Casino Coins adds High Roller Policy

[bonustreak]

I would never question your loyalty to anyone I know you don't give it freely and your passionate for your beliefs which was why I was shocked to read that but now that you have explained it a bit more I understand it was not directed at AGD. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

These terms have all of us on edge and upset so misunderstandings will happen.

[brean78]

I fully support the hard work of AGD and hope they are able to continue for a long time to come. In these uncertain times, where operators seem to changing terms quite frequently, AGD have been the eyes for most affiliates.

They have also been working extremely hard to make operators aware of their obligations.

Anyone turning on the AGD team should really think about what will be left if they stop doing their investigations.

If individual affiliates feel so strongly that these changes are wrong then they should do something about it. Consult a lawyer, seek advice, start a revolution!

Just don't turn on good people like AGD and GPWA.

[universal4]

I agree that Andy and the whole team at AGD have been working very hard for the affiliates. Thank you all for that.

I also agree fully with Nick that these changes we have seen should NOT be retro-active on current affiliates.

I also think that many of these changes have come about because many properties are feeling the crunch and many also feel that the affiliate groups are where the most money can be cut.

Rick
Universal4

[Dominique]

OK, here is my take on the current situation in this industry.

First off, the casinos can legally make any change they darn well please. As long as it's not retroactive. It has to be up to us to accept a contract or not.

Secondly, the clause that says they they can change their terms at will is not anything that will hold up in court. Contracts are treated the same way the world over, and payments that were agreed upon have to be paid. Period. No matter what escape clauses you put in your contract.

If you sell me a television, and I receive it, and I pay you half of the price and say "find me two more at the same price and then I'll pay you, otherwise I won't", you take me to court and I have to pay up. Period.

Giving a 3 month grace period is equally unacceptable, a contract is a contract is a contract. Period. Without contracts being kept the world and this industry would be impossible to do business in.

Now keep in mind that I already said what I said above and I will go down another road.

High roller clauses are not so bad. IF they are decent. With Coins, you avoid ever being in the hole because the clause takes effect immediately upon the win. So you gain a month's worth of income from your other players, which you would otherwise lose. I have in the past gone and asked programs to please remove a big winner from my account until he plays it back, to avoid a month without income. Usually the winner plays it back and is then returned to your account and everyone is happy.

There are other high roller clauses that are NOT beneficial at all, in these the player does not get removed until the following month, which means that you are in the hole for a month and are NOT getting paid for the other players. Such a clause is NOT favorable.

So, now we are at the juncture of what is and isn't acceptable to us. Obviously no one wants to have negative retroactive clauses altering the contracts they signed up for.

But, what if the clause is positive? What should we do? Where do we draw the line?

When Fortune introduced new ways of figuring comission, they made it opt-in. I see nothing wrong with that.

Referback once considered changing the way they calculate comissions - they put it up for affiliate vote. Also acceptable.

Casino Rewards changed the way they calculate comissions - again, for existing affs it was opt-in.

Why did they allow us to choose? Because the new systems were beneficial at least for a good number of affiliates. They were primarily positive clauses, but maybe not for everyone.

So there are two options to avoid the breach of contract conundrum with positive clauses:

1. Opt in

2. Vote

And, if the program doesn't want to do either, we could do a community vote for all affs at AGD. (Just a suggestion, this is totally up to Andy). That way we could move forward with affiliates in agreement on what to do.

Personally, as far as coins goes, I would opt in. I hate to see a month's revenues wiped out while the player is busy playing it back. I consider that one a favor to me.

Also, a contract can be changed at any time if both parties agree. When one of the parties doesn't agree, it cannot be changed. That is the way these things are handled the world over, and for good reason.

[mojo]

I think most of you already know how I feel about this. Probably some of you are tired of seeing me rant. I won't give up however.

I've already said it all here:

https://www.gpwa.org/forum/do-you-ap...rm-181237.html

I think some of this hr policy is misunderstood. For me, I will choose a program that does not have a high roller policy, such as red returns and brightshare over a program that does. It's tricky.

Just to add my opinion, I agree with cpa on leadership. If individuals find themselves, whether by choice or circumstance, as our affiliate industry leaders then they become our 'go to'.

