Reduced commissions at the new Littlewoods aff program (sportech)

[baldidiot]

Just received an email about the migration of littlewoods from ufilliates to sportech so went to have a look at the new program and found the commission rates have been reduced:

New Depositors..........Commission
0..............................12.5% of Net Revenue
1-10.........................25% of Net Revenue
11-40.......................32.5% of Net Revenue
41+..........................40% of Net Revenue

Admittedly the old uffiliates program also had a quota, but at least there payment rate was 20% for 0 new RMPs and then 30% for 1+. So basically the new program has just cut commissions by 7.5% for small affiliates who don't bring in a player every month and by 5% for those of us bringing in less than 10. To quote rick - "if a program isn't small affiliate friendly, it isn't affiliate friendly".

I'm assuming this goes for all players, even the ones we already have acquired under uffiliates?

It annoys me when brands use the change of ownership (eg: jetbull) or change in affiliate program to change the terms which we originally agreed to.

I notice that vernons doesn't have this quota and is more reasonably based on revenue rather number of players, so why the difference for littlewoods? Or are you hoping that no one will notice?

/end rant

[Louis - Income Access]

I've been working closely with Sportech Affiliates throughout this transition process and I can tell you we looked at every conceivable way to give good value to hard working "real affiliates" (affiliates that actually invest efforts to build traffic and refer new players) while building some measure to help reduce losses from a large collection of "rakeback accounts" (players who put up a blog in order to have their player account tracked to their affiliate account). The fact is, it's extremely difficult to weed this type of behaviour out, as you can't easily "prove" that an account is without a doubt a rakeback account. Vernons doesn't have this problem so no need for the players based tiers on that side.

We understand that the new structure isn't as good as the old structure, but 25% for a minimum of 1 player is far from terrible.

Moreover, Sportech is very much open to cutting private deals with affiliates who are willing to work with them and make efforts to send new depositors.

If you want to PM me, we can discuss your rate.

[baldidiot]

Sorry Louis, but I completely disagree with your reasoning. The only people you are hurting with these quotas are small affiliates, and by doing so, yourselves as less affilaites promote the brand.

There are better ways to protect yourselves from self-rakeback players - surely a simple name check would weed out most. If you insist on some kind of quota then have a payout quota such as a minimum of 3 players before a payout will be made. I don't like those kind of terms, but it is the lesser of two evils.

I'm happy to use my stats here to prove a point. In the past 3 months I generated $2,000 in gross revenue for littlewoods and had 4 new players, but a couple of them came in the same month. There's a strong chance that I might not send you a player in a month, so I'm to take a 50% cut in revenue for this? I, like many affiliates, promote many brands - not everyone is going to risk putting all their eggs in a couple of programs. I guess we're not "real affiliates"?

And how does that justify reducing the commissions for 1-10 players from 30% to 25%?

As for private deals... they only help the person making them.

[Louis - Income Access]

I agree that the public offer is less attractive, but I don't understand why a private deal would be problematic for you.

If for example, someone is making a good effort to promote Littlewoods but because of site traffic, they simply can't convert players every single month, Sportech are open to working out an offer which gives you more stability. By negotiating these types of deals with "real" affiliates such as yourself, Sportech can avoid the scenario I discussed while keeping good affiliates on board.

The idea here is forming mutually beneficial partnerships with open communication, rather than simply a set of program terms and software where affiliates remain anonymous. Doesn't this seem preferable for everyone involved?

[baldidiot]

The thing I have the most issue with is the changing of the terms at the expense of the affiliate. Even if a private deal is on the cards, you've shown that you are willing to change terms at a whim - what's stopping you doing that again in the future. Today it's a 5/7.5% pay cut, tomorrow it's a non-promoting rule or NCO. Or maybe you'll decide that you only want to pay rev share for 12 months...

To put it simply, it makes me not trust the program.

[Louis - Income Access]

In fact, this is not changing the program terms, because this is technically launching a completely new affiliate program. However, Sportech is not using that as an excuse to cut and run, by any means. Sportech has taken many steps to make this transition a positive one for affiliates, which numerous other brands have not taken when engaging in such a transition, including porting players and tracking across to the new platform (this is an expensive and complicated process).

Having been in this industry for 5 years, I've seen how difficult these transitions can be for a brand and I think Sportech has made a real effort to do this in an affiliate friendly way. I don't think it is fair to demonize them for a slight reduction in the public commission offer, or imply that they may go rogue in the future, when they have made a very real effort to build an affiliate friendly program and we are here in the forum, discussing it openly, and offering you the chance to make a deal with us to earn better commissions.

