Should Vegas Affiliates Casinos be Blacklisted?

[bb1web]

Hi all and thanks for coming in,

If you're not aware ... VA has decided to change their T&Cs to a more predatory version which includes if you're unable to meet their quota (unknown at this time what that might be) ... that you'll (in their intelligence insulting words) .. "enjoy 10% for 1 year's time" ... and then nothing ...

Choosing to change the T&Cs from this point forward is perfectly fine and its the affs choice whether they want to work with a place that would possibly take away your lifetime's commissions ... though I can't imagine any savvy aff ever choosing that ...

But if they choose to do this retro ... and it sounds like that's a real possibility ... should they be blacklisted?



I've added a few options


blacklisted completely

asterisk blacklisted: telling players they didn't honor contracts but forced the other parties into taking their offer however they weren't players so the places may be safe to trust

do nothing because we understand due to the economy they have to make these changes which make NO mention that when the economy gets better that it will go back to old agreement: nor did they ever talk to us about options.

I don't care, I don't believe it effects me since I don't make money with them anyway ... even though we've seen a pattern begin to form ... I don't think any of my major programs will ever do this just because this place gets away with it

[Dominique]

I think we should wait until the change has actually taken place.

So far it hasn't as far as know.... although in conversation I was told it would happen.

[Chalkie]

I would vote if there was an option for blacklisting if they bring in the term

[Engineer]

If they apply the new T&Cs retroactively, I will definitely blacklist them.

[Doolally]

I just don't understand why affiliate programs want to work this way. Help the affiliate and get more traffic. Pi*s a few off and everyone blacklists you.

It doesn't make sense if you want to continue to grow your business!!

[Engineer]

I forgot about this earlier -- VA has already broken the contract because as of June 1, the casinos are bundled. Before the "beta" stats were made the primary stats, a negative balance at one casino would not drag down positive earnings at the other casinos. This is no longer the case. They've already breached the contract, even though the new T&Cs haven't been published yet.

[matted]

The aff programs are not the ones driving the change... it's the greedy casino owners.

If the term is enacted, I'd blacklist them.

But note - I think consistency is important... other programs have enacted similar terms if I remember right.

[TheGooner]

The aff programs are not the ones driving the change... it's the greedy casino owners.

Matted do you have any source or reference to back up that statement?

Perhaps it's just because I think that the term "greedy casino owners" is such a loose one - especially as it's the casino owners and support staff actually gnereating the gaming service and income ... but that statement doesn't seem right to me.

Casinos, will not know (and should not care) whether an affiliate program is producing 1000 players from 1, 10, 100 or 1000 affiliates. They will be paying out the same % share per player to ther program - and are more likely to be focused on the bottom line.

It's affiliate programs that have contact with the affiliates, that can measure the cost of acquisition by affiliate, AND HAVE DOWNSIZED THEIR STAFF. It seems to me that affiliate programs are cost cutting - not casinos.

[pgaming]

A simple smack them down to the rogue pavement. I see other programs with affiliate friendly terms no reason VA should not be in the ball park.

greek39

[universal4]

Casinos, will not know (and should not care) whether an affiliate program is producing 1000 players from 1, 10, 100 or 1000 affiliates. They will be paying out the same % share per player to ther program

I disagree with this to a degree.

The reason is that if in fact a casino gets 1000 players from 1 affiliate, that one affiliate will likely qualify for a higher percentage commission, and therefore the net to them is likely lower than 1000 players coming from 1000 affiliates.

Also, the affiliates that are delivering the 1000 players often demand more from the properties they work with and this will often squeeze the affiliates programs which in turn puts the squeeze on the smaller affiliates.

As far as the VA issue itself, I too have not yet voted since I am waiting to see if the applied pressure will have any effect on their decision to put these terms in place.

I have always been 100% against any terms that hurts the smallest of affiliates. There are tens of thousands of small affiliates that help properties with branding etc and I think it is important for the groups to understand this fully.