I posted months ago in Playshare on my hr policy issues along with the_cpa but I was largely ignored leaving me powerless except to educate. Leaders, we need you and appriciate your help. We can't do it without you.

[kwblue]

I posted months ago in Playshare on my hr policy issues along with the_cpa but I was largely ignored leaving me powerless except to educate. Leaders, we need you and appriciate your help. We can't do it without you.

Playshare is yet another one of the folks that we are currently dealing with. Sorry that we did not post that in your thread, but we try to keep as much as we can dealt with in private so that 'feelings' do not get in the way.

I am sure the folks there can tell you that we have gone back and forth as of late.

[mojo]

Playshare is yet another one of the folks that we are currently dealing with. Sorry that we did not post that in your thread, but we try to keep as much as we can dealt with in private so that 'feelings' do not get in the way.

I didn't know that 'feelings' were getting in the way. Not sure what that means.

Glad to know there is communication going.

[kwblue]

Sorry, I should have elaborated

Due to the nature of 'predatory terms', putting the negotiations in public would create a lot of tension between the program and AGD. Since we are working towards making programs 'affiliate-friendly', we need a positive working relationship, and a calm atmosphere.

We have worked with a lot of affiliate programs and made a lot of positive changes. Making the discussions completely public would create tension and would likely have the affiliate programs shying away from future talks.

In order to foster a positive working atmosphere with affiliate programs, I decided some time back to privatize the negotiations. At this point there is a certification team who helps AGD work with and adjust/amend terms which would otherwise be predatory.

When negotiations fail and the program(s) wish to remain predatory - we ensure that all affiliates know that. We will be doing an even better job of getting that word out in the future as well.

I hope that explains it... sorry for the 'wordiness'

[mojo]

Thanks Andy. I understand things tend to get heated. I find myself getting more outspoken when I see no reply. It's aggrevating as one can feel they are not being heard. Calm expertise is called for and I appreciate you taking that role.

[TheCPA]

Due to the nature of 'predatory terms', putting the negotiations in public would create a lot of tension between the program and AGD. Since we are working towards making programs 'affiliate-friendly', we need a positive working relationship, and a calm atmosphere.

That's completely understandable.

Remember though that when week after week, then month after month passes and we hear nothing because it'said in private, then it becomes equally as frustrating on our end.

It just seems to me when a program goes predatory, they should immediately be removed as a "Certified, AGD Program" until they come back into compliance.

Not doing so, and simply entering into a private discussion with them provides no incentive to work it out with you.
And,....how long is too long to negotiate these situations?
Frankly, It doesn't seem that there is a whole lot to discuss, IMO.

Retroactive changes are predatory. They either agree, and reinstate the original terms for existing affiliates, or they get labeled as a Predatory Program.

Right? What am I missing?

[TheCPA]

Just don't turn on good people like AGD and GPWA.

Not a true or fair comment.

Nobody is turning on these folks.
We are turning TO these folks as Mojo mentioned.

APCW, GPWA, AGD, are all sites that were built to advocate, assist, represent, and protect the Affiliate Industry.
As such they become the leaders,....our leaders.

While we may have no measurable right to any tangible results, by virtue of what they created and built their sites to do,....I do believe it's fair to expect a leadership role from all of them when problems arise.

[Dominique]

That's completely understandable.

Remember though that when week after week, then month after month passes and we hear nothing because it'said in private, then it becomes equally as frustrating on our end.

Yep, frustrating as heck.

BUT - when you see it drag out usually AGD is in fruitful negotiations - as in "what if we did this?" and "NO, but you could do that" and "but then this would happen" and so on. In other words, there is a productive dialogue trying to find a solution. Most of the time this gets solved before anyone even hears about it, but sometimes it goes on for some time and it's annoying.

The idea is to keep things affiliate friendly, rather than just rogue everyone even if they are trying to meet us in an acceptable way.

If we started rushing everything through, most would be rogued off the bat and we would soon have nobody to promote ....

What is alarming is the number of bad terms coming about lately. There is a definite trend - and it is quite worrysome.

[TheCPA]

as in "what if we did this?" and "NO, but you could do that" and "but then this would happen" and so on.

I guess this where I part ways with this line of thinking.

Retroactive changes amounts to a lie when you signed up.
You don't compromise something that is 100% clearly WRONG.

Negotiate the future changes, but not retroactive changes.

