will be many lurkers that never join in this sort of debate and thirdly, there may even be other members that don't wish to join in this sort of debate with their real opinions, just in case they offend the GPWA management

I would also add that there are many GPWA members who's first language is not english. I asked a few people today what they thought the words "sponsor" and "support" mean and (to my surprise), a few of them were not really confident about their meaning and thought "support" could mean help running the website, or advice.

So,

Perhaps rather than use the word "sponsor", the GPWA could use the word "advertiser"

Also, perhaps, rather than use the word "support", the GPWA could use the word "money"

That really would be 100% transparent - to use terminology that would be understood irrespective of first language, education, business background, experience...

I think these points would lead to creating a new group for GPWA community besides Members and Affiliate Representatives. As I observed, whenever there's an issue or problem with the affiliate programs, the responsible sponsor tend to be responsive to this member which a common advertiser may not pay attention to.

[Skinski]

I was just on a sponsor's site and the GPWA logo is shown under the heading "Approved By". This perhaps contributes to the misleading nature of the sponsorships. Maybe it can be incorporated into the terms just what can be said on their sites regarding the sponsorships.

A very good point.

[Chalkie]

I was just on a sponsor's site and the GPWA logo is shown under the heading "Approved By".

Whenever i see a seal i always check its validity - sponsor or affiliate.

If i found it to be invalid or not genuine i would make a point of this to GPWA

Probably impossible for the GPWA to police 100% the placement of seals, however, with dilligent members we can easily flush these cheats out!

[penny-slot-machines]

I think these points would lead to creating a new group for GPWA community besides Members and Affiliate Representatives. As I observed, whenever there's an issue or problem with the affiliate programs, the responsible sponsor tend to be responsive to this member which a common advertiser may not pay attention to.

I think there will always be a huge incentive for programs to respond to affiliate problems here, irrespective of whether they pay to be listed or not

Through these boards, I've been contacted by programs that do not advertise here. They simply PM me - generally after I had posted about problems I had with them.

One program explained to me they don't have a board of their own here on GPWA as they refuse to pay the prices to be a 'sponsor'. It was still in their interest to use the boards, read my post and get in contact, though...

Why?

They want my referrals!