Deductions and Transparency

I think Deductions are becoming an easy way for operators to cut affiliate commission. There is a complete LACK of transparency in most programms on what is being deducted (even the big ones) and in most cases we have deductions that are so heavy that basically cut the whole commission or most of it.

I think is time for the community to put pressure on operators to clarify this point and show exactly on the affiliate system what they are deducting and why. Alternatively the Revshare element just doesn't make sense anymore.

Thanks

I would love to see a breakdown of exactly how Revenue, Net revenue, Commission were calculated each month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voids

I would love to see a breakdown of exactly how Revenue, Net revenue, Commission were calculated each month.

---

Completely agree, we're seeing deductions as high as 28% in addition to deducting any bonuses. Completely understand there are costs that bookmakers need to take into account so all we are asking for is transparency on these deductions. I.e. what is the 28% made up if it's not bonuses?

I agree - It would be good to make everything transparent. However, i don't believe you will get much of a lobby from this forum! Operators will be reluctant to change their ways, because it's they who have control of the purse strings. While most suggest revenue share is the best for both parties, it's not the case anymore! I think you will find it's the long time established affiliates who wish to keep things on the RS, even though they can see the changing environment!

In god we trust - others pay cash!!

Some comments on the same subject on this recent thread that may be of interest to you: https://www.gpwa.org/forum/affiliate...ng-229461.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syndicate

I agree - It would be good to make everything transparent. However, i don't believe you will get much of a lobby from this forum! Operators will be reluctant to change their ways, because it's they who have control of the purse strings. While most suggest revenue share is the best for both parties, it's not the case anymore! I think you will find it's the long time established affiliates who wish to keep things on the RS, even though they can see the changing environment!

In god we trust - others pay cash!!

---

I agree however this is now happening so frequently and also it is so obvious when we require an understanding of what those deductions are. Deductions are just increasing without control and we are not even told what those are (ie. traditional marketing costs being add into it)? We never get any transparency which in my view is completely unacceptable. They are just creaming commission from affiliates. It is fine if this is what they want to do but if this is the case they need to be transparent. If not it will go against those programms who are actually not making deductions or at least they are transparent.

28%? you are lucky.. now the norm is hide the dpeosit amount then tell affiliate comms is calculated on net revenue whilst hiding gross.. from what i am seeing there are quite a few affiliates ending up with 10-12% real value even when running at 40%.. it's a disgrace and now common place, hopefully more trustworthy programs will see this as an in to gain extra affiliates and offer a fairer deal..

I think is about time of naming and shaming.

This forum should provide a place where we can show anonymous screenshots of the different programms and calculations YTD and start scoring programms in this way. This is a much bigger issue than delayed payments. They might pay on time but what this matter if you get your commission reduced by 50-60-70% or more??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wonderpunter

28%? you are lucky.. now the norm is hide the dpeosit amount then tell affiliate comms is calculated on net revenue whilst hiding gross.. from what i am seeing there are quite a few affiliates ending up with 10-12% real value even when running at 40%.. it's a disgrace and now common place, hopefully more trustworthy programs will see this as an in to gain extra affiliates and offer a fairer deal..

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bettingspin

I agree however this is now happening so frequently and also it is so obvious when we require an understanding of what those deductions are. Deductions are just increasing without control and we are not even told what those are (ie. traditional marketing costs being add into it)? We never get any transparency which in my view is completely unacceptable. They are just creaming commission from affiliates. It is fine if this is what they want to do but if this is the case they need to be transparent. If not it will go against those programms who are actually not making deductions or at least they are transparent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bettingspin

I think is about time of naming and shaming.

This forum should provide a place where we can show anonymous screenshots of the different programms and calculations YTD and start scoring programms in this way. This is a much bigger issue than delayed payments. They might pay on time but what this matter if you get your commission reduced by 50-60-70% or more??

---

I've been following these threads for some time, so I guess since you've said you want to name and shame I will take this opportunity to say that our program is one of the ones that does not deduct this random admin fee. Nor do we deduct royalties, progressive fees, transaction fees etc. The only thing we deduct is the bonus (from gross, not net, so you're being paid commission on real money only) and the affiliate's percentage of tax in regulated markets (in the UK an aff will be liable for their commission percentage of the tax, eg 35% * the 15% tax - on £100 that ends up being ~£5.25). Of course if there are chargebacks they will be deducted too, but only the affiliate's share plus any raw cost involved in the transaction. That is a rare occurrence though. We have a very good risk team.

So if you're sending a player from Canada for example who loses $100 of their own money, you're making up to 40% of that $100.

It does confuse me a little when I get emails from affiliates saying that another program gives them 60% commission and we only give them 35% for example, but our 35% on the same player would return a higher commission than that on 60%, and the affiliate still chooses to send the traffic to the other program. It is what it is though I guess.

This thread is actually a continuation of the thread that golfbettingsystem mentioned in post #5. There is a lot of valuable information in the other thread. Maybe an admin could merge these threads?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by casaffiliate

This thread is actually a continuation of the thread that golfbettingsystem mentioned in post #5. There is a lot of valuable information in the other thread. Maybe an admin could merge these threads?

---

I agree.

It would be good in my opinion if all programms will display information on deductions like Renee has done for transparency. Failing to answer or display information on such heavy deductions raise serious concerns on the quality of the programms himself...where most likely deductions are just being used to cut affiliate costs hoping that affiliates will not raise anything.

Wow, so many hidden details... As an operator, in the very beginning we were offered to calculate affiliate commissions with the following formula:

Affiliate commission = NGR * %
NGR = GrossRevenue - Bonuses - Expenses

Expenses are really the most interesting part here. Operators can add VAT, software costs or even deposit costs to so-called expenses, it's true.

I find it sick. We have removed 'Expenses' from our formula, forever. And we also show GGR, NGR, signups and deposits to affiliates, there is nothing to hide here. It should be win-win situation for everyone, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sportster_Alex

Wow, so many hidden details... As an operator, in the very beginning we were offered to calculate affiliate commissions with the following formula:

Affiliate commission = NGR * %
NGR = GrossRevenue - Bonuses - Expenses

Expenses are really the most interesting part here. Operators can add VAT, software costs or even deposit costs to so-called expenses, it's true.

I find it sick. We have removed 'Expenses' from our formula, forever. And we also show GGR, NGR, signups and deposits to affiliates, there is nothing to hide here. It should be win-win situation for everyone, right?

---

Bonuses based on money given to player straight up or bonuses where player has played through won and cashed out? these 100-1000 monopoly money bonuses soon add up

Renee's points is good. The transparency works both ways because we cannot compare programmes on a like for like basis when we have no idea what the calculations are. As far as I can tell it's not uncommon for fees to half the commission, such that our hard/drunk negotiations at LAC turn 40% into 20%. At some operators you can take a stab at what is being deducted but at others you have literally no information to run on. It's a joke really. No fees and lower but comparable rates would be far preferable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wonderpunter

Bonuses based on money given to player straight up or bonuses where player has played through won and cashed out? these 100-1000 monopoly money bonuses soon add up

---

Bonus costs are calculated depending on bonus status - expired, used up, cash out, forfeited. If a player successfully cashed out the bonus to the real money account - it's being deducted as the bonus costs. If he loses the real money - it comes back to the GGR. What goes around - comes around. I'm now thinking it would be a great idea to upload the detailed calculations to our website, so it will be transparent and in open access.