Would you take lower percentage for regulation?

[mojo]

Things are bad now and mostly every program is cutting our earnings. Everywhere we turn.

Curious. Would it be better to have strict regulation at the cost of lower commision? In other words, we would have an authority to turn to. However, we may be looking at 7% or less. BUT! It would be honest and we would no longer worry about shaving.

Is is better the devil you know?

[Shaun O'neill]

Hi Mojo

This is an interesting point, who would you expect to regulate the business and how would you expect it to work?

To me it would be pretty hard to have a regulating body for the whole industry as such but of course we do have the licensing jurisdictions of Malta, Alderney ect these in themselves offer regulation and legislation to protect.

Shaun

[mojo]

Hi Mojo

This is an interesting point, who would you expect to regulate the business and how would you expect it to work?

To me it would be pretty hard to have a regulating body for the whole industry as such but of course we do have the licensing jurisdictions of Malta, Alderney ect these in themselves offer regulation and legislation to protect.

Shaun

For affiliate programs it would have to be an independant third party.

Something like, for example, when the board of health inspects food establishments to make sure the refridgerators are cold enough etc so that no one gets sick. It comes with opening a restaurant and they are inspected frequently. It's the law when you get your liscence and if you fail at being safe for your customers, you are either given time to fix it or shut down.

I would like to see affiliate program offices open for the same kind of monitoring.

We don't have anything like that for affiliate programs except maybe ecogra (?), but it would really need to be an independant third party imo.

[GFPC]

Something like eCogra? Regulating the whole industry!? LOL

[FictionNet]

eCogra would be my last choice for regulation. I don´t consider them to be any part of a solution.

[mojo]

I didn't mean to say that ecogra would be part of the solution or regulating anything. Right now though, they are the only ones I know of that will look at aff programs.

It would clearly need to be a trained independant 3rd party.

[FictionNet]

I didn't mean to say that ecogra would be part of the solution or regulating anything.

Yeah, I get that. No worries. I do tend to jump up and down when anyone mentions eCogra in the same sentence as genuine regulation. I guess it comes from previously being someone who fell for their pretence of being anything decent when other people warned me they were nothing but dodgepots. The 'other people' were right and I wish I´d listened - it did make me feel like a fool when I finally woke up to the real purpose of eCogra.

[mojo]

I totally get that. The e-word often brings that reaction lol.

[rak]

How do you enforce a rogue company?
How do you get them to change their behavior?
How do you make them listen?

[Dominique]

What would be the criteria? No one can ever agree here what is and isn't ok. I much doubt that anyone will ever agree on what the rules should be.

[mojo]

My thought was more along the line of regulation and liscensing when the USA gets on board to include a 3rd party that would moniter affiliate programs. In order to be liscensed, the program would be required to agree to allow their back end to be periodically tested for accuracy. Similar to my board of health analogy.

This could be applied anywhere of course. But no one does it that I am aware of.

I have a feeling that when USA regulation does come along, if we are allowed to be affiliates, that the rules are going to change dramatically. I'm merely speculting here. Personally, I would prefer accuracy and peace of mind even if it is at a cost.

[mojo]

How do you enforce a rogue company?
How do you get them to change their behavior?
How do you make them listen?

I wouldn't worry about them. If they chose not to be liscensed and monitered then I wouldn't use them anyway.

[Engineer]

There are many UK-facing brands that currently offer 25%, 35%, and beyond. They have been in business for years; they are operating sustainable businesses with these commission rates, and they are reputable (example: Virgin Casino).

Regulation doesn't necessarily equate to crappy commission rates, IMO. Time will tell, obviously, but given the choice, I will always promote the brands with the highest commission rates, assuming they are reputable and know how to convert and retain players.

[mojo]

There are many UK-facing brands that currently offer 25%, 35%, and beyond. They have been in business for years; they are operating sustainable businesses with these commission rates, and they are reputable (example: Virgin Casino).

Regulation doesn't necessarily equate to crappy commission rates, IMO. Time will tell, obviously, but given the choice, I will always promote the brands with the highest commission rates, assuming they are reputable and know how to convert and retain players.

I guess if you are comfortable with a program you don't nessacarily care if they are checked out. I can understand that too.

What I mean is, cause I'm not sure if I'm making sense lol, kind of like when the IRS goes to inspect a business if they suspect they are cooking the books or something. Which happens all the time. Or they just do a random audit. I've been audited randomly myself.

For me I would like to see affiliate programs open up their back end and be open to scrutiny. For me that would be better than high commission because we have no idea what we are getting paid (or not paid) for.

[universal4]

Inspection of the books by government or tax authorities is not really gonna do anything to ensure that affiliates are paid honestly for their efforts....

Any "inspections" would be done for one thing....to make sure the govt agencies get THEIR share and would have nothing to do with affiliates.

Rick
Universal4

[mojo]

Inspection of the books by government or tax authorities is not really gonna do anything to ensure that affiliates are paid honestly for their efforts....

Any "inspections" would be done for one thing....to make sure the govt agencies get THEIR share and would have nothing to do with affiliates.

Rick
Universal4

I keep using the wrong analogy lol. I didn't mean the IRS would inspect them but rather a third party from the regulatory group.

Ok, I just watched JTodds interview with Andre Wilsenach, the CEO of Alderney Gambling Control Commission. This is more on point.

