The Affiliate Union

[Randy72560]

I've been reading and watching this for the last few days. Many of you don't know me, I'm mainly a poker guy but I'm goign to give my thoughts anyway.

In theory I love the idea of a strong organization that will soemhow untite the professional affiliate sin this market. The logistics of that task is enormous and I'm not convinced this industry is mature enough to take that step yet. I hope we are, but not convinced. GPWA/APCW/AGD/PAL all are very influential organizations but when push comes to shove, the reality of it is that we are still held over a barrel in many ways.

First off, I agree with Kaus and although I don't know Greg Powell really well I do knwo that he is not just another ****** AM. He is also an affiliate that helps others. So I think those comments were really out of line.

Some programs do the RIGHT Thing and listen to their "partners" and others (Full Tilt, etc) continue to ignore us. I have tried to come up with reasonable ways an entity like AU would have any sort of real influence or power and I failed to find a way it could work.

The questions that were raised initially were more than valid and they needed to be asked an answered. I've yet to hear a real plan, mainly just a pie in the sky idea that sounds good.

What power or influence can an AU really have? If a vote was taken and Full Tilt/Bodog/Cplanet was decided to be boycotted, I would bet less than 20% of members would actually remove their pages. There is just too much money involved with the bigger sites.

Again I'm not saying we need to take a stand, but we need to have a reality check too.

The other big issue

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but it is apparent someone wasn't thinking clearly or had an alternate agenda from the start. Having a founding member who openly supports thieves, threats, and general reprehensible behavior towards affiliates, operators, and people in general initially turned many many people against this project. issues like this puts the legitimacy in doubt right off and casts shadow of doubt from the get go. I mean c'mon really?

I do not wish to get into a pissing match here, but it is what it is. If there will be a serious attempt made at doing a project of this magnitude, a serious vetting process needs to be conducted IMO.

That said, I do know a couple of the other founders and I feel they would be perfect for this type of position as they have the reputation and passion needed for this to be a success. Make no mistake, reputation, experience, and determination will be major factors in this process and will make or break it.

Anyway, I'm sure I'm goign to catch hell for this post, but these are just my opinions and I felt the need to express them. Good luck and if the right factors and people come together on this, I and many affiliates will seriously support this.

[Integrity]

I like other affiliates would like very much to see any and all correspondence you have had... I think this would be a wise thing to do for transparency sake.

I am 100% for this.


I will be more than happy to publish all my Facebook correspondence with Dave. However, it would be nice if he agreed to this in advance as a matter of privacy.

I don't think I need his permission because I believe the public interest outweighs the privacy considerations... but it would be nice if he agreed.

[Chalkie]

Whether or not the content of personal messages are revealed here, comments have been made that are and can be no more than conjecture.

Conspiracy theorys, well, they will never be proved or disproved and people will always have their own ideas on this. No matter what comes out in to the open, there will never be an answer for all minds.

I do not buy in to the theory that Robin was requested as a founder for the reasons stated.

I cannot accept that their would be a reason to want to use Dave, Paula and I in this way.

i.e. Start another organisation up to kill it in the water

Why would anyone want to do this? If there was a valid reason for wanting to do this, then why would the people purported to do this pick the others to be dragged down as part of this plan?

It just does not ring true at all! I can see no reason for wanting to bring Paula or Daves names into disrepute, i cannot comment on myself as that would be unfair.

[Chalkie]

I agree completely that Greg is a good guy and has a lot to offer, neither Paula nor I want to see anyone flamed for making posts with advice for the AU.

Anyone that speaks for or against us will be listened to openly and we will not ignore any comments made, good or bad.

With reference to points made regarding the advances made by the existing organisations, these are valid points and all advances should be applauded imho

In reference to the GAU, well, all i can ask of any of the people reading is for support once you see our aims and goals etc.

What i will say is this, how can we be seen in a bad light when our intentions are soley for the good of the industry and we are expecting nothing in return.

