The Affiliate Union

[Former Member 14]

Also is this open to Forex affiliates?

Hi Marit,

Although I don't want to use the GPWA to sound board questions, I will add that at this point in time the AU will not be supporting Forex.

This may change in the future.

But for now, the Affiliate Union portfolios are geared to assisting casino, poker and sports book affiliates.


Sincere Regards

David Mikkelsen
Spokesperson
Affiliate Union

[bb1web]

best of luck Dave.

[TheBoyMitchell]

Whilst I understand the reasoning behind AU wanted to form, what services will it provide that all the other forums we have dont?

In my opinion, (and it is just my opinion) I dont think you will have any actual powers to close any operator down or to actually change anything that the operators dont want to. And without knowing who is behind it, its difficult to ascertain whether its real movers and shakers in the industry getting things done, or whether its another bunch of vocal affiliates having a moan.

Also, anyone seen representing AU would have to be completely transparent themselves - so you would have to let everyone know what sites you promote and what operators you promote yourself - do you really want to open yourself up to that? What happens if one of you is promoting someone that one of your forum posters has a beef with? What if you are getting a tenancy from an operator that people have problems with? What if you are doing a little bit of sneaky ppc on the side? Running sites with trademarks in? As affiliates and forum posters yourselves you know how much people like to have a pop and even more how they like to argue on the internet

Like I say - go ahead and set it up and I hope it does really really well, but I cant help thinking that there would be more mileage if the Todds, Casellis, Pratts, Corfmans etc (who are already well known and have a certain amount of clout in the industry) held a panel at each quarterly affiliate conference where issues can be raised. Affiliates could submit their concerns the month before via AU and then a shortlist can be voted for on there. Then at the conference, these can be discussed.

These can then be appraised and decided if it is an issue that needs more action by a vote. They can then action them as a group (so in effect a panel of *all* the leading forums in existence acting together). The results can then be fed back at the next quarterly conference, decisions made *in unison* by all the forums can be fed back on the AU site, and then you use the AU site to do the necessary PR.

And then new issues can be raised etc. That way you have a rolling quarterly panel raising issues and solving issues.

Having a dozen different forums/unions all doing their own thing wont do anything except provide more noise.

Thats what I think anyway. Hope it makes sense.

Neil

[TheGooner]

Woo Boy !!

I don't even like unions - I never really feel represented (which is my own personality disorder I know ) - but reading this reply got me all for supporting the Affiliate Union

but I cant help thinking that there would be more mileage if the Todds, Casellis, Pratts, Corfmans etc (who are already well known and have a certain amount of clout in the industry) held a panel at each quarterly affiliate conference where issues can be raised.

Really?! What prior experiences lead you to that conclusion that the established sites and frontmen can effect change!?

The "Todds, Casellis, Pratts, Corfmans" (et al) have tried to work within the exisiting framework with programs - and nada, nothing, zilch, zipo, f@ck all ... has happened.

I did not vote for "the Todds, Casellis, Pratts, Corfmans" (et al) as my spokemen (or spokewomen if there is one) nor am I convinced that we all have the same agenda, or focus. Certainly several of those names have large businesses to run - and seem to have little time left over.

SO either "the Todds, Casellis, Pratts, Corfmans" have ZERO influence in this area or they are not using their influence in this area. I don't care which is the correct statement - but by their ineffectiveness "the Todds, Casellis, Pratts, Corfmans" have abdicated their right to lead.


I have no idea whether the AU will get off the ground and/or will successfully effect change - but I give them big plaudits for trying !!

[Chalkie]

An excellent observation there gooner!

[TheBoyMitchell]

Well it would be an excellent observation if you hadnt missed the point.

What I am saying (and I am taking the example from most other industries in the world who act this way) is that instead of setting up another toothless forum, the existing people who operate the forums should be working in unison to protect the rights of affiliates.

as an example - in the UK the banks get together every now and again. They talk about the industry and the threats against it, and then they make a decision with the chancellor and the Bank of England as to whether or not to change the interet rates.

All major industries have a governing body of some kind which is a representation of the powers within it. They set up a strictly regulated set of rules, and have the power to punish if a company is found to be operating outside of them.

Providing a new independent forum wouldnt change anything, but using it as a mechanism to get all the other forums together in a unlilateral direction with the considered aim on benefitting all of its members via a constructive, considered and forward facing manner can only benefit the industry.

