Gala Partners New T&C

[AndyBonus]

I got this email today from Gala Partners.
-----------------------------------------------------
Hi Andy ,





This email is to notify you that we will be rolling out changes to the
Gala Affiliate Programme Terms and Conditions (" T&Cs "), which will be
effective from 1 May 2016 (the " Effective Date ").


For your reference, the new T&Cs (which will be effective from the
Effective Date) can be viewed here
<http://www.galapartners.co.uk/terms-and-conditions-new/> .



What do I need to do?


The next time you log into your Gala affiliate account either on or
after 1 May 2016, you will be presented with a full version of the new
T&Cs which you will need to read and accept to access your account and
continue participating in the Gala Affiliate Programme.

Here to help


If you have any queries about the new T&Cs, please don't hesitate to
get in touch with us via your usual Account Manager within the Gala
Affiliate Team, or at affiliates@galapartners.co.uk
<mailto:affiliates@galapartners.co.uk> .


Please note that in the meantime and until the Effective Date, the
existing T&Cs will continue to apply and are available and can be
viewed in the usual manner on the footer of the Gala Affiliates site at
http://www.galapartners.co.uk/ <http://www.galapartners.co.uk/> .


Best Wishes,
The Gala Affiliate Team.
--------------------------------------------------

This bit might be the new update?

4.10
Inactive Affiliates. We reserve the right to reduce your Referral Commission to the default Commission Plan if you are inactive (ie do not refer a new Player) for a period of 60 consecutive days. We also reserve the right to reduce your Referral Commission to 10% of Net Revenue for the remainder of the Term.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


This term "Inactive Affiliate" is now being used to describe hard working affiliates who work damn hard to send traffic and cant get new players. Surely an inactive affiliate is someone who no longer sends traffic? Why is it our fault (affiliate) these places don't convert, at least they still get branding, reviews and SEO boosts, and they probably gain a few extra front door sign ups because of us.


Andy

[JackTenSuited]

ugh and another brand in the **** list

[RacingJim]

Disappointing, but I find this one converts quite well and at least it's 'a player' rather than the 5 player quota that Skybet did.

[justbookies]

These shaving terms don't do the operators any favours. For instance, 99% of my traffic is sports but I would be happy to give shelf space to decent standalone bingo operators or casinos. I have been put off from doing this by terms such as the above creeping in. On the one hand you have AMs asking non-stop to be on the site and on the other they slip ****** terms like the one above into the smallprint. What it means is that for my bingo and casino listings I now only put firms whose sports betting operation I am already promoting. Slowly I am removing the standalone brands in anything other than sports. So who loses when I do this - the operators who would otherwise be on the sites if it wasn't for shaving terms such as the above.

Andy, your argument about sending traffic is very valid - these guys are getting branding at the very worst. While they are patting themselves on the back for being so clever in ripping off affiliates, they are actually shooting themselves in the foot.

On the legal side, you can be sure any court would bind affiliates and operators to the terms an affiliate signed up to - certainly not to unilaterally enforced retrospective changes.

[JackTenSuited]

These shaving terms don't do the operators any favours. For instance, 99% of my traffic is sports but I would be happy to give shelf space to decent standalone bingo operators or casinos. I have been put off from doing this by terms such as the above creeping in. On the one hand you have AMs asking non-stop to be on the site and on the other they slip ****** terms like the one above into the smallprint. What it means is that for my bingo and casino listings I now only put firms whose sports betting operation I am already promoting. Slowly I am removing the standalone brands in anything other than sports. So who loses when I do this - the operators who would otherwise be on the sites if it wasn't for shaving terms such as the above.

Andy, your argument about sending traffic is very valid - these guys are getting branding at the very worst. While they are patting themselves on the back for being so clever in ripping off affiliates, they are actually shooting themselves in the foot.

On the legal side, you can be sure any court would bind affiliates and operators to the terms an affiliate signed up to - certainly not to unilaterally enforced retrospective changes.

Also rather than sending quality players that may be worth £1,000s you end up sending bonus hunters just to make your quota.

[TraceyL]

I also got the same email .. sad news

[TheGooner]

Disappointing, but I find this one converts quite well and at least it's 'a player' rather than the 5 player quota that Skybet did.

I found that they converted well in 2004.