Our aim is not to fragment the industry, not to replace any organisation or anything else that could be considered sinister.

We are not going to be a forum, we are not going to be looking to take traffic from anywhere else at all.

We will offer a service to affiliates in the way any union does and we will also be looking at ways to fight all evil.

We are not going to be able to change things overnight and we will not be able to offer a solution to the major issues instantly, if ever.

[AmCan]

this is about the 4th or 5th one of these explosions since i first came to the GPWA in 2001. I participated in the first couple of these wars, because it seemed that we could organize ourselves and move forward. I was wrong, these things always lead to flame wars, personal attacks, resignations and the ruining of friendships.

I come to GPWA and other forums for information and socializing; as a result i refrain from participating in these organizing efforts. It's always best to avoid politics and religion in business and frankly this business often feels like both a political game and religious calling/devotion.

i hope the anger here subsides a bit and that people can go back to a less intense discussion of the issues.

[lots0]

Lotso you sureeeeeeee do like putting words into people' s mouths or making assumptions without asking questions and having something to back up those assumptions. I dont know you and to be quite honest I dont care to know you. You appear to be more of a drama queen than anything else

I will say this. When Greg says yes affiliates care about getting paid. You damn right we do and if you say thats not a #1 priority your bullshitting yourself.

You have links right?

You expect to be paid for the traffic you send to those casinos right?

You wouldnt commit yourself to writing content and the daily tasks of being a webmaster if it wasnt for the money. You'd be out there in the real world working a 9-5 job and barely getting by. Getting paid means getting paid and I would think that includes all the retroactive stuff thats happened lately.

In no way did Greg once say everyone should shut up, but in the last 24 hours I've seen more bitching on this forum than I have since the whole CAP nonsense. I mean honestly it takes 2 hours to catch up on one thread that should have been a positive one. I gave my opinion in this thread, I also sent Mo and Chalkie a PM with ideas to help them.

But 11 pages..come on thats sick.

Greg has been an affiliate, and is an affiliate manager and had you not jumped to conclusions you'd realize that he's pretty damn good at his job. The guy writes borderline essays on the forums to help affiliates better convert their traffic and to monitize their sites.

How many AM's do you know that do that?

Seriously. Very few are actually helping affiliates grow to their potential.

The entire staff at Tower Gaming are fantastic. I wish I could say the same for some of the other programs I work with.

My advice to you is lighten up and stop being so damn negative all the time. Not everyone is out to get someone else or harm someone else, or cover something up for someone.

I think thats BS to. It can be done but I also think its not the way some would like. Realize that this is a business just like yours. If I pull a program and rip them on the forums does that mean you will to.

we all know that GPWA and PAL do not "endorse" rooms based on merits the way CAP glorified they did. So why do you continue to put them in the same show as CAP.

There are 1000's of affiliates promoting rooms that you or I wouldnt touch with a 10ft pole, but that doesnt make them the scum of the earth.

I personally think its people like Michael, Jeremy, Anthony, JTodd, CM and the others who are considered to be industry leaders who can make the change you guys want. Except you cant get over the fact that they accept paid advertising. My god...

How about you start working for free. Drop all your links, base your site on merit and not who converts better and we'll talk k

I also think your screwing yourselves with the constant bickering. Why on earth would a program want to work with you to make things better when everytime they look on the forums its nothing but affiliates bitching and flaming each other, programs etc. Where do you think that gets you.

In the last 6 weeks that I've been visiting GPWA more frequently people are arguing. This isnt for everyone...just seems like some like to point fingers more so than others.

You'll be stronger if you can pull together as a group instead of distancing yourselves from each other and the affiliate programs.

Rant done promise

Point missed and personal attack noted.

I'm outta here too...

BTW - I was responding to a direct quote from your buddy Greg... so do how the **** you get that I put words in your friends mouth? (That was a rhetorical question - no response required.)