As it stands now, people just come on herre to air their grievances about their experiences. if you look at the Unethical behviour forums or the complaints forums pretty much every operator has come in for a shoeing at some point. And the operators really dont give two shits about a few affiliates having a moan - not all the while that the moaning minnies account for about 2% of the number of affiliates of the programs and probably about 0.5% of the revenue.

So to simplify it - if you are going to have a union, whetherby name or deed - then it needs to have some balls behind it, and they need to be elected balls representative of all parts of the industry, who *when combined* could realistically carry some clout.

I used the Todd/Corfman blah names as they are well known in the industry. maybe they arent the right ones, or maybe they just havent worked together for this aim.

Essentially, the only way AU can actually *change* anything is by having power. And that power comes not from the most vociferous posters on the forums, but the ones who have the phone numbers of the top people at the operators, and the ones that have the contacts in the offline media, and most importantly of all - the ones that can actually affect the bottom line of the operators - the superaffiliates.

So, to conclude, I am not saying what you are doing is wrong - I am saying if you are gonna do it - then get the big boys on board and not a bunch of self seeking part time affiliates who have an axe to grind with a couple of programs. Nothing I can say would have the slightest influence with someone who is running what you consider an unethically run operator - and I doubt you can too. but what if you had the people *like* the people I mentioned, and added them to the casino.com, gambling.com, jackpot.co.uk, casinochoice guys and other *big* affiliates?

Suddenly, you have an entity that has teeth.

And tbh - if you cant see what I am saying then you shouldnt be running this.

[Chalkie]

Neil, i think the point here is that maybe the power of affiliates is what is required and that an organisation bereft of sponsorship but supported by the masses can speak without chains.

If supported by the people it is designed to represent then it will have a voice that shouts loudest and clouts hardest!

That is my personal view and does not reflect on any person or entity nor is it representitive of the AU views.

[GamTrak]

Hi Neil.

You are making a lot of assumptions. Although they are valid I would like to hear from the folks you mentioned before I assume that they are against the Affiliate Union.

I agree with Chalkie and I guess we will see on October 1st.

BTW The AU will/is not a forum where folks complain about things, but a website.

Well it would be an excellent observation if you hadnt missed the point.

What I am saying (and I am taking the example from most other industries in the world who act this way) is that instead of setting up another toothless forum, the existing people who operate the forums should be working in unison to protect the rights of affiliates.

as an example - in the UK the banks get together every now and again. They talk about the industry and the threats against it, and then they make a decision with the chancellor and the Bank of England as to whether or not to change the interet rates.

All major industries have a governing body of some kind which is a representation of the powers within it. They set up a strictly regulated set of rules, and have the power to punish if a company is found to be operating outside of them.

Providing a new independent forum wouldnt change anything, but using it as a mechanism to get all the other forums together in a unlilateral direction with the considered aim on benefitting all of its members via a constructive, considered and forward facing manner can only benefit the industry.

As it stands now, people just come on herre to air their grievances about their experiences. if you look at the Unethical behviour forums or the complaints forums pretty much every operator has come in for a shoeing at some point. And the operators really dont give two shits about a few affiliates having a moan - not all the while that the moaning minnies account for about 2% of the number of affiliates of the programs and probably about 0.5% of the revenue.

So to simplify it - if you are going to have a union, whetherby name or deed - then it needs to have some balls behind it, and they need to be elected balls representative of all parts of the industry, who *when combined* could realistically carry some clout.

I used the Todd/Corfman blah names as they are well known in the industry. maybe they arent the right ones, or maybe they just havent worked together for this aim.

Essentially, the only way AU can actually *change* anything is by having power. And that power comes not from the most vociferous posters on the forums, but the ones who have the phone numbers of the top people at the operators, and the ones that have the contacts in the offline media, and most importantly of all - the ones that can actually affect the bottom line of the operators - the superaffiliates.

So, to conclude, I am not saying what you are doing is wrong - I am saying if you are gonna do it - then get the big boys on board and not a bunch of self seeking part time affiliates who have an axe to grind with a couple of programs. Nothing I can say would have the slightest influence with someone who is running what you consider an unethically run operator - and I doubt you can too. but what if you had the people *like* the people I mentioned, and added them to the casino.com, gambling.com, jackpot.co.uk, casinochoice guys and other *big* affiliates?

