Did you hear the one about the new casino from CWC?

[AE-Martyn]

No punchline to this one folks. CWC are soon to launch a new brand to our reputable and profitable portfolio...



I will provide you with more information nearer the time, we are currently undergoing the final stages of testing before we'll release it.

I urge you though to get on it as I believe this will be be a winner from day 1!

If you have any special requirements please get in touch and let me know so that we can have them in place ready for the off. It's all about the planning!

Cheers,

[TheGooner]

Martyn,

What I'd want to know is what makes it different from the other CWC casinos? Why make existing customers go through the rigamarole of signing up again - why not simply migrate this "winner" into the existing channels?

IS it different software?
Is it new software?

You must have tens of thousands of customers already online and depositing - why not put it on an existing platform and offer it to them ?

[AE-Martyn]

Martyn,

What I'd want to know is what makes it different from the other CWC casinos? Why make existing customers go through the rigamarole of signing up again - why not simply migrate this "winner" into the existing channels?

IS it different software?
Is it new software?

You must have tens of thousands of customers already online and depositing - why not put it on an existing platform and offer it to them ?

Mr Gooner sir, the new casino will have a whole new look and feel about it and the way users navigate both the site and the lobby.

The target audience will be slightly different also than the likes of our other casinos.

The bonus offer will also be different to any of the others we have.

It's still running RTG so accepts US customers and not only does it give our players choice but it also presents you as an affiliate with greater choice from a trusted partner and to earn more as a result.

Players also like a choice.

My question is, why not just have 1 casino per software provider?

Surely when a player signs up to 1 RTG (or other software provider) casino they are doing the same thing they would be doing by signing up to another. All about choice right?

We give the player a choice and it's up to them if they want to take it up.

[TheGooner]

My question is, why not just have 1 casino per software provider?

Surely when a player signs up to 1 RTG (or other software provider) casino they are doing the same thing they would be doing by signing up to another. All about choice right?

We give the player a choice and it's up to them if they want to take it up.

Your question is right - but the answer is weak and doesn't hold an argument.


The reason that there will be more than one RTG - is because there will be hundreds of operators trying to earn a slice of the pie.

I thought that CWCAffiliates was set-up to market a single operators group of casinos - have I got this right? If so it makes no sense to compete against yourself and dilute your brand.

When Ferrari release a new car - it's still a Ferrari
When McDonald open a new restuarant - it's a McDonalds
And when Sony have a new TV - you bet it's a Sony.

But .. if this Manhattan Slots is owned by someone else - and CWC affiliates is simply the marketing arm for that new owner - then it makes sense (from the new owners perspective at least).

IS that the case?
Totally seperate operation and start-up?

[Webzcas]

Gooner I think you are missing the point here with respect.

Take a brand such as the Gaming Club for instance. It is as old as old can be in terms of online casinos. Therefore there is not much mileage or room for affiliates to make decent conversions on promoting it.

By launching a new brand, the casino group in question in this case Club World, can cross market to their existing player base, therefore with the potential of revitalising long time dormant accounts.

In addition, affiliates have a new product that they can promote, thus bringing in a fresh player base that the casino has not had as customers before.

It is all about choice.

It makes sense IMO from a marketing perspective to freshen up your brands and add to your portfolio from time to time.

For instance another example, many affiliates run more than one site and over time launch new sites, to keep their portfolio fresh and up to date, with the goal of increasing overall traffic.

So I don't really see what the problem you have with Club World launching a new casino.

[AE-Martyn]

Your question is right - but the answer is weak and doesn't hold an argument.

Good job, as I don't like to argue.

When Ferrari release a new car - it's still a Ferrari
When McDonalds open a new restuarant - it's a McDonalds
And when Sony have a new TV - you bet it's a Sony.

Correct, but Ferrari have a touch of Fiat, McDonalds are a franchise and Sony also use Samsung componants. Even so each make different models, different spec etc.

These are what makes them different. Consider Toyota and Lexus (IS V's Avensis - pretty much the same car just with different features? Why make two cars almost the same? One is cheaper the other is more of an executive/drug dealers car.

But .. if this Manhattan Slots is owned by someone else - and CWC affiliates is simply the marketing arm for that new owner - then it makes sense (from the new owners perspective at least).

