Printable View
For all webmasters like me. Are not they tired of the casino programs that change the commissions to their liking ?.
I'm really tired of setting a% Rev Share and when we have a lot of players or even VIP they reduce the%.
I want to know what you think, I certainly do not work anymore without prepayment seen seen.
It seems like a game with our money some affiliate programs.
Yes, I do agree with you. Once a commission percentage has been set and a revenue share deal (proper NET Gaming RevShare and not CPA or Chargebacks - Deposits - Withdrawals X Commission Percentage etc.) has been agreed on (say you're given 50% for life fixed) then that's exactly how it should stay! Definitely! Without a Doubt!
Yup. It looks Like programs are changing all the time nowadays.
Starting with a brand on a Hybrid deal. Bringing in players and after few weeks They wanna change it.
Because player value still low. But in my opinion it is about lifetime player value. Player Will not earn ut self back (most of the times) within few weeks.
You´re right. If some percents or hybrid deal is agreed before, there is no need to change it. Personally I do not use many Hybrid deals (just 2), and minimum fixed percents count is 40. Either the partner agrees, or not. Problem is, that when a partner wants you to promote him, he is very nice at you and offers big things, it is better to stay on the ground with these offers.
For my part, I prefer the revshare, like that there are no problems. There have also been many changes since the regularization of certain markets. Now they deduct, deduct, deduct lol
It´s ridiculous really. And the reason is usually something along the lines of "To cover our costs of keeping the account open". Are actual real signed contracts common already?
The real costs of even a few hundred affiliates advertising their brands (even when conversion are not forthcoming) costs are quite negligible, but when you comparing that to hundreds upon hundreds of affiliates that not only refuse to market those same properties, but also speak out against them and recommend to their fellow affiliates they should NOT promote them based on experiences of have accounts closed and commission percentages reduced....well in my opinion they should have just kept the affiliates, provided a fair deal to all and just pay them when they did in fact send converting players that generated revenue.Quote:
"To cover our costs of keeping the account open"
It is fairly easy to see what works, just look at the most successful and highly promoted groups that affiliates enjoy working with, MOST of the do just that. They provide a fair environment and accept players from all affiliates whether 1 or 1000.
Rick
Universal4
Amen Brother
I couldn't imagine any casino (etc), being able to honor a 50% rev-share-deal, in the long run. I am happy to aquire bespoke deals at 30%. Less GGR deductions, I know it's less likely I'm being shaved etc. I'll agree it's very frustrating getting shafted on pre-agreed commissions. Though, while there are some programs who renege on deals, lets also remember, some affiliates make these deals on infliated player promises/stats, then don't live up to their end of the deal. In these cases, like anything else, it's a business deal based solely on performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by vtyunby65
Therefore if an affiliate is not living up to their agreement, their side of the deal, the program needs to contact this person, and ask why? If the affiliate still can't live up to their side of the deal, then I believe it's every programs right to reduce the commission. It's no different to an affiliate making an agreement lets say with a content provider, on the basis they'll receive $500 p/m for 20 (500 word) articles, and they only receive 10. I'm sure if that was the case, the affiliate in question wouldn't be too happy to continue to pay $500 p/m for half of the content, hey!
I removed Brightshare last year for this garbage, working on removing Fortune Affiliates now as well.