Suddenly, you have an entity that has teeth.

And tbh - if you cant see what I am saying then you shouldnt be running this.

[mojo]

Neil, i think the point here is that maybe the power of affiliates is what is required and that an organisation bereft of sponsorship but supported by the masses can speak without chains.

If supported by the people it is designed to represent then it will have a voice that shouts loudest and clouts hardest!

That is my personal view and does not reflect on any person or entity nor is it representitive of the AU views.

I think that's pretty fair and well put Paul. I agree.

I can certainly understand the concerns. I also admire the support shown in this thread. We've got a few weeks to go and the AU is a vision that has my support 100%.

[pgaming]

Clout has many forms other than monetary whose methods may carry the same muscle as an overflowing bank account or a conference tourists. Maybe a parallel can be drawn along the same lines as the non-profit organization Greenpeace. I highly doubt Greenpeace was worried about CLOUT when they first set sail on a mission to change environmental attitudes. They believed in themselves and grew huge teeth along the way.

Throughout history major change has only occurred in the face of absurdity reminiscence of your cardboard box thinking BOYMITCHELL. For better or worse I fully support the AU for the exact negative reasoning behind your doubts. I think we are equals and deserve to be treated in a fair manner. Personally I will do whatever it takes to make this a reality.



Good Day

greek39

[giggles7p]

Here we go again, someone actually takes the lead and starts something good for the community as a whole [ what could possibly be wrong with this new union? what "bad" could come of it????] and we have to start putting it down, saying it won't work.....over and over again this takes place and i don't understand why??????

I think its great that some others besides the "same ole, same ole" are stepping up and trying to make a difference for the better for all of us!

If there is something wrong with that, then i have no idea what a community means, or what standing up for ourselves means anymore. I applaud everyone who tries to help us as a whole, and for those who are nay sayers, just what are YOUR plans? If you have none, but to complain about what someone else is trying to accomplish, then i think you should sit back and ask why you are so negative?

We have been battling this for a couple of years now with Grand Prive, and even though i have respect for the people who have been working on a solution, it has not happened, and their is NOTHING wrong with others taken the initiative and trying their hand at making a solution.

Cheers to the Union, and you have my support with time, and my website if needed.

Pat

[TheBoyMitchell]

Oh dear.

I havent said anywhere that it wont work, and thats its not a valid thing to do - what I have said is that if it isnt done *correctly*, then it wont work.

As someone who has actually worked for a couple of operators and who is now an affiliate I have been privvy to seeing how both sides of the industry work. If anything the AU should be reading my posts and going 'Actually, he has a point' as opposed to sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la la la'

I'm just putting my 2 cents in - apparently its the wrong thing to do if my 2 cents is to say 'well, I think you need to do this'.

If you want to do it, then go ahead and do it, but be aware that a bunch of affiliates will not ever change the minds, attitudes and business management of an operator who is bloody mindendly set upon doing what they wnat to do. What you need is a worldwide governing body that can actually pull the operators up when it is decided that something is wrong - and they need to know that there will be punishments associated with this.

You cant do that.

Lets look at some facts.

Lets say that you decide that operator 'x' is doing something that you agree with.

1. Who decides? Are you going to raise an issue and vote on it? Do *I* get a vote on it?
2. Who decides any penalty?
3. How are you going to enforce the penalty?
4. Who is on your legal team?
5. Who would be travelling to meet the operator concerned to outline the issues and represent us?
What powers would you have over an operator that ignores your judgement?

Just to put the whole matter into persepective - if you search Online Casino in google it returns 35,700,000 links. Nearly 36 MILLION links.

Half a dozen affiliates stamping their feet is not going to make the slighest difference to an operator - there are still plenty of places they can place their advertising (and we havent even began to discuss offline advertising).

Additionally, although I dont know who is in the AU (and maybe a full list of the members would help) I do know a couple of you, and I certainly recognise a lot of the forum supporters from their usernames. I hope that you *can* pull it off, and loook forward to the day when you can actively change things - but I would be really interested in seeing some sort of member list, and a code of conduct before giving my backing (not that you probably want or need it!)

