bookmaker.com - you won't belive that!

[balagan9]

I hope that bookmaker.com will come onto this board and provide a response - or perhaps get in contact with the affected affiliates directly to discuss a resolution (if that happens make sure that the resolution is posted here please).

of course.

[Betpartners]

No idea if it retrospective however i went on the AGD well over a year ago now, last April i think and specifically asked this question having read their terms and conditions.

I got a reply from Guard Dog (the owner) who did say that he stopped promoting them a while back because of this rule, so there is a very good chance he will know or have some form of record if this is retrospective.

But i do agree with those that have said you must read the terms and conditions of all programs before agreeing to sign up, of course if Bookmaker have done this retrospectively then it does not matter how many time you have read the terms if they are going to change them at will.

Which for the record every single affiliate program have in their terms and conditions, the right to change terms as they see fit.

I decided not to promote them because of this rule, the same applies to their sister site betcris.

Which is a shame because from a players point of view they do seem to have a very good reputation.

For the OP and others that are stuck with this and have funds tied up i really hope you can get something from them and if bookmaker have changed their terms after you joined up then shame on them.

Hopefully Guard Dog can shed some light on this

[jarvi]

Plain and simple, they changed their terms and they were applied retrospectively/retroactively. I had been happily getting payments on a very small number of players and then when I requested a payment in March 2009, Scott advised about the ten player minimum. Whilst I don't have a copy of the terms from when I signed up back in around 2002, I would never have done it with a term like that.

I read terms when assessing programs and am not the type to just tick the box. Comes from working with lawyers for eight years I think.

[Betpartners]

Plain and simple, they changed their terms and they were applied retrospectively/retroactively. I had been happily getting payments on a very small number of players and then when I requested a payment in March 2009, Scott advised about the ten player minimum. Whilst I don't have a copy of the terms from when I signed up back in around 2002, I would never have done it with a term like that.

I read terms when assessing programs and am not the type to just tick the box. Comes from working with lawyers for eight years I think.

Well thats not good then, it is so difficult to locate decent bookies for Americans that want to have a punt offshore that are not only good for players but also fair with affiliates.

They are from my understanding good for players but the treatment you received Jarvi and others is not good.

Hopefully they will reconsider at some point this rule

[justbookies]

Yes Jarvi has the timings right. Bookmaker.com refused to pay me in late 2008 onwards. I have a screenshot of Jan 2009 showing them owing me $1700 and I have just managed to log into my affiliate account with them today and they now owe me $5100.

Gooner is very kind to try and help with this situation but the fact is that Bookmaker.com simply do not give a damn. They aren't like any normal company and the usual rules of etiquette simply dont apply.

[Prenut]

3.2 has been in the terms for at least a couple of years. If you don't like it don't promote them. Applied retroactively it indeed sux and unfair, but if the affiliate signed up after it was put in they have zero gripe.

3.10 is pretty standard for affiliate programs. It's rarely enforced in it's strictest sense, and I've never heard of Bookmaker/Cris enforcing it. In general they are extremely lax when it comes to brand protection.

I've never had a problem with them ever. In fact they have been one of the fastest and most reliable programs in regards to payment processing. I've had plenty of times when I didn't have 10 active players in a week, and I waited to request cashout until I did.

They are a nice program to work with for those sending a decent amount of players. For those sending the occasional player here and there they clearly are not a good option.

Almost all programs put in they have the right to change terms at any point, which again is standard for the industry.

3.2. Affiliate is required to refer a minimum of 10 active customers during the previous week to withdraw/transfer their earnings. If the affiliates chooses to close the affiliate account before reaching the required 10 active players, any and all commissions shall be forfeited.

3.10. Affiliate is restricted from optimizing any page of their website(s) for keyword or keyword phrases that include, but are not limited to, Bookmaker, Bookmaker.com, Bookmaker Brand, Bookmaker Sportsbook, Bookmaker Casino, Bookmaker Racebook, Bookmaker Poker or Bookmaker Sportsbook, Casino and Poker Room in any format. This includes, but is not limited to, meta tags, headers and body content.

* We reserve the right to raise or lower any affiliates' commission rate solely at Management’s discretion.

b. If a player signs up under an affiliate account and does not make a deposit within the first 60 days, that player becomes a house account.

These are some of the worse terms I have ever seen.

[thepokerkeep]

3.2 has been in the terms for at least a couple of years. If you don't like it don't promote them. Applied retroactively it indeed sux and unfair, but if the affiliate signed up after it was put in they have zero gripe.

3.10 is pretty standard for affiliate programs. It's rarely enforced in it's strictest sense, and I've never heard of Bookmaker/Cris enforcing it. In general they are extremely lax when it comes to brand protection.

I've never had a problem with them ever. In fact they have been one of the fastest and most reliable programs in regards to payment processing. I've had plenty of times when I didn't have 10 active players in a week, and I waited to request cashout until I did.

They are a nice program to work with for those sending a decent amount of players. For those sending the occasional player here and there they clearly are not a good option.

Almost all programs put in they have the right to change terms at any point, which again is standard for the industry.

I don't understand how you can defend a company that acts in such a predatory manner. Retroactively changing terms and enforcing quotas is NOT affiliate friendly. Any program that Forces affiliates to wait for payment (based on a quota system) should be on everyone's rogue list.

How many players have you lost over the years due to this term?

b. If a player signs up under an affiliate account and does not make a deposit within the first 60 days, that player becomes a house account.