[GCG]

this is about the 4th or 5th one of these explosions since i first came to the GPWA in 2001. I participated in the first couple of these wars, because it seemed that we could organize ourselves and move forward. I was wrong, these things always lead to flame wars, personal attacks, resignations and the ruining of friendships.

I come to GPWA and other forums for information and socializing; as a result i refrain from participating in these organizing efforts. It's always best to avoid politics and religion in business and frankly this business often feels like both a political game and religious calling/devotion.

i hope the anger here subsides a bit and that people can go back to a less intense discussion of the issues.

I agree I rather socialize than being part of "flame wars".

Like I said there are also other things to worry about. Are there any longterm audits being made at this moment for the affiliate programs to protect your lifetime revenues? At CAP there were some that were rather interesting.

[Anthony]

Yes there are audits being done at this time, and yes some of them have tested audit accounts we established years ago to see it they actually tracked. We tested old accounts at Fortune Affiliates, Bodog Affiliates, Rewards Affiliates and Chipleaders. They will be released soon.

[GCG]

Awesome thanks !

[MichaelCorfman]

Earlier in this thread I had requested permission from Dave to reproduce messages with him with the objective of trying to clear up the nature of the exchanges that had taken place. Although Dave has not responded here, he has given permission through a post he made on the Casinomeister website quoted in part below:

The only correspondence I had with JTodd regarding the AU was over on Facebook on the 6'th September 2009.

I'm happy to post that here if CasinoMeister (it's his forum) and Integrity (JTodd) is in agreement for me to do so.

Hell I'm happy post everything here between myself, APCW Anthony and Michael.

Reproduced below are all of the exchanges I personally had with David with comments relating to the context in which the exchanged occurred.

On the 5th of September 2009 at 4:22 PM EST this thread about the affiliate union was started by Shaun O'neill. When I noticed the content of the thread I performed a whois lookup on the domain affiliateunion.org, and recognizing that it was owned by AussieDave, I sent him the following pm at 8:55 PM EST that same day:

Dave,

I note that you registered the domain name AffiliateUnion.org.

I try to be supportive of pretty much any affiliate endeavor when I think it is done for the good of the affiliate industry (witness the Affiliate Forum Alliance - www.AffiliateForumAlliance.comwhere everyone I know about is a member except CAP and PAP because of their ethically challenged leadership).

Anyway, the more the better from my perspective. So I'm curious, is there really a non-profit organization being formed, and if there is how can I support it? I try to make sure what I do with the GPWA and APCW is complementary to what others are doing to the greatest extent possible. That is, for example, why I support and provide publicity for the affiliate guard dog rating rather than try to duplicate that same effort.

Michael

Dave sent the following reply to me on the 6th of September 2009 at 7:18 AM EST.

Hi Michael,

Yes I own the domain and am the founder of the AU (Affiliate Union). Whilst I head the organisation, I'm assisted by a small group of trusted founding members. Combined we form the driving force behind the AU.

The AU does not accept sponsorship nor does it display any form of advertising.

We're 100% self funded and are a non profit organisation. Hence neither myself or founders draw any income from the Affiliate Union.

Active gambling affiliates can apply for membership to the AU. However members will not be charged union dues. If a member would like to donate to support operational costs they can do so but it's not mandatory.

The Affiliate Union Charter and operational proceedures that govern our conduct, have been derived by our core values to maintain fully transparent and be an autonomous voice.

These objectives ensure the voices of gambling affiliates will be heard and less than honourable treatment abolished.

I agree that it's pointless trying to replicate a service that is already operational. The wheel doesn't need to be reinvented. But in some instances we feel the vehicle that drives it does.

That's why the Affiliate Union will not be operating a forum based structure.

At this point in time and with our opening set for the 1'st October 2009, we would certainly appreciate the word being spread about the AU.

The AU needs to be void of any form of conflict of interest matters. Therefore the Affiliate Union has no intention of forming alliances with any current organisation & or anyone in the online gaming industry.