What is alarming is the number of bad terms coming about lately. There is a definite trend - and it is quite worrysome.

Yes, that is exactly why I'm in here pitching a bitch this time around.
It is time to put a end to this nonsense.

If this practice is allowed to continue, the next round will be worse.
Before you know it, we'll be paying them to promote their casinos and saying remember the good old days when we actually made money doing this!

[Dominique]

Please vote:

http://www.affiliateguarddog.com/for...ant-t1347.html

[Anti-Corruption]

I happened to notice that change in CC's terms recently but was not even aware it was being discussed here.

Dominique's post #24 seemed rather thoughtful and made some interesting points, but ultimately I'm inclined to not support such T & C changes even when they are done in a way that at least tries to be sensitive to affiliates. And yes I admit it's true, you won't find me objecting to a completely favorable terms change any time soon (although I consider merely eliminating past terms that may have been lopsidedly unfavorable to be something different from "completely favorable").

As for the kinds of sweeping exculpatory or self-authorizing statements you often see in website T & C's all over, they are certainly unpleasant and lopsided, but it is good that Andy of AGD has brought up the issue of law. Even if such terms exist when you purchase or sign-up for something, the issue of reasonableness vs. invalid, unreasonable and unenforceable is always in play in the eyes of the law, at least in the USA and I suspect most other developed nations. These clauses amount to "we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, including steal your property if it is maintained with us"; even if such [lopsided and unfriendly] terms are there from the start, they are more likely than not going to be thrown out as invalid, unreasonable and unenforceable should it go to court, with the party engaging in any kind of unduly adverse action likely losing very much more than just the case at hand. Now, I am not predicting that this particular terms change would necessarily be deemed as such in every civilized court, although perhaps it might, but I do personally consider it undesirable and ultimately unsupportable right now.

Among everything else one might say about such terms, it does seem to be a clear shifting of the risk of doing business onto affiliates who already bear most of the risk and uncertainty, and who have already labored, perhaps rather hard, under an existing understanding and agreement by which the casinos and programs have been able to basically become rich to one degree or another.

The affiliate spends and invests their time and strength to bring customers to the casinos that they would almost certainly never have gotten themselves, sometimes representing years-long revenue streams they might never have seen at all. The affiliate doesn't even have any way of knowing for sure that their sign-ups, statistics and income are being reported truly and accurately. One day your stats say you had 0 sign-ups and 0 purchasing players, the next day maybe some of each. How can the affiliate even know whether 0 sign-ups was really 2, 1 purchasing player was really 3, or $100 commission should really have been $900? Did this month's losses really even happen at all? That lopsided uncertainty and adverse possibility built into the existing affiliate system represents an enormous risk to affiliates. Though it does seem to be among the better programs, at Casino Coins, for example, you don't even have a way to track individual players, assuming such tracking would be done accurately anyway wherever that is done, such as what you find at Casino Rewards for instance where your players are noted and identified to you with an ID and some biographical data.

In my experience when it comes to matters involving m-o-n-e-y, things can often take an undesirable and plainly wrong turn no matter how rich the one doing the turning really is. In fact, my experience is that the richer one is, the more often and the louder you hear the cries of "Poverty!! Poverty!!"; and even your own family members may turn. Is it really poverty, or is it merely that in order to do the right thing one cannot buy a new yacht or Rolls Royce this year and has to settle for only another Mercedes? Only $5,000,000 more into the Swiss account this year with some character and principles left, or $10,000,000 and loss of one's soul with harm to others on top?

The bottom line is that much and in some cases perhaps even most of however many millions or thousands of dollars, euros, etc., of income and profit continually flows into affiliated casinos each year is the result of the work of the affiliates. These affiliates have invested time, resources and energy under a certain understanding and agreement that was at least as good as the best it was while doing so; moreover, they continue to bring in customers and potentially years-long income and profit streams the casinos might otherwise never see at all. With all the millions and all the thousands coming in through affiliates, sometimes a customer actually wins some money, but I'll certainly bet that the chips the casinos keep as a result of the affiliates collectively towers high above that natural cost of running an honest casino.