IS that the case?
Totally seperate operation and start-up?

No, Manhattan is brought to you by the Club World Group. Like any number of other affiliate companies out there that offer up a choice of casino for both affiliates to promote and players to play at.

As a casino group we are looking to provide the best choice and a different range of casinos for our customers and affiliates. As a trusted group we are providing a safe place for players from all over the world to enjoy their favorite games. At the end of the day Gooner, the choice is yours....

Promote or Don't Promote.

This new casino will attract a different type of player some that wont already be at our other brands. People have a favorite place to play, we are looking to cover all bases.

[arisoftnet]

Well for me Club World Group and CWC Affiliates are one of the best brands on my website as also great convertions. Their new casino brand will happily find a nice spot on my websites!

Am sure for them to descide to realese a new casino brand it must be after a lot of study and a lot of work so this is not just a Spontaneous act!

[TheGooner]

Gents,

The problem I have is on the lack of focus being given to the existing brand, where development and promotion is aimed at the new channel only.

I want to have half a dozen of the best brands generating x,xxx each per month - not a vast selection of old fashioned, lessor technology, lacklustre and less promoted products that sit on the shelf or generate a few hundred dollars each.

If Manhattan Slots is now the CWC Affiliate program flagship and going to get the bells and whistles promotions - then the time and effort that I've put into raising the profile of the other CWC brands becomes worth far less going forward.

Now I have to choose between Club World/USA and Manhattan Slots, and whether to switch, or whether to continue to promote any at all.

In terms of brand awareness and marketing, I don't see any upside, or any leverage on the "Club World" brand, simply a "start again" approach.

(I had a similar rant in my head when 32Red decided that Dash Casino would be a great idea two years back ... so it's not just you Martyn ... it's the weird dilution of brand that confuses me)

----------------------------
SUMMARY :

I guess I'm saying if you don't think that your existing casino brands are still worth developing ... then what am I doing still promoting them?

I don't see how diversion of innovation to Manhattan Slots is positive for any of the other brands in your stable?

I think I prefer brands that stick to their product the Bet365, Ladbrokes, Bodog, Paddy Power, even Doyles Room and Doyles Casino as their new initiatives are immediately available to ALL of my player base there without having to convince the players to signup all over again!

[Webzcas]

Many affiliate programs have several casinos. Referback , Fortune Affiliates and Brightshare.

Why don't they cull all their casinos and only concentrate on one brand each?

You like myself operate more than one portal, why not get rid of your other portals and just focus on your main site. That is what you are basically supporting.

The sole purpose of launching a new brand, is to increase traffic and in turn increase your overall player base. I don't see why existing brands have to suffer as a result by doing so.

[greedygirl]

Gents,

The problem I have is on the lack of focus being given to the existing brand, where development and promotion is aimed at the new channel only.

Sorry, but where's the evidence that the focus will shift from existing brands? On the contrary, if you look back over CWC's history. While Club World was the original brand, CWC has brought additional great brands onboard (successfully). In this, the Club World brand has never been swept to the corner in an effort to promote the newer brands--why would anyone expect this to be the case with the latest CWC offering?

Steve Wynn (my hero!) has built a phenomenal portfolio of properties. While the Wynn Hotel may be the flagship, Belaggio, TI and Mirage have certainly not fallen off anyone's radar.

Just a bit of food for thought.

[TheGooner]

I'm not aware of the ownership structures of the affiliate programs that you've mentioned and all the brands they promote - I don't work with them - so I can't comment on those specifics.

But yes I am advocating that each owner should have a single skin for each platform (RTG, micro, rival whatever) ... as starting multiple skins just dilutes the developemnt focus and the brand ....

(and also sets up the option to "rort" players by cross selling to new casinos without affiliate links)

An owner with several skins probably has several weak brands.

Take Rewards Affiliates - who at last count have about 16 casinos through takeovers, mergers and acquisitions. I know that some of this is quite historical and given the bad feelings affilaites have about mapping during migrations in the past ... I can perhaps understand why they simply keep them running.

But all told - all 16 Rewards Affiliate brands probably earn us x,xxx per month, about the same as a single major UK/European brand does each month.