Cheers



Dave

I then replied back to Dave at 11:55 AM EST that day as follows:

Dave,

Sounds good. My only advise, based on what you have said, is that I believe it is incorrect to claim the status of a non-profit organization even though you will be operating without a revenue source other than donations. I believe that to claim to be a non-profit organization there are certain legal organization requirements, and from your description it does not sound to me like they have been undertaken. I think it would be a mistake to claim a particular legal status that is not applicable for what you are doing, unless you have really taken the steps necessary to legitimately claim that status. I think there are good things you can do, but I would hate for them to be stained by a false legal statement.

In particular, it looks like a for-profit business owns the domain name, which is inconsistent with the claim of being a non-profit organization. Also, the claim of being a non-profit has no bearing on whether sponsorship fees are collected or people are compensated for their time. Non-profits are entitled to do both of these things, and so saying non-profit does not imply these things will not be done now or in the future.

Sorry to be a pain in the neck about this. I just think it is important to be above reproach in what you are trying to do, and I do support multiple voices in the name of exerting pressure affiliate programs from multiple sources, so want to make sure the ethics are correct in terms of claims made about what you and fellow affiliates are doing.

Michael

Dave then responded to me on the 7th of September 2009 at 1:43 PM ET as follows:

Hi Machael,

Not sure if I responded to this or not.

I sought legal advisement Monday and as such we are removing the term "non profit".

In it's place we'll focus on 'volunteer' and emphasise this with addition of: not receiving wages, monetary reward or gratuity.

As a by product of your much appreciated suggestion, I've realised that down the track things may change.

Meaning that when the AU grows to accommodate many members, we may find ourselves in a position where we have to either employ or draw some type of expenses from the Affiliate Union to maintain a level of service.

As you'd know more than anyone else running the GPWA is not cheap.

So I think the AU needs to be realistic in its approach to these matters.

My main concern is trying to disconnect the AU from conflict of interest issues. I really wont to make a go of this and I honestly believe the AU is a good idea.

Anyway...when you get back from Buda lets hook up for a chat (phone)...

Thanks again for your input.

Cheers



Dave

The next activity between Dave and I took place two days later on the 9th of September. We send out the GPWA newsletter on Wednesday, and one of my responsibilities for the newsletter is to compose a question of the week. Since my mindset at the time was one of trying to support the affiliate union, I decided to have the question of the week be about the affiliate union. At 10:16 AM EST I posted a poll on that topic with the thread www.gpwa.org/forum/do-you-plan-participate-affiliate-union-183289.html. I then sent the following pm to David at 10:59 AM EST:

Dave,

I'm glad my comments were the stimulus for some further thought on your part. I've also taken the step of making a couple supportive posts, and also decided to make the affiliate union the subject of this week's poll to draw additional attention to the work you are doing.

I'm not sure of the politics here, but if it would not cause any political trouble I would be interested in being one of the founding members. I ask because I think you can see I'm supporting what you are doing. Let me know your thoughts.

Michae

I received the following response from David later that day at 3:21 PM EST:

Hi Michael,

When the formula for the AU was being discussed by the founding members and I we had one purpose in mind, to stay completed separate from any group & or organisation in our industry.

Because of our Charter and fundamental operational protocols, the AU can not be connected to any group that derives its operational funding by sponsorship or paid advertising.

We all appreciate the assistance of everyone that's rallied along side of us since our announcement of the Affiliate Union. The founding members & I would also like to extend a big thank you to you Michael.

However I'm sorry but we're unable to offer you a founding members position in the Affiliate Union. Doing so would undermine the principles that the AU was founded on.

When we are officially open any active gambling affiliate can lodge an application for membership.

Sincere Regards

David

I responded to David later that day at 6:43 PM EST as follows:

No problem Dave. That is why I couched my message with a caveat about understanding if there where political reasons why it might not be prudent.