Anthony hit the nail squarely on the head. These are some of the worst terms I've ever seen.

[Prenut]

I knew of the quotas before I signed up, but I signed up and promoted them anyway. Having a quota by no means makes them rogue, and it's just silly to say otherwise. There are valid reasons for having quotas, reasons that have already been discussed in this thread. The bottom line is that if you don't like quotas then don't promote them.

I'm sure that I have lost alot of players due to the 60 day rule, and of course I don't like it. But again, the rule was there when I signed up. There are other programs that you deem reputable that have a similar rule. In fact you fly a Full Tilt Poker banner on the top of your site.

Changing terms retroactively sucks, and of course I don't like it either. Again, they are not the only ones as programs such as Full Tilt and PokerStars have retroactively changed terms as well. In fact I would wager that half of the programs that you or I promote have changed terms retroactively that have affected our bottom lines.

Look, this business that we are in is like no other. I have wasted countless hours complaining about affiliate programs that I deemed were treating me unfairly. The best solution for me has always been to remove the programs that are not making me money, and to push the programs that make me money. For me it's as simple as that.

With that being said, I appreciate that there are people like you that want to go to bat for the cause. However, it isn't doing anyone any good to call some programs rogue yet continuing to push other programs that by your definitions are rogue as well.

I don't understand how you can defend a company that acts in such a predatory manner. Retroactively changing terms and enforcing quotas is NOT affiliate friendly. Any program that Forces affiliates to wait for payment (based on a quota system) should be on everyone's rogue list.

How many players have you lost over the years due to this term?



Anthony hit the nail squarely on the head. These are some of the worst terms I've ever seen.

[FictionNet]

There are other programs that you deem reputable that have a similar rule. In fact you fly a Full Tilt Poker banner on the top of your site. .

Could you clarify this, please? What should I be aware of re. Full Tilt? I don't send them many players but I get paid every month.

[Prenut]

Full Tilt retroactively changed their terms that if a player didn't deposit within a specified time then the player is removed from your affiliate account. I promote them in spite of this, but that was what I was referring to.

Could you clarify this, please? What should I be aware of re. Full Tilt? I don't send them many players but I get paid every month.

[justbookies]

Having been involved in the affiliate business for 10 years and the online betting business since 1998, my personal view - and I have experience of almost every firm out there - is that bookmaker.com can not be trusted. They made this change retrospectively and then came out fighting. What are they capable of doing in the future? Considering what SBT got up to a few years ago, I would rate bookmaker.com the second worst company I have ever dealt with . . so far.

[thepokerkeep]

You're right, Full Tilt does have a 60 day rule. That rule was always in their terms but never enforced until recently. It was not added retroactively. And they do not withhold payments if an affiliate fails to send them traffic. They don't enforce a quota system!

There's no comparison between the two programs.

[balagan9]

a quick update...

it's not just that they still don't wanna pay me until i'll have 10 active players, now they are looking for ways to insert their casino brand into my site in order for me to get up to 10 active players a week.

In nice words they call it "helping me to get to 10 active players a month" in my words it's called BLACKMAIL! to get more exposure.

I'd like to give more exposure to those programs that i like, and not to the ones that force me to do that.

this ISN'T the way to treat affiliates!

[eaton2003]

This is quite uncool... and sucks for nearly all affiliates. I will need to check my account to make sure I have over ten active players during the week. I understand some books require you to at least send 5 actives before requesting a withdrawal, but not 5-10 actives a week.

I have launched www.sportsbookcommission.com to discuss US based sportsbooks and IMO I really like Bookmaker.com so I would be interested to hear what their new affiliate team has to say.

[balagan9]

I would be interested to hear what their new affiliate team has to say.

this IS the answer of Keith - the new incoming Affiliate Manager for Bookmaker.

Here's the last answer that i just got from her:

At this point, we have reached a stalemate. I am not going to back down on this, and it appears that you are pretty set on what you want to do with your site. If things change, feel free to be in contact, and we can go over some of the same strategies to improve Bookmaker's results on your site.

Thanks, and I am sorry that you were unable to work things out.

do you get that? THEY have stupid terms and I am the one that is "unable" to work things out

[eaton2003]

Looks like Keith could potentially burn his bridges before he started or is it the owners only wanting to focus on their top earners.

[FictionNet]

As I mentioned before, I don't work with Bookmaker. After reading the various comments in this thread, I will definitely never work with them, regardless of what terms they are using at the time.

Also, after reading that pathetic message from 'Keith', I will also refuse to work with any merchant he represents in the future. We need honestly and decency in this industry and these cowboys are NOT who I want to work with - and I have a long memory.

What is Keith's surname? I want to ensure I never work with him.

[balagan9]

What is Keith's surname? I want to ensure I never work with him.

Keith Anderson.

The question is WHAT can we do now in order to change things for current affiliates? does all of this big forum don't have enough power to change things? if not...then what are we doing here?

[FictionNet]

Keith Anderson.
does all of this big forum don't have enough power to change things? if not...then what are we doing here?

Well, I don't think any forum of ANY size can force a company to change their policies. However, we can warn members about these disgusting policies and therefore help people to steer clear. I don't think we can do much else.

[jarvi]

Perhaps ask Keith to have a word with JR from DSI because coincidently I received an email from him a few days ago and pushed back with the clause about the 10 players. He said, let's talk because nothing is set in stone.

It's my understanding (and also Casino City's accordingly to the site) that both DSI and Bookmaker.com are owned by the organization.