bookmaker.com - you won't belive that!

[balagan9]

check this out, i have a balance of $3000 in bookmaker.com and i wanted to withdraw my money. here's the amazing answer i got:

"We cannot process your request at the moment. Affiliates required to have a
minimum of 10 active players during the previous week to withdraw/transfer
their earnings.

Best regards,
Christine D."

i have 1-2 active players, what should I do now? THIS IS STILLING!

[LiveCasinoPartners]

Amazingly sad. I feel for you. I would never, EVER promote them because of this "rule". I recommend contacting Andy at http://www.affiliateguarddog.com I'm sure he would send an email for you.

[Anthony]

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.

[justbookies]

I had exactly the same problem with bookmaker.com. I chased and chased and ended up getting a stinking email from them saying they didn't want affiliates like me if that is all I could refer (honest)! They lost out and another firm in their sector ended up with many clients that would have gone to them. As it transpired, in only a small time I would have passed their requirements by far (judging by the stats for the firm that took their spot) but instead I walked away from $1700 (that they refused to pay me) and stopped promoting them and changed my reviews of them to negative reviews. I don't think you can trust a firm with a policy like that. They do not realise that big affiliates all start out as small affiliates. In my case, they brought this rule in out of the blue when I had been promoting them for a long time and sending a steady trickle of clients (totalling circa 250), but only a few long-term players. Heaven knows what they would owe me in commission by now. Bookmaker.com, in my view, are crooks and if they can move the goalposts so dramatically once, then they are capable of anything in the future, to both affiliates and customers. (Am I opening a can of worms by mentioning sportingbet in the same breath. I will never forget what they did to affiliates). You do not need to promote a firm like bookmaker.com. There are other options. I appreciate that does not help you, except to know other people have been where you are now.

[FictionNet]

I can't recall hearing anything nice about bookmaker.com for years now. I wouldn't send them traffic at 90% commission. Sod 'em.

[TanyaEverest]

Wow. That is ridiculous. Unfortunately if it's in their T&Cs there isn't too much that can be done. I would advise hitting those ten players, cashing out and moving elsewhere.

[robertmedl]

Wow. That blows. Sorry that happened.

[Amateur]

Wow. That is ridiculous. Unfortunately if it's in their T&Cs there isn't too much that can be done. I would advise hitting those ten players, cashing out and moving elsewhere.

Tanya,

I don't think you read the Terms closely:

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.

Sending more good players, when you can't be sure of ever getting paid!! Like throwing money down a bottomless pit.

As hard as it is, it's still better to send those player to a good site with reasonable terms, and both affiliate and player can trust they will be paid.

[thepokerkeep]

These guys are absolutely predatory. In addition to the ten player rule, they also have these clauses in their terms...

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


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.

And if you can live with those terms, you obviously like getting screwed in the ass so drop em and BEND OVER...


Edited to add:
I've added Bookmaker Affiliates to my rogue page and encourage others to do the same.

[jarvi]

Pretty sure BetCRIS and BetDSI also have the same crappy terms so avoid them as well.

Maybe find ten friends and give them the minimum deposit amount and ask them to play. The amount you give away has to be less than $3000. Ethically a bit on the edge, however, so are their terms because they actually changed them a few years back to apply retroactively if I recall correctly.

[TheGooner]

Well I'd say plenty that is nice regarding bookmaker.com

THE GOOD
- they're very good to players, good bonuses, good retention timely payouts.
- the affiliate group are quick, accurate and do payout speedily if your qualify
- the program is well funded and has a lot of time and effort invested.

In short - this program is a good operation and is the sort of level that you should be promoting to players if you are concerned about the safety of players funds.

Additionally, these terms have been in the "standard contract" since I joined with them in 2007 - and I read the contract - marked up changes to remove them and agreed an individual contract before agreeing to join as an affiliate - because you never know what might happen.

THE BAD
Yes - these terms are tough on a small affiliate - and it's true to say that unless you think that you can generate a sizable active customer base then affiliating with bookmaker.com is not a wise decision.

But it was clearly written in the contract - it was not retroactively changed (at least not in the last three years)

Minimum payment and activity levels are not unheard of though - and are quite common with sportsbooks - even some of the mainstream European brands like Bet365 and Ladbrokes have this clause installed. It prevents the old "claim back 30% of my losses scam".

SUMMARY
Not all programs are equal - and not all contracts are the same. Read the T&Cs before agreeing to work with a company.

Even though I beleived that we would reach their payment thresholds with some comfort - we still discussed it specificially with the affiliate group and got an agreement that we could work with.

In reviewing this - I don't find them "rogue" - but I do understand why the affiliates who have not been paid are upset and angry.

I assume that bookmaker.com do not want to work with smaller affiliates - that they've deemed the AM effort vs actual reward is not acceptable. That is their business decision to make - but this situation is not a "good result".

Bookmaker.com probably do need to highlight the potential consequences better - and should probably step up to the plate and payout smaller affiliates if the affilaite wishes to now terminate the contract. Confiscating owed monies on termination does not seem fair.

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

IF the OP (and GPWA) agrees - I'll get my bookmaker.com contact to look at this thread and see what can be done - as I notice that it's been posted in the public space - and I beleive this will not break any rules.

[Anthony]

IF the OP (and GPWA) agrees - I'll get my bookmaker.com contact to look at this thread and see what can be done - as I notice that it's been posted in the public space - and I beleive this will not break any rules.