I certainly do not see 16 vibrant competing casinos being promoted and offering competion. I see a lot of dead ducks and 3-4 good properties still being developed.

-----

Now, if the affiliate program are offering generic affiliate management services in their own right and offer their management services to multiple casino owners then that is just the market reacting to a scaled affiliate management service - so that's a different kettle of fish.

In reality that is one casino per owner, simply affiliate managed together a la Income Access.

[Webzcas]

I'm not aware of the ownership structures of the affiliate programs that you've mentioned and all the brands they promote - I don't work with them - so I can't comment on those specifics.

Well they are ultimately owned by the same company. ie Carmen Media are responsible for and own the brands marketed by Referback for instance.

I think we have to agree to completely disagree Gooner

BTW if you want to get rid of your other portals, I'll willingly take them off your hands LOL

[greedygirl]

Oy vay.

I'll try this another way...

Player: Has a bad run of luck and vows never to return to the casino.

Operator: Has another brand available.

Player: Tries different brand (owned by same operator as the brand the player had the bad luck at). Player has a great session and now is a 'hooked' player.

--or--

Player: Has a bad run of luck and vows never to return to the casino.

Operator: Has only the one brand.

Player: Moves on to another operator's brand, entirely.

---------

I dunno. Sounds pretty bad for the operator with only one brand, if you ask me.

I just don't get why having greater options is such a bad thing IF you are have a host of brands and a great staff behind those brands (as CWC has proven, time and time again).

[AE-Martyn]

Gents,

The problem I have is on the lack of focus being given to the existing brand, where development and promotion is aimed at the new channel only.

I want to have half a dozen of the best brands generating x,xxx each per month - not a vast selection of old fashioned, lessor technology, lacklustre and less promoted products that sit on the shelf or generate a few hundred dollars each.

There will be no lack of focus with the current brands that we can promise. You will be seeing changes and upgrades going on for all brands as currently happens. We introduced some new aspects to our casinos when we re-launched Aladdin's Gold, such as the 1 click claim for the signup offer and the messaging system. These proved to be a success and we then rolled them out to all our brands following a testing and review period.

The focus is well and truly focussed. (the boss would have it no other way!)

If Manhattan Slots is now the CWC Affiliate program flagship and going to get the bells and whistles promotions - then the time and effort that I've put into raising the profile of the other CWC brands becomes worth far less going forward.

Who said it's going to be the flagship brand? Club World would be the flagship as it was our first brand and strongest brand. The launch of Manhattan will only add to the quality casinos that we produce and provide a greater choice for the affiliate and the player.

Granted, Manhattan Slots will take a chunk of the limelight at first, but after the initial peak it will start to tail off and settle into its natural rhythm.

Now I have to choose between Club World/USA and Manhattan Slots, and whether to switch, or whether to continue to promote any at all.

Why? What about our other brands, Aladdin's Gold and Lucky Red?

Your current USA section offers 4 casinos right now, one of which is Club USA, why not offer your visitors more choice from a trusted program?

In terms of brand awareness and marketing, I don't see any upside, or any leverage on the "Club World" brand, simply a "start again" approach.

If we were dumping our other brands I would probably agree with you, but thats not the case. We are simply adding a great new brand to a great portfolio. In doing so I believe that that also firms up the trust from players and affiliates when they find out who is behind the casinos. So in terms of brand awareness and marketing it will cover it all.

SUMMARY :

I guess I'm saying if you don't think that your existing casino brands are still worth developing ... then what am I doing still promoting them?

I think you misunderstand the actual point here. Nowhere have I mentioned that we wont be developing our existing brands. Not sure where you got this from?

I don't see how diversion of innovation to Manhattan Slots is positive for any of the other brands in your stable?

To be fair, you dont have to see that as long as you know that it converts. However as I mentioned above, adding to our portfolio brings players not only to the new casino but to others as players either know our group or find out that we are a group of casinos, it's no secret.

I think I prefer brands that stick to their product the Bet365, Ladbrokes, Bodog, Paddy Power, even Doyles Room and Doyles Casino as their new initiatives are immediately available to ALL of my player base there without having to convince the players to signup all over again!