The AGCC was depending on FTP as a liscencee to report any major events affecting their business. Is it any surprise FTP did no such thing for 3 years?

http://www.gpwa.org/forum/alderney-g...-a-201153.html

If the AGCC would take a look at their books and other daily operations periodically maybe the players would not be out their money. Not saying what FTP did was thier fault but what's the point of the license?

I'm saying these operators need to be looked at regularly, I mean really looked at.

[Betpartners]

Regulation on a global scale will never happen.

I do not know a single industry that is regulated across all countries, as an example look at the Banking sector, and if there was ever a sector that needed global regulation, it is gambling, but it is not, it is country by country regulated.

And unfortunately our industry is global, it is almost impossible to stick to one single country and operate as profitable business, you simple have to promote brands from different countries.

So, straight off the bat, you may get some regulation, but at the very best it will be country by country, never anything more.

The best and only solution to this issue is if the respective licensing authorities take affiliation seriously and regulate all their licenses with regards to their affiliate programs.

But how many of the regulating authorities look after players, never mind affiliates?

It will take a significant change in focus from the licensing agencies and that will never happen either, not unless they get some sort of cut and get agreement from their licensees, it could not be done retroactively and would have to be done with all new licensees and that would start off legal action with regards to an unfair playing field for operators.

Now, if you could get a single licensing authority to set up affiliate protection as part of their licensing and that single authority got all its current licensees to agree then that would a huge step.

But the affiliate protection would have to be real and not lip service, it would have to have teeth and programs would have to be aware that if they breach their duties to affiliates that they risk losing their licenses.

Do any of us really believe that would happen?

But if it did, then affiliates could operate from that one authority, because that one authority, lets say Malta as an example, would have a long list of programs as licensees and then affiliates could have a big choice to choose from in the knowledge that they are only operating with programs that are fully regulated.

So, using Malta as that example, lets say Malts did this, they have teeth and will use them and the programs follow the rules, that would then force other programs to seriously consider leaving their current authority and going over to Malta, because they would be losing affiliates.

Affiliates are not dumb, well, most of them are not, and affiliates would much prefer tow ork with an authority that protects them and not with programs within an authority that does.

Less affiliates for the programs then in unregulated authorities.

But how does one force authorities to regulate affiliation with the licensed programs.

Simple answer is, they cannot be forced, they would have to do it willingly and look at the long term benefits, but they will not and I doubt if most programs would play game anyway.

[LiveCasinoPartners]

Hey Mojo,
That's a tough one. I've been on both sides of the affiliate fence and found challenges on both sides. From an affiliate perspective I've seen that one of the largest challenges is a program who's casino brands stay in business. For that you need a brand regulated and operating within regulated regions that lead to a financially stable business model. How many times have we seen programs operate in the US and suddenly close down. That's the issue I see that concerns me most with the affiliate programs. I think that if there was a regulating authority for affiliate programs it would have to be tied to the existing "regulating authorities" that back up most of the reputable casinos.

From the perspective of the affiliate program. I've seen more issues with affiliates than I have ever had with other affiliate programs. So far, none of the issues have ever been with a GPWA or CAP member. Unfortunately, the members represented by these two forums are low in comparison to the overall body of affiliates. It could be that the accountability found on these forums is a step in the right direction.

IMO, characteristics of an affiliate regulating authority would have to include:
(1) non profit organization will no self interest. (How would that work?)
(2) Non-biased approach to affiliate "problems"
(3) Reasonable fees.

Perhaps the affiliates could create a union, who looked after the interests of the affiliates.
Good post Mojo. Cheers!

[mojo]

Some really great points and I do enjoy a good discussion. I wasn't speaking globally btw, but rather the USA and then each regulatory body if it applies.

It is getting far to complicated and I think that's my fault because I am having trouble explaining what I mean. I'll try a different way and on point.

Las Vegas. If you check out the gaming commissions website you will see everything that they do to keep both the players and casinos safe. For example, check out how they audit:

After auditors present the introduction letter, they proceed with the audit opening by requesting
immediate access to the cage, counting rooms, and all other secured or unsecured areas within
the casino.

http://gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/what_to_expect.pdf

It goes on to say that they are going to check your accounting department and expect everything available to them when they come. Which could be at any time. And your books and cash better be in order. This is nothing new and yes it does work.

I think it's pretty safe to say that if US is going to allow online casinos to operate within the borders, there will be something like this in place or they don't operate here. BTW, as a us facing affiliate, there was a time when I did not need to market globally. These days yes, but not always.

Why other juristrictions and liscensing authories, such as Aldernay, cannot do this I don't understand. Players lost a lot of money and had they had some sort of auditing process maybe it could have been avoided. There needs to be an auditing department added.

To me, I am not concerned with programs who can't be honest and open to scrutiny and if it gives them a headache. Like I said in the title, I'd rather make less commission and have someone looking over thier shoulder.

I'm not trying to suggest changing the world. Who? Little ole me? lol. The rest of the world can do what they want. Just pointing out what I've been thinking about how the USA is going to regulate. The gov is not going to let just anyone handle the money and they will be watching, because it will be all part of the pie of course.

Thanks for the great replies!

[ocreditor]

I didn't mean to say that ecogra would be part of the solution or regulating anything. Right now though, they are the only ones I know of that will look at aff programs.

It would clearly need to be a trained independant 3rd party.

good point. wondering what would it take for the next ecogra-like initiative not to end up like the current ecogra...