The poster who also basically indicated that accepting or agreeing to this kind of term could lead to a slippery slope and downward spiral was also right in my opinion. That too is the way things tend to go in this world. Today one might try to be "sensitive" to affiliates, but then tomorrow comes and the next global or local "menace" to one's personal perception of their bottom line. It's not for nothing that the term "grandfather clause" and the like exists and is often employed in this world, and I have often witnessed or experienced such myself. Even in enormous groups of members of a regional labor force, for example, you might find some who work under one set of clauses because that's how they started and invested years of their life and strength, and others coming in who enter under a new and perhaps less advantageous plan. This is perfectly common and nothing new at all; moreover, anyone who knows anything at all about computer coding and programming knows that with code you can implement virtually anything to work that way like clockwork.

It does seem to me that those who suggest that this new turning of the coin so to speak should only be imposed going forward for new affiliates and not imposed on existing affiliates have made the fairest and most reasonable suggestion under the circumstances. I would also include all future new sign-ups credited to existing affiliates to preserve the original "grandfather" agreement under which they have been building up valuable traffic to the casinos all along, and setting up the very means for such valuable traffic potentially continuing and even increasing to the benefit of those receiving the customers.

[Dominique]

Excellent post!

[lots0]

Even with all the good work of AGD, IMO the best way to deal with these type of situations is to vote with your feet...

Leave the programs... and find other programs that don't act like this... and yes there are programs out there that do act professional and non predatory toward their affs.

Don't support other affs that do promote these guys.

That is the only way we can ever have ANY effect at all.

Don't worry about your players because if the program is going to act like this, it is just a matter of time till they start shaving players... If they are not already shaving.

disclosure: I have blacklisted Casino Coins for not paying me a little less than $400 for several years. CC did finally pay up (without interest) when they recently wanted to get approved by Casinomeister and I filed a PIB with Bryan.

CasinoCoins didn't pay me simply because Lou Fabiano told them not too...
If you want to work with a program that acts like that... you get what you deserve.

[Anti-Corruption]

Thanks, Dominique. Edit: looks like lots0's post came in as I was replying. Hmm, definitely opens up a new line of questions and thinking about this for me, was not aware of such a matter involving CC. I have to admit, lots0, your post makes me feel all the more the high degree of risk we affiliates operate under. You can spend months or even years building up a customer base and valuable traffic, so if there does come a time when your only best alternative is the one you have suggested then your loss is substantial while the program can still reap the gain.

[lots0]

Most aff programs that do this sort of thing go waaaaay out of their way to keep it quiet... I can tell you I ain't making too many friends in some of the programs when I bring up stuff like this.

I got a funny feeling that Sabrina would like to wring my neck right about now..

Disclaimer: Sabrina did not work at CC when this happened and she did work quickly to resolve the problem and get me paid... after all CC wanted that Casinomeister approval perdy bad...

as far as it being a risk to build up a player base.

I've had more players stolen from me by shady programs and crooked AM's than I care to think about.

I quit concentrating on converting long term players a few years back, after my first player base was stolen by an AM who is no longer in the business.

In my experience, Money usually brings out the worst in people... and Money is what this business is all about...

Thanks, Dominique. Edit: looks like lots0's post came in as I was replying. Hmm, definitely opens up a new line of questions and thinking about this for me, was not aware of such a matter involving CC. I have to admit, lots0, your post makes me feel all the more the high degree of risk we affiliates operate under. You can spend months or even years building up a customer base and valuable traffic, so if there does come a time when your only best alternative is the one you have suggested then your loss is substantial while the program can still reap the gain.

[pgaming]

Cast my vote and in line with majority even though I do not feed them. A personal choice, and yes this may seem silly. Considered it at one time and ran soon as seen their servers. Oops I stand corrected I do support them and they are coming down tonight. Their on a micro site so I have not given to much I hope.

Hey Lots0 I hear ya the same happened to me.

CasinoCoins didn't pay me simply because Lou Fabiano told them not too...

I've had more players stolen from me by shady programs and crooked AM's than I care to think about.

Well with over 300 plus sites suppose Lou carries a little weight.

Very true apparently I was a bad doggie and had my bones taken away. Crooked AM’s oh yeah they are out there. What I usually do is throw the account over to someone else, less hassle than trying to fix the situation. But lets be honest AM's get screwed by affiliates too. Kind of like a cat and mouse game the good affs get snagged in the middle.

Anyway I hope these terms are reversed and good luck.

greek39