Closing affiliate accounts - The worm will turn

[universal4]

Right,

Managers and operators can tell us that newsletters to a few hundred inactive affiliates cost them a lot, or maybe the few hundred extra tables in the database, or that they spend a lot of time following up with inactive affiliates....well I don't see that and could probably prove in almost all cases where the opposite is true.

Thebookieoffers, I think you nailed it, that in most of the cases, it is a warm-up to take players away.

And if it some jerkwad bean-counter that looks at a number x% of affiliates are inactive....that is poor thinking and looking at the wrong metrics.

Look at the total number of affiliates that "may" be providing exposure instead.

These moves of closing accounts REDUCES that number of affiliates that "may" be providing exposure instead, which is a MUCH more important metric.

Genuinely interested into affiliate managers thoughts here, personally, I would of thought, say 100 small affiliates bringing in 2 players between them over a 1 year period, for example, is better than 0 small affiliates bringing in 0 new players.

Well said, small affiliates have been getting shafted quicker, and have had to stay on their toes more than larger affiliates since black Friday.

Rick
Universal4

[p.arena]

I would like to hear an affiliate managers opinions on this, for example the pokerstars email we all have had, and seeing as 138.com were mentioned above and are sponsors on here then lets hear their opinion as well.

What exactly do the affiliate teams think they will get? **** loads more exposure all of a sudden from other scared affiliates? The original affiliate begging and sending more traffic? Or some other marketing masterpiece I don't think?

Personally I believe it is to steal players, it can only be that (just look at the Stan James issue that was resolved so well here LOL)

Genuinely interested into affiliate managers thoughts here, personally, I would of thought, say 100 small affiliates bringing in 2 players between them over a 1 year period, for example, is better than 0 small affiliates bringing in 0 new players.

Let me start off by saying that WBX does not have any sort of quotas, and that what I am about to say is in no way defending the use of quotas because I see them the same way as many affiliates posting in this thread, as being unfair to genuine affiliates.

That said, having been in this role for around three years now and analysing the reports during that time, I can see why there might be programs that feel they have a legitimate reason for instituting quotas. Mainly this comes down to protection from fraud or gaming the system.

Occasionally you see affiliates that have only a single referral and that referral wagers large amounts. On a betting exchange like WBX it isn't a problem, but for bookies I could see why it might raise red flags to have members like this. Say for instance you have a person with a normal enough looking website, getting low end traffic and some clicks but only the 1 signup. The person does 1 large bet every month, for example £10,000 on Chicago Bulls -4.5 @ 1.91.

Then at another affiliate program, the same affiliate, has the same referral bet £10,000 on their opponent, Washington Wizards +4.5.
One bet will win, one bet will lose. They lose a bit on the bets, but then whichever side loses, they get back ~25-30% revenue share back on that loss. Repeat this every month, with multiple sites that don't have a negative carry over, and suddenly you've found a loophole to make money at the expense of the affiliate programs.

By having a minimum of 5 active members (as I've seen on some programs T&C) it would require more bets being placed, with the chances increasing that the program can spot weird trends with the bets (e.g. all 5 betting on the same outcome). But on a single account, how can you say for certain whether it's a scam going on, or just a guy that has a weird betting pattern where he only plays his favourite play every few weeks.

The best solution for affiliates is to read the T&C. You can then make an educated decision on whether a program is a good fit for you. If the term is there, assume it will be used at some point, because T&C's aren't done randomly there is a thought process behind it - most of the time they are there to protect the program. If you don't think that quotas will affect you then it isn't an issue, but if you do (if you have a new/small website, or you experience slow times of the year, or if you promote a seasonal sport that has 3 months or more of off-season etc), then you need to think about whether you want to get too invested in the program and risk losing past referrals. Anyway that's my 2c!

[Gamble 4 Keeps]

The reality is without affiliates promoting their brands they would need to spend millions of dollars to get the same exposure. I think any and all programs should remember this. If you look after your affiliates, they look after you and its a win win situation for all involved.

Its the same for us too, we need to look after our players that we send and refer to the casino/poker/sports sites. This keeps them playing, you don't see us saying to a player hey you haven't deposited for 6 months or your not spending enough so we need to have your account closed do you?

Its simple if we send a player we own that player for life, regardless if we send new players or not.

If no new players are being sent, then maybe look at lowering the commission amount on NEW players. You can't cut our commissions from already sent players. If you do you are considered rogue in my eyes and should be blacklisted!

[Triple7]

Agreed. If I read about any operator closing accounts due to insufficient numbers/inactivity, if I work with them then I immediately stop increasing exposure and start working in the opposite direction. If I don't, they go on list of operators to avoid.

It's indicative of a program who wants to call the shots rather than one who will work with you to achieve a goal and you'll never be able to build a trusting relationship with a program that works that way.

Same here. Big name or not, I don't want to work with that sort of programs. If more people should do this, they'd perhaps change their policy.

[thebookiesoffers]

good post Peter

[MattPrice]

I would like to hear an affiliate managers opinions on this, for example the pokerstars email we all have had, and seeing as 138.com were mentioned above and are sponsors on here then lets hear their opinion as well.

What exactly do the affiliate teams think they will get? **** loads more exposure all of a sudden from other scared affiliates? The original affiliate begging and sending more traffic? Or some other marketing masterpiece I don't think?

Personally I believe it is to steal players, it can only be that (just look at the Stan James issue that was resolved so well here LOL)

Genuinely interested into affiliate managers thoughts here, personally, I would of thought, say 100 small affiliates bringing in 2 players between them over a 1 year period, for example, is better than 0 small affiliates bringing in 0 new players.

