This T&C are real?

[Mercenaru]

On my betting site, i decided to add Bet365, but my god.. what my eyes have seen in T&C... i need to have 5 different depositors in three months in order to receive my money??? My account can be deleted if in three months 5 players don`t deposit? And if i have 2-3-4 players that deposited i will lose them because i don`t have 5 clients who deposited??? (And of course bet365 will have 100% revenue for life)
WTF are this nazy rules? This rules are serious? This is not a partnership.. this is a robbery..

[TheGooner]

According to standard internet forum protocols you lose the argument because you resorted to the N-word!


Otherwise I would agree with you that it is not fair to close the affiliate account.

[xecutable]

There was a long discussion in the Affiliate Guard Dog forum about this. Despite what the terms say and what many affiliates would say, I speak from PERSONAL experience and I can tell you that for the first 1 year and a half, I generated 0 players with 0 deposits and my account wasn't closed.

I have also received a payment with only 4 depositors, when I started generating depositors, and I have received payments below the €50 threshold as well. On top of that your AM will most likely respond within the day to your inquires and will take care of them.

It's up to you whether you will promote them or not, but look for affiliate feedback, not just Terms. There are programs with exceptional terms, yet quite ignorant and unhelpful.

[Mercenaru]

Thank you for your answers.. i will think about this... because i am an unlucky person and who knows.. maybe i will bring 4 players that make commissions of thousand of dollars and they will not pay me..

[xecutable]

Nope I doubt that will happen. James who actually runs around the forums and represents bet365 was I think taking care once of some payment for 40 EUR or something like that for a guy that had registered a friend from his affiliate link and had no site, but was insisting on a payment. After all he received it

[pdjoe]

Ladbrokes has close to the same terms and for 10 years never used it.

Over the last year, they decided to and started closing down affiliate accounts and not paying commissions.

It's just not worth the risk. If a program has this in their terms but won't enforce it, why is there in the first place?

[F-L-C]

Ladbrokes has close to the same terms and for 10 years never used it.

Over the last year, they decided to and started closing down affiliate accounts and not paying commissions.

It's just not worth the risk. If a program has this in their terms but won't enforce it, why is there in the first place?

I agree 100%, other programs had these terms, people disputed them over at GPWA and they agreed to change them as they never enforced them, if they won't change them its just not worth the risk, if they are not going to enforce it then why not change them

[Mercenaru]

I really think that if an affiliate..with a small site... veryy small site, with only 10 Unique Visitors per month.., have only just one registered player.. and this player make commissions every month... the affiliate deserves to be payed for life.. just for one player.. because if the affiliate with his pathetic site doesn`t exist... neither the player doesn`t exist for the 365bet.. and they will receive 0% from $0, not 70%...

[Adam W]

Hi Guys,

I hope you are all well.

If you have any questions regarding the terms and conditions of the bet365 affiliate programme please feel free to contact me (adam.webber@bet365.com) or any other member of the bet365 affiliate team.

Many Thanks,

Adam

[kwblue]

We did try to get the terms changed, but it was not going to happen. IMO - if a program will not remove a term that 'will never be used', then they aren't being honest about why the term is in place (and remains in place). This goes for Ladbrokes, Bet365, and all the others with this term.

[xecutable]

Thanks for the info Andy. Care to elaborate their reason for the denial?

[kwblue]

I can't go into details because that would be a breach of trust in the certification, mediation process. However - the gist of it was that the term was being justified. James was the responder to the request and I can certainly divulge the response if Bet365 is willing to allow it.

[xecutable]

I see. Well an explanation from Bet365 will absolutely help affiliates to understand the placement of that term, and perhaps will lower the amount of questions about it. It will also show that it's there for a reason (whether we agree with it or not is a different topic) other than 'to screw me over' as many people think.

[slotplayer]

looks like they have nco anyway, so why bother with them.

[Webzcas]

In spite of the Terms at Bet365, have to say they are one of the better programs. Their affiliate managers are very good and responsive and give you what you need.

Negative carry over is a pain, but as long as you are aware that it is part of the program, then not a big issue IMO.

[kwblue]

In spite of the Terms at Bet365, have to say they are one of the better programs. Their affiliate managers are very good and responsive and give you what you need.

Negative carry over is a pain, but as long as you are aware that it is part of the program, then not a big issue IMO.

I don't disagree about their quality at all Contracts are very important, though.

[kwblue]

FYI - We did try to follow up with Bet365 and get the term changed. There was some hope that this would happen, but it did not. The quota will remain in their terms. See more: http://www.affiliateguarddog.com/for...html#post34014

[universal4]

That term is just NOT small affiliate friendly.

If the term is not enforced it shouldn't be there and the only reason to keep it there is so they CAN enforce it any time they want.

Rick
Universal4