That would be great, thanks.

[jarvi]

But it was clearly written in the contract - it was not retroactively changed (at least not in the last three years)

I've been a member of the BetCRIS program since around 2002 and those terms were definitely not in there when I signed up. The problem was exacerbated when they transferred the US facing players to bookmaker.com.

I'm all for reading the terms when signing up and if people don't like the terms, either negotiate or find somewhere else. My problem is that they changed the rules part way through.

This program has been discussed previously and the general attitude of the people at the affiliate program left a lot to be desired. That's what stays in my memory and if they had been better with the communication I probably wouldn't have been posting here and trying to reinforce that they don't hold affiliates in the same regard as some of the other sportsbook affiliate programs.

[grem]

Do they reserve the right to take your money as well?

This is poor policy

[Doolally]

Those Ts&Cs really suck!!

However as Gooner rightly points out, it's not a change in their conditions so it's not really predatory. One of the reasons you should always read a programs terms before joining.

You have my sympathies however. Hard as it may be, and if you can't change their minds or switch to an individual contract, it's probably best to walk away and never deal with their likes again.

[justbookies]

But it was clearly written in the contract - it was not retroactively changed (at least not in the last three years)

That onerous term was introduced retrospectively. That's a fact.

I lost money and players as a result. I am sure I would still have the emails somewhere to put a date to it. It must have been just before you joined them because it doesn't feel even three years ago. I too would have posted positive things about them, until they moved the goalposts so badly. They are also unbelievably rude. Their attitide stinks. I didn't discover this until faced with their inflexibility. Please don't compare their terms to a brilliant firm like Bet365, who just want you to have 5 introduced players, not 10 active in the previous week (that's probably 100 clients introduced in a short period of time. I introduced around 250 over an extended period of time and did not hit their criteria). It's a big difference.
Things may be going well for you now with Bookmaker.com (as it did for me for several years) but this is a firm you can't trust so my advice would be to angle some of your potential referrals to them elsewhere.

[balagan9]

Amazingly sad. I feel for you. I would never, EVER promote them because of this "rule". I recommend contacting Andy at http://www.affiliateguarddog.com I'm sure he would send an email for you.

Thanks!
Isn't he a member here? can someone send him this thread please so he can help?

TIA

[TheGooner]

That onerous term was introduced retrospectively. That's a fact.

I have an original contract from 2007 with it in. I'm sure the OP has the same contract - that's what I was relating it to. I do not know when the term was brought in.

Please don't compare their terms to a brilliant firm like Bet365, who just want you to have 5 introduced players, not 10 active in the previous week (that's probably 100 clients introduced in a short period of time. I introduced around 250 over an extended period of time and did not hit their criteria). It's a big difference.

I AM comparing the bookmaker.com term to bet365.com - and I'll agree that it does not compare favourably to most European T&Cs. However tiered thresholds and minimum quota terms (of some sort) are common place with sportsbooks especially outside Europe.

My point is that affiliates cannot expect a universal set of T&C's to be applied across the board. You have to read them and agree or negotiate.

Other key issues like negative rollover, and shared revenue across different channels (aka cross chanel credits) are issues that surprise affilaites even when signing up at quality programs like PaddyPower, Ladbrokes, Bodog and Bet365.

All these programs also get dragged up here from time to time by inexperienced affiliates too. The over-riding message for all affiliates entering an agreement with programs is to Read the contracts CARFEULLY !!!

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

I have passed my concerns regarding both Bagalan9 and JustBookies situation back to bookmaker.com and invited them to consider a better approach for small affiliates that wish to terminate their agreements after running into this threshold issue.

I don't KNOW what the response bookmaker.com will be - but I am hopeful of at least getting some discussion and consideration of the facts from their management - rather than a canned "policy" repsonse.

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).

Good luck gentlemen - I hope to hear of an amicable agreement.

[jarvi]

Those Ts&Cs really suck!!

However as Gooner rightly points out, it's not a change in their conditions so it's not really predatory. One of the reasons you should always read a programs terms before joining.

You have my sympathies however. Hard as it may be, and if you can't change their minds or switch to an individual contract, it's probably best to walk away and never deal with their likes again.

It is a change in their terms and they were applied retroactively. Just because it happened a while ago doesn't mean they aren't predatory. When I signed up the term about 10 minimum players in the preceding week wasn't in there and now it is and being applied to my account. Surely that makes them predatory from my point of view, just maybe not for new affiliates. Or is it rogue or some other word that gets thrown around for these types of programs.

Here's a quote from Scott in March last year that gives an insight into why they did it.

It really has nothing to do with the amount of time any affiliate takes up. The owner simply does not want affiliates that can not reach the level of 10 active players. In reality 10 active players is a very low bar to set. Any affiliate can reach 50 active players if they actively market us. It takes hard work and often times an investment. So does

The funny thing is, here's a quote from the email before the one above.

I know our new policy is not popular with the smaller affiliates.
All we are trying to do is make the smaller affiliates drum up some
more business. Getting 10 active players is not impossible.
Actually with a little time and effort it's not hard either.

One minute it takes hard work and the next it doesn't...

[thepokerkeep]

If they applied the terms retroactively, I'd class then as rogue. Can someone provide proof (screenshot or something) of the date this term came into effect?