As an affiliate manager, I would go with the view that closing an account that has referred players (or is attempting to send us some) is counterproductive. If an affiliate is active then we want to keep them and work with them as closely as we can, for the benefit of us both. The only time we've completely removed accounts is when there has been zero activity whatsoever (as in never even accessed the log in screen). This is mainly as a housekeeping exercise, designed to keep a more efficient database and we always advise the affiliate that the door is open to return.

[Gamble 4 Keeps]

The only time we've completely removed accounts is when there has been zero activity whatsoever (as in never even accessed the log in screen).

In that sort of instance its perfectly normal. Providing the affiliate hasn't sent a depositing player. The second a player deposits accounts should not be closed for whatever reason.

[MattPrice]

In that sort of instance its perfectly normal. Providing the affiliate hasn't sent a depositing player. The second a player deposits accounts should not be closed for whatever reason.

I totally agree, although we wouldn't close an account even if the player hasn't deposited as we have several no deposit offers so there's always the chance they could convert at a later date.

[AE-Stephen]

AE does not have quota's, I would agree with Matt. Closing an affiliates account for a lack of depositing players is counter-productive.

Circumstances change, rankings change, and those that are struggling today could be on page 1 of Google 3 months down the line. It is a partnership and we believe in working with our affiliates in anyway we can to help them improve.

I also take on board Peter's posts of suspicious betting play however most affiliate programs will have a term in place to protect themselves against this anyway.

[universal4]

As an affiliate manager, I would go with the view that closing an account that has referred players (or is attempting to send us some) is counterproductive. If an affiliate is active then we want to keep them and work with them as closely as we can, for the benefit of us both. The only time we've completely removed accounts is when there has been zero activity whatsoever (as in never even accessed the log in screen). This is mainly as a housekeeping exercise, designed to keep a more efficient database and we always advise the affiliate that the door is open to return.

Thanks Matt, I wish more programs felt this way.

I do hope you at least attempt contact with known email addresses before closing said accounts, but beyond that it seems reasonable.

Thanks for your input also Stephen, it certainly would be nice if more programs took the "no quota" stance.

Affiliates, just need fair deals and get paid on all players, including the first one. If we aren't paid on the first one, it's more difficult to think we will ever be paid on the 2nd, 3rd 4th, etc. No matter how many other affiliates claim we will be.

That is a REALITY a small affiliate has to deal with, telling us different doesn't help much, no matter how big your wallet is.

Rick
Universal4

[Tony]

I just recieved the same email from Pokerstars to day and they are not the first ones I try to login to my affiliate accounts at other programs and I couldn't, I email them and then they told me oh you have not sent any real money players so we closed your account! isn't that nice of them we are OK when they make money of us, but if something happen to our web site cya!

[Gamble 4 Keeps]

I just recieved the same email from Pokerstars to day and they are not the first ones I try to login to my affiliate accounts at other programs and I couldn't, I email them and then they told me oh you have not sent any real money players so we closed your account! isn't that nice of them we are OK when they make money of us, but if something happen to our web site cya!

Well i for one will be blacklisting any program that does this. They wont get ad space on our site.

[casinog]

BetVictor has quotas.. its funny how they closed my account just when I started earning a decent amount.

It's just an attempt by them to save money. Same goes to stan james, they stole my 5 figure commissions.
They are gone from the forum now luckily.

Ive been putting in measures on my sites so this thing will be easier to deal with.

[Top Online Casinos]

This points out just how fragile our agreements in many cases really are.. There simply is no 'partnership' with those type of operators.

[sportyboy]

No has mentioned that bookie and casino aff programs can terminate you whenever they want. All you can do is have a good relationship with the affiliate manager regardless of the terms. Getting to know aff managers on a business and personal level is key.

[wonderpunter]

No has mentioned that bookie and casino aff programs can terminate you whenever they want. All you can do is have a good relationship with the affiliate manager regardless of the terms. Getting to know aff managers on a business and personal level is key.

I shouldn't have to be friendly with an affiliate manager to not have my account terminated, it's also not my responsibility to get to know the affiliate manager.. it's their job to seek me out and help me, after all that's what they get paid for right?

[Triple7]

No has mentioned that bookie and casino aff programs can terminate you whenever they want. All you can do is have a good relationship with the affiliate manager regardless of the terms. Getting to know aff managers on a business and personal level is key.

It says enough of that affiliate program if closing your account for stupid reasons or not all depends of being Facebook-friends with and liking the selfies of the aff. manager on Facebook.

[allfreechips]

When I get these quota type messages weather it be your commissions are reduced or your account is now closed I react quickley and ghet in contact with the program and let them know they will get heightened exposure on my network immediately. The very first thing I do is change the link to the casino to the Allfreechips review of it, push that change out to all my other sites then update the review. A quick explanation of how unethical they are and click the set as rouge button resulting in a great rouge listing with anchor links from my network. This plays out very well and most casinos I have there rank very well. See a complete list of closed or just crappy casinos here http://www.allfreechips.com/casino_g...e-casinos.html

[casinog]

No has mentioned that bookie and casino aff programs can terminate you whenever they want. All you can do is have a good relationship with the affiliate manager regardless of the terms. Getting to know aff managers on a business and personal level is key.

Some of us dont have time to be on first name terms with Aff managers, we have muliple websites in different category promoting 500+ programs. There's simply not enough hours in the day.

[slotplayer]

Its so wrong on so many levels it isn't funny. Integrity breeds loyalty.