I do think, however, that you should recognize that every member of the proposed affiliate union receives funding from affiliate programs, and thus the affiliate union is funded by them as well, although I understand the funding is less direct. Just want to point out that the conflicts are there in any event, and it is a mistake to not recognize that is the case.

In practice I think the level of funding the GPWA receives from any one sponsor program is at a level where it is not a significant financial consideration. At least I personally don't view that I let myself be influenced by that. And, of course, I understand I could never effectively argue that position publicly because the conflict is there, and folks will incorrectly assume that I must be strongly money motivated to be running a business as successful as most folks assume is the case with Casino City. Those folks should talk to my wife who will say in no uncertain words that from her perspective I am blissfully unconcerned about money when there is a conflict between money and my sense of ethics.

<additional paragragraph not included in this quotation - see below>.

Michael

Please note that the reply I sent also did also include an additional paragraph whose content I have not included here as noted above. There is an unrelated ethical conflict in which Dave is involved that I covered in this additional paragraph. However, I do not think it is appropriate to drag that unrelated issue into discussion about the affiliate union taking place here so I have omitted it from the quotation above.

Two days later, on the 11th of September 2009 at 12:03 AM EST David made his post in this thread where he announced he was shutting the affiliate union down.

Please note that the exchanges above are the complete set of exchanges that took place between Dave and myself regarding the affiliate union. Since David's post I have not had any pm or other communications with him of any sort as of now, other than the posts I have made in this thread.

I believe the transcript I have provided above shows very clearly that I have acted in good faith to the support the affiliate union, and that my interactions have been professional in every way.

I have had discussions with J.Todd about his independent interactions with David, and my view is that his interactions have all been both professional and supportive from what I have seen. We will also be posting J.Todd's interactions in this forum. However, I am not sure of the exact timeframe since he will be leaving Budapest early in the morning to return home. I have not yet had discussions with Anthony since he is not in Budapest with us, so I do not know what material exists. I am sending him a pm requesting that he provide me with all written communications and my intention is that everything available from Anthony will also be published here for everyone to see.

Michael

[casinojack]

There was a question raised earlier in this thread about whether there was support on the part of the GPWA for posting information on the Affiliate Union in this thread.

I want to reply most emphatically that, as executive director of the GPWA, I am fully committed to the GPWA supporting any ethical initiatives organized by affiliates, and that includes supporting the work done by affiliates no matter the context.

We've long supported Affiliate Guard Dog and the good work he does. As long as I have anything to do with the GPWA we will do exactly the same thing for any other organization working for the overall good of the industry.

I've already had some pm exchanges with Aussie Dave to that effect, and have provided him with some feedback that has, I think, helped him position the organization he is forming in a positive way.

I firmly believe in supporting creativity and new ways of looking at old problems.

Some of what the Affiliate Union may do will probably overlap a little with work we are doing, but sometimes attacking problems from multiple perspectives has that characteristic, and I want to be clear to everyone that I embrace that.

Grand Prive has been mentioned in this thread, so I would like to state that more is happening on that front. But the big issue there is that in spite of the fact that a good number of affiliates have banded together to make their displeasure clear, it is still a minority of affiliates. And it is still the case that many GPWA members have promotions up for the underlying operator. I've been doing some research in the background here, trying to understand the dynamics, and the picture is not that pretty from my perspective. I was going to do more work here before pointing out what I was seeing, but let me point folks to a page on the GPWA wiki where I was starting to organize some information on the related affiliate program Villa Fortuna topic. Take a look at this wiki page: www.gpwa.org/wiki//index.php?title=Villa_Fortuna. In the top 40 google search results there is a slightly greater percentage against Villa Fortuna than promoting it, but there are overall actually many more pages promoting Villa Fortuna than not.

Michael

Michael

I have to ask though..

How can Gambling Wages be a gold sponsor on APCW? Are they considered in good standing?

I am sorry but was owed money by this group for a long time, and living here in Costa Rica, I know many other cases personally of affiliates and players being shafted.

