APCW Action: Roxy Affiliates

**Integrity** · 18 August 2009, 2:39 pm

Dear Webmasters,

We have mentioned Roxy Affiliates and their Terms and Conditions on our videos over the past two weeks and... to the best of my knowledge... Roxy has chosen to not respond to affiliate concerns or open a dialouge with APCW on their own.

Therefore, the APCW will go forward with our plans to educate webmasters in the most public manner possible about these Terms and Conditions changes and how we feel they affect affiliates in a negative way. We will make certain our opinion on the matter is not missunderstood, and encourage other webmasters to think about how best to educate their peers and their customers, as well as how this affects their long term profitablility with the Roxy program.

Additionally, we would like to receive feedback here about what you would like to see emphasised most in this video or series of videos as it related to educating players about this issue, about blogs and message boards where we can post and re-post the message and videos, and if you plan to help distribute these videos to on your website and email lists.

Thank you...

**Integrity** · 18 August 2009, 3:04 pm

THIS EMAIL WAS JUST SENT TO ROXY AFFILIATES:

Dear Roxy Team,

As you all know by now, your recent Terms and Conditions changes have not been well received by affiliates. We have featured this on our weekly video reports over the past two weeks without resolve. This afternoon, the following message was posted by the APCW Team at the GPWA Forums:

================================================== =====

(SEE POST ABOVE)

================================================== =====

The APCW must operate and represent the affiliate interests, and as such is planning an extensive education project for webmasters and their customers over the next several months which will include ongoing updates on Perspectives Weekly, informational postings over a variety on social mediums, and stand-alone viral videos for distribution on email lists, blogs, forums, and independent websites.

We are not sending this email to you in order to seek or force a resolution that would be good for webmasters and Roxy, as we believe your team had that opportunity over the past months and made the decision to stay the course. Rather, this email is to let you know we have also made a decision, and we hope you understand the course of actions which are about the take place.

Thank you...

**Integrity** · 18 August 2009, 3:06 pm

For those of you wondering "What about Playshare?"

I have had communications via email with Lawrence at Playshare... which is far more than I can say for Roxy Affiliates. Lawrence told me he was preparing a staement which he hoped would clear up some affiliate concerns and questions. Therefore, we are holding back Playshare actions until next week.

**GamTrak** · 18 August 2009, 4:30 pm

Kudos Guys! Thanks for taking a stand on this and making it a front-burner that gets the attention is desperately needs!

Looking forward to posting videos, blogs and spreading the word!

**Doolally** · 18 August 2009, 4:37 pm

Ditto what Gamtrak has already said. Keen to see the outcome.

Keep up the good work.

**AmCan** · 19 August 2009, 7:00 am

Good work J Todd, good to see you take the point position on this fight.

**tryme** · 19 August 2009, 8:51 am

Well, that should certainly put the cat among the pigeons. I'd be intrigued to know if you've had a response from Roxy since you sent the email or are they like ostriches - burying their heads in their hands.

PS: Apologies for the mixed metaphors. I just couldn't help myself.

**Integrity** · 19 August 2009, 1:04 pm

Andy from AGD and I just received the following email from Sophie, the Programme Manager, at Roxy:

==================================================

As discussed previously, we have looked into the policy following all the feedback received. We appreciate the role you each play in protecting affiliates’ interests and the integrity of the business and have therefore taken the decision not to apply this term retroactively.

We hope this satisfies all parties.

==================================================

I have yet to speak with Andy about this but hope that this is acceptable. Please stand by!

**GamTrak** · 19 August 2009, 1:27 pm

Well that is all we've ever really asked for. As far as I'm concerned they can change what they want as long as it does not affect current affiliates in a negative way.

Thanks Roxy!

Originally Posted by Integrity

Andy from AGD and I just received the following email from Sophie, the Programme Manager, at Roxy:

==================================================

As discussed previously, we have looked into the policy following all the feedback received. We appreciate the role you each play in protecting affiliates’ interests and the integrity of the business and have therefore taken the decision not to apply this term retroactively.

We hope this satisfies all parties.

==================================================

I have yet to speak with Andy about this but hope that this is acceptable. Please stand by!

**Integrity** · 19 August 2009, 2:38 pm

Awesome!

When we come together in a cohesive mind set we can get things accomplished!

**tryme** · 19 August 2009, 5:09 pm

Hang on. This does affect current affiliates - if you think their high roller policy is going to negatively affect your bottom line, then the fact that they're not applying the term 'retroactively' is irrelevant.