Now they're pretty much dropping Europe and ROW markets quickly becoming UK and Ireland only, and are fairly well saturated (at least with my reader base) so that getting clicks and signups is a trickly compared to yesteryear despite our traffic.

It's a weak cash grabbing definition of "inactive" from an affiliate group that can clearly measure both impressions and clicks.
No impressions - no clicks ? OK then the affiliate is inactive.
Impressions and clicks? OK the affiliate is active.

How hard can this be?

[sweetbet]

Another program to blacklist.

[ocreditor]

That's a shame

[universal4]

I have agreed with that definition of active/inactive for years Paul.

And when an affiliate program sees an account that does go inactive, at that point they should reach out for a reasonable time frame, say over the course of a few months to see if the affiliate is ok, needs anything etc before taking any drastic action on the account.

It could be something like Google screwing them up for a time frame, or they got sick or other personal issue that could be temporary etc...

Many of the more honorable understand this and often have internal policies in place to try and accommodate these kinds of situations.

It is a sad and alarming trend that some programs now blame the affiliate when they FAIL TO DO THEIR JOB of converting traffic sent. (issues of fraudulent traffic is not part of this scenario)

Rick
Universal4

[BetsGalore]

I found that they converted well in 2004.

Now they're pretty much dropping Europe and ROW markets quickly becoming UK and Ireland only, and are fairly well saturated (at least with my reader base) so that getting clicks and signups is a trickly compared to yesteryear despite our traffic.

It's a weak cash grabbing definition of "inactive" from an affiliate group that can clearly measure both impressions and clicks.
No impressions - no clicks ? OK then the affiliate is inactive.
Impressions and clicks? OK the affiliate is active.

How hard can this be?

Like most bookies its getting harder to convert but the term "inactive" is starting to make my blood boil.

"No impressions - no clicks ? OK then the affiliate is inactive." completely agree with this

There must be something that affiliates can do to make sure that the agreement that we signed up for is guaranteed.

[ocreditor]

I think that active/inactive status is really not relevant to anything when it comes to affiliates working on rev-share and I do not agree with this term at all! for this you have the tries program and you can implement it and give up the active/inactive status which should be for internal purposes only, Also, this term only pissing everyone off which I personally dont think is doing good or helping the program reaching long term goals.

The term itself reflecting completely the opposite of what the spirit of the partnership should reflect.

If the commission is rev-share based and the program would like to get more traffic they should contact the affiliate and see what it takes to get more traffic...

[casino-bet.net]

Gosh.. Really disappointing. Keep the spirit up man.

[Syndicate]

In an ideal world you could revert to the courts, but most ''terms and conditions'' have waivers saying that they have the right to make changes. It's obviously wrong, and long gone is the day when bookmaking was a honorable profession!

With regards to conversions this month:

Coral Interactive

0

1166

0

0

I've never ever come across a worse converter that Coral. Their betting offer is about as enticing as a day trip to a Leper Colony !!

These shaving terms don't do the operators any favours. For instance, 99% of my traffic is sports but I would be happy to give shelf space to decent standalone bingo operators or casinos. I have been put off from doing this by terms such as the above creeping in. On the one hand you have AMs asking non-stop to be on the site and on the other they slip ****** terms like the one above into the smallprint. What it means is that for my bingo and casino listings I now only put firms whose sports betting operation I am already promoting. Slowly I am removing the standalone brands in anything other than sports. So who loses when I do this - the operators who would otherwise be on the sites if it wasn't for shaving terms such as the above.

Andy, your argument about sending traffic is very valid - these guys are getting branding at the very worst. While they are patting themselves on the back for being so clever in ripping off affiliates, they are actually shooting themselves in the foot.

On the legal side, you can be sure any court would bind affiliates and operators to the terms an affiliate signed up to - certainly not to unilaterally enforced retrospective changes.

[justbookies]

In an ideal world you could revert to the courts, but most ''terms and conditions'' have waivers saying that they have the right to make changes.

Which according to a lawyer I spoke to would be laughed out of court. "By the way we can change this contract anytime we like" lol!

[colin3005]

Which according to a lawyer I spoke to would be laughed out of court. "By the way we can change this contract anytime we like" lol!

I can confirm that too, theres no way that would stand up in court.