[universal4]

every conceivable way to give good value to hard working "real affiliates" (affiliates that actually invest efforts to build traffic and refer new players)

The fact that this was even stated this way is a slap in the face to small affiliates around the world. (In my opinion this is actually a slap in the face to all affiliates but many lose sight of the fact that they were once a small affiliate or by the sheer volume of traffic they produce they do not fully understand the roadblocks a small affiliate faces.)

Just because an affiliate doesn't sign players every month or meet whatever unreasonable quota that a program defines, does NOT mean that the affiliate is not a "real affiliate" or "hard working" and it also doesn't mean they do not "invest efforts to build traffic and refer new players"....

Rick
Universal4

[Louis - Income Access]

Hi Rick

I believe you may have misinterpreted my statement. If you read it over again, you will see I did not say that "real" affiliates are those that refer new players every month. I said that "real" affiliates are those that make efforts to do so.

That's a fundamental difference.

Sportech is looking to reward affiliates who promote the brand, who make an effort to communicate and optimize, who engage and respond. I encourage affiliates to write to us and engage with us and they will see that we are more than willing to work outside of the public terms with affiliates that want to have a true partnership with us. This includes additional perks like custom bonuses and landing pages, content, and an affiliate management team that responds quickly and takes steps to constantly improve the program.

I trust that affiliates will see that it is these key qualities, and not the public commission rate, which make a program worth working with.

[universal4]

I did read what you wrote correctly.

Whether affiliate managers are willing to continue to work with affiliates that are making effortt to sign players or not is really NOT the issue.

The issue is what the TERMS of SERVICE state.

If it's not such a big deal, then have the TOS reflect that.

Have the terms changed to reflect and define what an active affiliate is, if it's not a quota that needs to be met then state that in the terms.

I am sure the team at AGD would be more than willing to help come up with more aggreeable terms for ALL affiliates.

Just because a cop might give someone a break and not write them a speeding ticket because they were stopped by going 4 mph over the limit, does not mean that it is now ok to always drive 4 mph over the limit, the LAW says the speed limit is what is posted not whether the cop gives a driver a break or not....

Rick
Universal4

[Louis - Income Access]

OK I get your point but at the same time, don't you think it's reasonable that a brand would want to give itself some room to offer the affiliates that actually engage and partner with them something more than those affiliates that remain anonymous and don't make any efforts to promote the brand?

If a brand promises the world to all affiliates, regardless of their level of involvement, that doesn't give them any room to reward those affiliates who truly make an effort.

[Louis - Income Access]

BTW, Sportech would be happy to have AGD weigh in on the terms and conditions. I'm pretty certain that having a structure based on number of referred players, where affiliates still get paid for referring no players, is not a predatory term.

[Engineer]

12.5% of net is ridiculously low -- well below the usual 25% that most programs offer as the starting rate.

I tend to steer clear of programs that base the commissions earned from the existing player base on the number of players they are able to convert in the current month.

IMO, commission rates should be based purely on the revenue generated by the players. Basing it on the number of new depositors in a given month isn't really logical.

If a player wins big, it can become quite unfair in certain scenarios -- see this AGD thread from 2009. Vladi made some great points.

I think Littlewoods/IA should seriously think about scrapping this model for a revenue-based model instead (with a fair starting rate of at least 25% of net).

(By the way, I am speaking for myself here, not for AGD.)

[universal4]

You keep referring to affiliates that sign less players as having made less effort and that is just NOT true and devalues what an affiliate does.

Rick
Universal4

[crowngate]

I don't promote Littlewoods at the moment and would not consider promoting them after reading this thread. The players i do get from my sites need to be going towards a programme that doesn't penalise small affiliates.

[baldidiot]

There's no way you can use the private deals excuse to justify offering only 12.5% - this quota is what I assume most will object to. Dump the quota and change the commission to 25% for 0-10 players and you will have already made a massive improvement on the new program. Change it to 30% (which is what we were already getting with uffiliates) and this whole issue goes away.

For the record, it is fine for programs to have tiers but they should be used to incentivise affiliates who bring in plenty of players - don't use them to punish those who can't bring a player every month.

The problem with private deals is that, generally, you want something in return. I don't have 50 prime placement spots for every program that wants to make private deals, and I can't guarantee any player numbers. The brands I do feature on my sites are the ones that have the best offers for my players, not the ones belonging to the brands trying to strong arm their way to the top.

Something else that I've noticed is that this new quota doesn't exist for Vernons, which means there can only be two reasons for the new terms:

1. You're using the 0 player rule to force affiliates with existing player bases into promoting the new program (although as we've seen in the past, this will just lead to affiliates promoting the brand the bare minimum to get that 1 player), and/or...