To my way of thinking, some smart people at Microgaming have crunched the numbers and figured out that removing so called 'high rollers' who win big-ish from affiliates is a profitable thing for the casino to do.

But the 'high roller' terms have little or nothing to do with real high rollers. High rollers are not defined by how much they may win at any one time but by how much they are prepared to lose.

You can just see a Las Vegas casino host saying to his or her boss 'let me fly Jim out here on the private jet and put him up in the suite - he's a high roller'.

Boss : 'OK, so how much does he play'.

Casino Host: 'Well, um, not that much, but he once won $10,000 playing the slots'.

It just isn't going to happen, is it. Let's not be fooled by this kind of stuff.

**MichaelCorfman** · 19 August 2009, 7:01 pm

Originally Posted by tryme

But the 'high roller' terms have little or nothing to do with real high rollers. High rollers are not defined by how much they may win at any one time but by how much they are prepared to lose.

You are correct that the term "high roller" is not really the appropriate term. What is really meant is "big winner" independently of how much the person normally bets and I think it would be much clearer if that term was used instead.

But for affiliates, when someone is a "big winner" it means there is a big hit on casino earnings, and therefore on affiliate revenue for the associated affiliate.

Now if an affiliate program historically rolled over negative affiliate earnings, then fencing a "big winner" would always help the affiliate. And conversely, if an affiliate program did not historically carry forward net losses, then fencing a "big winner" amounts to introducing a negative rollover with respect to the "big winner."

My view is that the really big issue affiliates have complained about is taking an existing player base that was brought on board under an affiliate arrangement where there was not a negative rollover and unilaterally modifying the terms and conditions applied with respect to earnings associated with those players by introducing a form of negative rollover for "big winners". My interpretation of Roxy's statement is that they have agreed they will not do that with respect to an affiliate's existing player base. Their previously announced terms changes did alter what they would have done with existing player bases, and that was what caused them to be labeled predatory by AGD. But, I think some clarification is required to ensure we really understand exactly what Roxy means. Otherwise I am afraid different folks may interpret it in different ways.

Michael

**mojo** · 19 August 2009, 7:18 pm

It's terrific that Roxy has not proceeded to make this retroactive. Thank you Roxy!

Going forward my questions are:

1. How are an exisiting affiliates new players handled? Do they fall under the new term?

2. If so, is there an 'opt in' for existing affiliates ?

I didn't see that in the statement but I may have missed it.

Thanks again!

**Roxyaffiliates** · 20 August 2009, 10:01 am

Hi Mojo

to answer your questions, I confirm that it won't apply to either existing players or new players of our existing affiliates.

kind rgds
Sophie

**GamTrak** · 20 August 2009, 11:24 am

That is some wonderful news Sophie! Thanks for making the terms clearer.

Originally Posted by roxyaffiliates

Hi Mojo

to answer your questions, I confirm that it won't apply to either existing players or new players of our existing affiliates.

kind rgds
Sophie

**mojo** · 20 August 2009, 2:18 pm

Originally Posted by roxyaffiliates

Hi Mojo

to answer your questions, I confirm that it won't apply to either existing players or new players of our existing affiliates.

kind rgds
Sophie

Excellent Sophie!

**Nandakishore** · 20 August 2009, 3:30 pm

That's terrific! Thanks Sophie. I had already started removing Roxy contents from my site, now I will roll back everything.

This has been a very good example of cooperation between GPWA, affiliates and affiliate program. Congratulations to everybody who worked on this!

**matted** · 20 August 2009, 8:06 pm

I would wait until this is seen in writing, because I feel that the statement s a bit ambiguous...

Not retroactively... Is that for all players (past and future) the existing affiliate brought in? Is it for existing players but not new ones? Or, is it for retroactive earnings (already earned) and the high roller term applies to all future earnings?

**jarvi** · 21 August 2009, 12:12 am

Definitely appears to be good news. Matt, check Sophie's answer above where she confirms existing and new players from existing affiliates are not subject to the new terms. I think that answers one of your concerns.

**Topboss** · 21 August 2009, 5:11 am

Well Done to Roxy for listening to their affiliates and an even bigger Well Done to APCW for taking a stand and being the voice for all of us.

Thread: APCW Action: Roxy Affiliates

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

APCW Action: Roxy Affiliates

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Integrity For This Useful Post:

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Integrity For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to Integrity For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to GamTrak For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to Doolally For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to AmCan For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to GamTrak For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to Integrity For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to tryme For This Useful Post:

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MichaelCorfman For This Useful Post:

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mojo For This Useful Post:

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Roxyaffiliates For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to Topboss For This Useful Post:

Posting Permissions