I am not judging, as I understand your business model, but I have sat on this question too long and curious of your reply.

EDIT: Reason for question is due to our own advertising on both forums, still in discussion..

[MichaelCorfman]

Michael

I have to ask though..

How can Gambling Wages be a gold sponsor on APCW? Are they considered in good standing?

I am sorry but was owed money by this group for a long time, and living here in Costa Rica, I know many other cases personally of affiliates and players being shafted.

I am not judging, as I understand your business model, but I have sat on this question too long and curious of your reply.

EDIT: Reason for question is due to our own advertising on both forums, still in discussion..

I just did a quick check on the status here, and discovered that although no sponsorship services have been provided to them for a very long time, their listing as a sponsor was not removed. That situation has now been corrected. We do have a channel of communications with them, and will continue to actively follow-up on any current payment issues that webmasters or players might have with them that are brought to our attention. Earlier we had made a decision to not take everything down in the interest of working to collect some earlier payments they owed, but the payments we were expecting as part of our earlier efforts have now been made, so there is no longer any purpose served by leaving the listing up on the site.

Michael

[Webzcas]

I just did a quick check on the status here, and discovered that although no sponsorship services have been provided to them for a very long time, their listing as a sponsor was not removed. That situation has now been corrected. We do have a channel of communications with them, and will continue to actively follow-up on any current payment issues that webmasters or players might have with them that are brought to our attention. Earlier we had made a decision to not take everything down in the interest of working to collect some earlier payments they owed, but the payments we were expecting as part of our earlier efforts have now been made, so there is no longer any purpose served by leaving the listing up on the site.

Michael

That is good to know and it is also heartening to see that sites such as Cirrus and Cool Cat are blacklisted on online casino city

Thank you for also posting the correspondence between yourself and Aussie Dave. Although I would point out that Dave has already posted this in it's entirety over on the Sucks Forum.

I am quite taken aback at how the threads here on the GPWA and also CasinoMeister have spiralled out of control though. It is quite clear that regardless of good intentions the Affiliate Union and the process and design in it's being have not been thought out properly. As evidenced by some of the conspiracy theories and other comments posted across both boards.

Yet a case of of one step forward and five back for affiliates

[casinojack]

Thanks Michael.

My boss had been asking......

[Nandakishore]

So where do we stand now? Are we going to have GAU as well as AU, since AussieDave is considering re-opening AU? I would suggest to all: Cool down and then make a fresh start. It doesn't matter whether it will be called GAU or AU, but it will be really destructive to have two such organizations with their members fighting each other. Nothing could be more counterproductive for the affiliates.

[mojo]

So where do we stand now? Are we going to have GAU as well as AU, since AussieDave is considering re-opening AU? I would suggest to all: Cool down and then make a fresh start. It doesn't matter whether it will be called GAU or AU, but it will be really destructive to have two such organizations with their members fighting each other. Nothing could be more counterproductive for the affiliates.

I agree Nan. Paul (chalkie) and I were trying to continue on with the GAU (gambling affiliate union) when Dave then made his announcement at Casinomeister to continue the AU just today.

I would rather bow out than see any more harm done than already has been. I am trying to come to terms with what has happened here.

[Daera]

I agree Nan. Paul (chalkie) and I were trying to continue on with the GAU (gambling affiliate union) when Dave then made his announcement at Casinomeister to continue the AU just today.

I would rather bow out than see any more harm done than already has been. I am trying to come to terms with what has happened here.

Unbelievable.. I think this is the problem. Too much posting and announcing of things without careful thought and planning already behind this.

I haven't been to casinomeister's yet today. I have to say I was shocked to read his post of quitting so quickly, and more shocked to see the complete opposite posted again just a couple days later.

Kind of wishywashy.

[casinojack]

Can we close this thread and go back to making money ?

[mojo]

Can we close this thread and go back to making money ?

Yes, lets please close this horrible thread.

[Daera]

Good idea...