2. You're ensuring that new sportech affiliates promote vernons over littlewoods (same software/program, no quota). Are the owned by the same people? If not, surely littlewoods can't be happy with this idea.

Also I never implied littlewoods were rogue - I actually like the brand and met a bunch of the littlewoods guys a few years back at a hospitality event - but making these kind of changes at the expense of your partners is never a good sign of things to come.

[Louis - Income Access]

You keep referring to affiliates that sign less players as having made less effort and that is just NOT true and devalues what an affiliate does.

Rick this is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.

It is not fair for you, as a moderator of this forum, to purposefully take my words out of context in order to make it seem like I don't respect affiliates.

I will state very clearly once again, as I have from the beginning.

A "real" affiliate is any affiliate who makes an effort to send new players. This includes affiliates who do not have enough traffic to consistently send new players. This is extremely different from a player who puts up a blog to tag himself or his friends' player accounts and earn rakeback, and makes no effort to build traffic.

Affiliates who know Income Access know that we have stood for integrity and fairness in affiliate marketing since our inception, and that we will not work for or represent rogue brands. If we are here, in the forums representing a program, then we feel that that program has done it's due diligence and has made efforts to be affiliate friendly. With that being said, sometimes our clients are forced to make decisions which will be unpopular with affiliates. We understand that and hope that affiliates will see that we have done our best to bring about the fairest decision possible, for the long term success of both the brand and the affiliates.

The new, public Littlewoods Gaming commission structure is not as attractive as the commission structure in the old network. However, the new Sportech Affiliates will offer numerous benefits that the old structure did not, including the new Vernons program, which from a functional perspective is identical to Littlewoods Gaming but offers better commission rates (owned by the same people). Affiliates, both those who are able to drive high player traffic and those who are not there yet but working to increase their traffic, who choose to partner with Sportech will quickly see that this is a great program, with flexibility in terms of our payouts, and all the support an affiliate could want.

[baldidiot]

Rick this is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.

It is not fair for you, as a moderator of this forum, to purposefully take my words out of context in order to make it seem like I don't respect affiliates.

I think this is just a missunderstanding. I understand what you're getting at now, but it could easily come across differently.

Not sure what you mean by sportech offers numerous benefits - uffiliates paid regularly by moneybookers and converted well. Their stats could be better (slight understatement!) but other than that I don't see the difference. Having another brand on the program isn't a benefit - we could have just promoted that anyway. The benefit is to sportech, in that they will have gained new affiliates.

The key point that I think you are missing isn't the 5% that has been taken away from the affilaites with new RMPs (although that is annoying), but the new 12.5% rate when we don't bring new players. There is no other way to look at it - this is a quota.

I'm going to be honest, if my current players do not follow littlewoods to the new software, I will not be promoting littlewoods. I suggest other affiliates do the same.

[universal4]

Being a moderator here has nothing to do with posting my personal opinions. I never took any of your words out of context.

A "real" affiliate is any affiliate who makes an effort to send new players. This includes affiliates who do not have enough traffic to consistently send new players. This is extremely different from a player who puts up a blog to tag himself or his friends' player accounts and earn rakeback, and makes no effort to build traffic.

Then why aren't the terms written using this thought and NOT tied in to actual player numbers?

Rick
Universal4

[Louis - Income Access]

Rick

If you can suggest a better term that will allow Sportech to accomplish the goal of reducing commissions paid to affiliates who make no effort to promote, we're definitely open to hearing it.

Baldidiot and others,

We accept your criticism of the current set up, and we will definitely make sure Sportech has heard your opinions here and that they are considered in taking a final decision on what to do moving forward. Please accept that this is not something that gets resolved in a day. If you chose not to promote in the mean time, we accept that that is your decision.

In the short term, as discussed, more than happy to cut a private deal with people who want to push Littlewoods.

[TheGooner]

A "real" affiliate is any affiliate who makes an effort to send new players.

Then why aren't the terms written using this thought and NOT tied in to actual player numbers?

I'd be extremely unhappy to see a term written with a wishy clause like "makes an effort to send new players". That's tantamount to saying at the affiliate managers decision ...


A suggestion :

I think that if a clause like this is going to be added and used then it needs to be quantifiable.

How about a target like - "needs to maintain 10,000 banner impressions per month on the affiliate site" - or "achieve 100 unique clicks per month"?

Would that be more acceptable Universal? This is specifically targets program publicity and "affiliate work" without the luck of the draw as to whether signups are achieved.

Again this could be considered unfriendly to affiliates that do not get much traffic - I don't know how many affiliates that would affect - but it is a quantifiable target that is reported within the stats and removes doubt.