Any groups that have any kind of term that rely on quotas of new players will likely NEVER recruit and keep the affiliates that sign a few players a year....why should that affiliate work with those groups. They are better to stay with groups that are completly affiliate friendly and quotas just aren't.

I know many of the larger affiliates have trouble with that statement, but the thousands and thousands of those affiliates that may have sites in other niche's help with branding....and if/when they sign that occassional player, they deserve to get paid their commission since they earned it also.

Rick
Universal4

[arkyt]

The terms suck, but so long as they don't apply them retroactively I could live with them if they were terms readily available to new affiliates and not hidden in small print.

I think Vegas Affiliates have been hurting for awhile and this is another step to keep more in house. I've been gathering substantial evidence of wrong-doing now for nearly a year; I'm just waiting to tie up a few loose ends and then the crap will hit the fan - then again 99.9% here are here (and in this business in general) for themselves and could not care less what happens to others.

Also disagree with the % / #s comments above .... at one time I actually had a very nice percentage plan deal with Vegas Affiliates - of course they stopped honoring it when Pierrick left years ago. It wasnt something everyone was getting.

[bb1web]

Hi again and thanks for the feedback,

If a program is truly hurting ... have even one ever tried just talking to us and having us ... their partners ... perhaps help come up with a strategy that will solve the problem before they automatically jump to screwing their (some very long time) partners?

I don't recall one.

................


If the new terms are done from this point on then nobody should have a problem with this whole issue but from what i have understood ... its going to be retro.

Or it seems they have eluded to this possibility because they sure haven't come out and denied it which I would think would have been the very first thing out of their mouths is this won't effect past contracts.

..............

Also I expect it to be retro because lets face it ... nobody is going to be in a hurry to trap themselves into a quotas situation. Even the biggest of affs must be thinking to themselves that if Vegas were to come on line and suddenly the market is flooded with very respected names that are operating under the Nevada Gaming Commission's watchful eye ... that it is not out of the realm of possibility that new players for these existing casinos are going to be hard to come by ... especially if you're faced with moving the new kids in town to the front of the promotion line ... which I would think would be the thing to do considering the afore mentioned qualities that Vegas will bring with them.

It may not be as big a deal to those that get a ton of traffic from outside the states but to those who have a lot of USA traffic but not so much elsewhere ... yes, this quotas situation could even effect bigger affs.

..........

I agree with what's been said about the wisdom of taking this approach VA is choosing to take but much like all of you .. nothing i can do but perhaps start a thread such as this and HOPE VA gets their minds around how much damage they are going to create if they insist on this being retro.

[matted]

Matted do you have any source or reference to back up that statement?

Nothing specific... Except I've heard countless times from affiliate managers that they can't do anything about this or that because it comes from the casino management.

Many affiliate programs are just "marketing departments" of the larger casino and not entirely separate entities.

[Dominique]

AMs are the buffer between operators and affiliates. They have varying amounts of discretion alotted, depending on the operator.

Some can make next to no decisions, some can make a good amount of decisions, and none are making all the decisions.

When a bad or unpopular decision comes down, AMs have to take the brunt of affiliate anger and try to rescue what they can.

When all is well, it can be a fun job. When times are bad, it can be pretty hellish.

RE. Vegas aff - a bad decision by operators. Instead of reaching out to individual affiliates to increase traffic, they slapped them with a quota. You are forced to alot more traffic or else forget about your player base.

But given this, is it smart for affiliates to increase said player base to give the operators even more power to coerce you to do their bidding?

It's just plain wrong, and it could have been handled much better. No one wants to see an affiliate program fail, and I would have been quite open to increasing traffic.

Now, I can't trust them with my players...

[oc+]

I will not vote yet. If they change, I will remove all from our list.

Casinos and aff programs need to learn that if they p*ss affiliates off it will hit them very hard.