So in conclusion - I reiterate my earlier posts. If you are going to do it, then do it properly, otherwise you will be no more effective that any other forum - you'll just be another King Canute.

Oh and a final point - your name is actually *very* similar to an operator who I think will be on the top of your list (especially if greek39 has anything to do with it ), do you not think that by doing this you may accidentally drive traffic to Affiliates United and not the Affiliates Union? Or even worse - look like you are affiliated with them?

Just another thought.

[Daera]

So, to conclude, I am not saying what you are doing is wrong - I am saying if you are gonna do it - then get the big boys on board and not a bunch of self seeking part time affiliates who have an axe to grind with a couple of programs.

Self-seeking, part-time affiliates who have an axe to grind with a couple of programs ??

[GamTrak]

He is definatly taking some 'low blows' at us in those posts, but it's to be expected by some. It's all good even though he is uninformed.

Self-seeking, part-time affiliates who have an axe to grind with a couple of programs ??

[TheBoyMitchell]

Inform me then Robin.

Set me right - its disappointing that you and others cant even handle or read my posts on here properly. Instead of instigating a callout or denigrating the thread, why dont you (after all you have the banner on your signature) put me right?

I would value your input - I just want to know more of whats going on.

[pgaming]

As stated the AU will begin to take shape on October 1, 2009 not much else to add. Until then I see no point in debating the issue IMO.

JMO

greek39

[Former Member 14]

Hi All,

Personally I'm a firm believer that to promote effective growth and to foster positive expectations which can ultimately lead to a productive course of action, one needs to allow everyone the opportunity to voice their views. Be these indifferent, opposing or supportive.

Right now the Affiliate Union site is not officially open. The AU will be active as of the 1'st of October 2009.

On the day of the AU opening, I can assure everyone that the answers to all of your questions about our Charter, Operational Objectives, Founding Member Identities and more will be readily available for you to peruse at your leisure.

At this point although our objectives and proceedures are in places, please understand that we are still fine tuning other areas of the Affiliate Union.

As much as I'd like to address all your questions sincerely and frankly, doing so at this time may lead to a divergence in facts when the AU opens.

Until such time as the AU officially opens, I ask that everyone be patient. Thank you.



Sincere Regards

David Mikkelsen
Spokesperson
Affiliate Union

[universal4]

If you want to do it, then go ahead and do it, but be aware that a bunch of affiliates will not ever change the minds, attitudes and business management of an operator who is bloody mindendly set upon doing what they wnat to do.

This is completly wrong.

Years ago, a bunch of affiliates, right here in the very forum DID in fact change the minds of MANY operators, and to this day gambling affiliates the world over owe them all a great debt.

It was that very group of affiliates that convinced operators to stop negative carry-overs.

This was all done without a union.

Do we need a union now, maybe, maybe not.

Am I against what the Uniion is about? That is difficult to answer since their site is not live, but from what has been presented so far, I am not against what they stand for.

The only thing I am worried about mainly is that if this divides the community more, then it could make it more difficult for them to accomplish their goals, and also diminish the value of the forums and communities that have existed for years.

Rick
Universal4

[giggles7p]

Rick, that is exactly my point, "why should this separate our community"? I do not understand how something like this, would separate us? it makes no sense, i mean this is just another avenue for affiliates to voice the injustices that have been going on, and a few seasoned and well versed affiliates are running it and MAY be able to help make things better for all of us, so whats the problem???

why so much negativity??

And to Hodge....you said yourself that the "todds, corfmans..etc. should be the only ones that we go to or expect any help from, but aren't they a small group of affiliates also???

How can you say one thing and then a couple sentences use the exact same wording to say the affiliate union is nothing but a small group of affiliates and will not be able to make a difference?????? GPWA, AGD, Meister, are all a small group of affiliates when you look at the numbers you posted....i thnk it was 36 million? but yet you support that small group to fight for us, so why not another small group also???

[universal4]

I am not being negative.

Just because a person questions things, and possibly has a differing opinion you should not immediately accuse the person of being negative.

Differences of opinion ALWAYS occur, and this thread is a perfect example.

another avenue for affiliates to voice the injustices that have been going on

This may be premature since the site is not launched, but why is another avenue needed?

Are there not already plenty of places for this group of seasoned affiliates to speak out now?

Rick
Universal4