This does not add up

Even though I no longer promote ap and ub, I still get the newsletters from them. So today I get this newsletter outlining the "new and improved" pay schedule.

This part has me baffled:

Quote:

---

Charge backs — amount of deposit the players has charged back. For example: If the player deposited $100, the player does a charge back on $100, the affiliate will be deducted $100.

---

Now, if a player deposits $100 you are not paid $100 commission, you are paid a revenue share of rake generated. Right? So why should an affiliate be charged the full $100? Should the affiliate not be charged back whatever revenues they earned from the player? Am I right or is this the correct "New Math" for affiliate programs? Just does not make any sense to me.

I am curious to what you all think.

Quote:

---

Should the affiliate not be charged back whatever revenues they earned from the player?

---

You are correct and this is how chargebacks have been applied to my affiliate accounts when I have had the misfortune of having them.

In the past there have been plenty of programs who have considered the affiliate is to blame for bringing in a player who charges back. Since they place all the fault on us for bringing in the player some have decided to make affys responsible for the entire chargeback.

Im sure they mean a % and not the actualt $100 in full. By that I mean this.

They deposit $100 - you earn $25

They reverse it - You lose the $25 you earned.

You will find the majority of terms consider the affiliate responsible for the whole amount.

This is down right disgusting imo.

Basically means that you take the chance on the players recruited for 25% and the room the rest, however, any dodgy players and the affiliate is responsible for the whole risk!

well for 25% read - whatever percent you are on.

Paul

You are correct in your first point normally the whole amount will be taken from the affiliate some programs even hav eit with the T&cs that they will roll it over.....

To be honest in just over 2 years i have not charge back to an affiliate, of course charge backs happen it the nature of the business, at my previous company we had loads so when i joined NordicBet i expected it to be the same but my fraud and security team tell me they can count the amount of charge backs they have had since 2002 on two hands, we have pretty strict policys to prevent such tings.

Shaun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaun O'neill

Paul

You are correct in your first point normally the whole amount will be taken from the affiliate some programs even hav eit with the T&cs that they will roll it over.....

To be honest in just over 2 years i have not charge back to an affiliate, of course charge backs happen it the nature of the business, at my previous company we had loads so when i joined NordicBet i expected it to be the same but my fraud and security team tell me they can count the amount of charge backs they have had since 2002 on two hands, we have pretty strict policys to prevent such tings.

Shaun

---

Cannot argue with anything you say Shaun, the point is though it is weighted against the affiliate.

What bothers me is why the affiliate has to stand the total of any chargeback.

the affiliate gets x % of the revenue but has to pay 100% of the fraud.

regular or once in a blue moon its rather unfair

\i know what you mean in some ways i can see both sides of the coin, you share in my profits and my loses so why souldnt you take the hit....

Then the other side of the coin is that you just send the players.....

Its a messy one which i am sure will add at least 300 posts to this thread in the next couple of days.

Shaun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chalkie

Cannot argue with anything you say Shaun, the point is though it is weighted against the affiliate.

What bothers me is why the affiliate has to stand the total of any chargeback.

the affiliate gets x % of the revenue but has to pay 100% of the fraud.

regular or once in a blue moon its rather unfair

---

What is to stop the room having a (phantom) big deposit and chargeback? e.g. affiliate revenue one month is £750 so there is a magic £1000 deposit and instant chargeback, thus the affilate is zeroed out that month?

I will say too that in adult (*cough*) the standard is that the chargeback's negatives are shared between the sponsor and the affiliate in the same proportion as the revenue - and in fact I had assumed (innocent me I guess) that it worked the same way in other verticals.

Ray

Nothing stops a program from doing that just like their is nothing stoping a program removing an affiliate tag, this business works on trust, hence the reason i have never charged back as the affiliates i work with I trust and respect and i dont expect to screwed over. Even though that almost happened this week buts thats another story.....


Shaun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RayUK

What is to stop the room having a (phantom) big deposit and chargeback? e.g. affiliate revenue one month is £750 so there is a magic £1000 deposit and instant chargeback, thus the affilate is zeroed out that month?

I will say too that in adult (*cough*) the standard is that the chargeback's negatives are shared between the sponsor and the affiliate in the same proportion as the revenue - and in fact I had assumed (innocent me I guess) that it worked the same way in other verticals.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pumacat

Im sure they mean a % and not the actualt $100 in full. By that I mean this.