Naturally, being predominantly sports this is a given as sports punters will most likely trust the brands they know over ones they through betting with them, so you will get the crossover.

Wherever you send your traffic, they are going to have to signup anyway. So whether you send them to another one of our brands or a sportsbook brand then they will still have to complete the signup form.

I think you either have your wires crossed here or you are missing the point as to the benefit of increasing our portfolio to both you and the players. We wont be taking the focus of our other casinos just strengthening what we currently have on offer.

[TheGooner]

BTW if you want to get rid of your other portals, I'll willingly take them off your hands LOL

I don't do mini-sites Webzcas so no keyword portals to drop - it's simply be a choice of trying to spot which of the CW casinos will be focused on and which will wither away.

As Martyn said it's a choice of promote or nor promote - where as if it has been within the existing brands we'd have no decision - existing players would be included - and automatically affiliates would be getting the benefit of any new innovations that come out of this "development".

If the negatives to the affiliate income stream of this spilt approach are not clear to you mate - then you're right we will have to disagree.

[AE-Martyn]

But yes I am advocating that each owner should have a single skin for each platform (RTG, micro, rival whatever) ... as starting multiple skins just dilutes the developemnt focus and the brand ....

(and also sets up the option to "rort" players by cross selling to new casinos without affiliate links)

Each owner has 1 skin per platform? Really??

Regards to the cross selling. We do this, and I am proud to say we do it. Reason being is that we include the affiliate link of the affiliate that referred the player in the first place. Affiliates will notice that even if they dont promote all our brands, just one say, they will start seeing stats if their players look to try a new casino from our cross marketing mailers.

it's simply be a choice of trying to spot which of the CW casinos will be focused on and which will wither away.

As Martyn said it's a choice of promote or nor promote - where as if it has been within the existing brands we'd have no decision - existing players would be included - and automatically affiliates would be getting the benefit of any new innovations that come out of this "development".

If the negatives to the affiliate income stream of this spilt approach are not clear to you mate - then you're right we will have to disagree.

None of the brands will wither away or be left behind to rot, its simply not the case. If it was, why has it not happened already as we have 3 brands?

Club USA, Aladdins Gold and Lucky Red.

You have really picked up the ****** end of the stick on this one Gooner.

It's an addition not a replacement. There is a BIG difference.

[Webzcas]

If the negatives to the affiliate income stream of this spilt approach are not clear to you mate - then you're right we will have to disagree.

It is clear to me, but not in the way you see it. Deb has pretty much summed up the situation succinctly.

[TheGooner]

I'll try to spell it out ...

Wherever you send your traffic, they are going to have to signup anyway. So whether you send them to another one of our brands or a sportsbook brand then they will still have to complete the signup form.

OF course this is incorrect. If you had included your innovations and developments in existing casino products then our existing players would have access to them without the "Barrier" of a new signup.

You've spent time and effort on development and testing and chosen to withhold it from existing players/products.

I'm struggling to understand WHY a new casino offering requiring a new signup is a better approach than implementing these developments into existing product with a huge user base? Why choose a new user base of ZERO?

Why have a barrier to use that you don't need?
I don't know of any major brand that would do that?

[GamTrak]

Hey Martyn, I'm excited about the new brand and can't wait to advertise for it!

I have to agree with greedygirl's POV on this one being that I've worked with CWC for a very long time plus it's not good to be a 'one trick' pony in any game. Just my 2 cents.

This thread has gone way past wierd, but what's new?

[arisoftnet]

I'll try to spell it out ...


OF course this is incorrect. If you had included your innovations and developments in existing casino products then our existing players would have access to them without the "Barrier" of a new signup.

You've spent time and effort on development and testing and chosen to withhold it from existing players/products.

I'm struggling to understand WHY a new casino offering requiring a new signup is a better approach than implementing these developments into existing product with a huge user base? Why choose a new user base of ZERO?

Why have a barrier to use that you don't need?
I don't know of any major brand that would do that?

Man for christ's sake Martyn just tried to advert CWC new casino brand and you are eating him ALIVE!!! let the future to descide if is a good brand or not and if u dont like it dont play or dont promote that casino!

We say something in cyprus .... "still the child isnt borned and the parents named him Johnny!"