They deposit $100 - you earn $25

They reverse it - You lose the $25 you earned.

---

That would be the "Fair" thing. But that is not the case. The affiliate takes the total chargeback, not the %.

A similar topic came up just recently. I think fraud should be shared as the revenue is shared. At Full tilt and Stars it's like that, they take 20 percent and that's it. Renee made some good points why taking 100% is also reasonable, maybe she will respond here as well and elaborate.

OK it may just be easier to post the thread URL so I will find it and come back and post it...

Personally I can also see both sides of the coin but my main point is this..

I will take Grand Prive and use it as an example because it is the best one I have..

Before I start, I will say that I do not agree with what they have done and I do not condone it at all, but it is a good example:

Why is everyone so pissed at Grand Prive for closing the affiliate program?

Because if you didnt send them the player, they wouldnt have the revenue...

I cannot tell you how many times I read that all over the forums.. It is used for any arguement that it fits... terms changes, the lot.

Don't you think it should work both ways?

If you didn't send the player, we wouldn't have to fit the bill for the chargeback...

And what about the ones who send 2-3 players per month, and sometimes none at all... there is no guarantee that we will make that money back that we have even charged back to your account... which means we would then be paying the WHOLE chargeback...

With programs taking the hit for things like big winners with no negative carryovers, not bundling and all the other stuff, and ones like ours who DO NOT deduct things like processing fees, progressive jackpot fees etc... dont you think it should work both ways?

In saying all of this, where possible I try to only deduct what the affiliate has earned from the player as a chargeback, but if an affiliate has thousands of dollars in chargebacks every month (maybe from one or two players, even though they send 100 players in a month), there comes a point where you have to draw the line of profitability...

I said this in that thread, and I'll say it again...

Affiliates are business partners... but either party cannot be a business partner only when it suits them... I think if more emphasis was placed on this alone there would be less programs out there stiffing affiliates...

My 2 cents...

I will find the link and post.
Cheers

Ok and here is the link: http://www.gamblingindustryassociati...ht=chargebacks

Cheers

I can see your argument Renee if the amount taken from the affiliate is the extra fees from the chargeback, but you appear to be (in this scenario, not you personally) charging the affiliate for all the money 'charged back' . I have no idea what extra fees the billing/merchant account/CC provider charges you, but take for an example that it is 20% on top. Thus:

Player deposits £1000, changes his/her mind and charges back the £1000. The sponsor is then down £200 on that (the extra chargeback fees) but takes £1200 from the affiliate. The affiliate would have got whatever revshare percentage from the £1000 that they are on, e.g. £350 if at 35%. So the difference here, £850, is profit from the affiliate to the sponsor programme.

*If* that is how it works then the sponsor is making a profit from the affiliate for each of these chargebacks. If that isn't how it works then I don't understand how it works, and am in need of enlightening!

PS this is different from the scamming 'phantom' chargeback thing I mentioned above as it applies to genuine chargebacks.

On your example I 100% agree with you.

I believe that if the player doesn't spend the money there is no reason the affiliate should be charged. This is the reason why I try where possible to only deduct the amount made by the affiliate, not the total chargeback..

I can't remember what the fees are that we pay for the chargeback...

Yes I agree that it is a different case if the player has played, won, withdrawn and *then* (3 months later or something) charges back their original deposit.

I can also see the case where the extra fees for the chargeback could end up being taken from affiliate earnings - especially if there is a no negative carry over.

What is fair is if the risk and reward are balanced between the two partners (the sponsor and the affiliate) although that can be tricky to work out sometimes - and can lead to differences in interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkyt

In the past there have been plenty of programs who have considered the affiliate is to blame for bringing in a player who charges back. Since they place all the fault on us for bringing in the player some have decided to make affys responsible for the entire chargeback.

---

It's not surprising that some sponsors seem to attract more scamming affiliates - maybe they learn by example. :)

Just as an fyi, this thread is active on Digital point. Note the use of PreyPal, the scammers payment system.

Quote:

---

Adult Signups

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am selling adult signups that require a creditcard, i will use blackhat ways so you are aware of that. Price is negotiated and should be sent daily to paypal.
I am also selling email submits.

---

and btw, it isn't me.