GPWA Affiliate Program Ratings question

**scottl31** · 3 July 2008, 1:56 pm

Hi,

I'm new here and was wondering about the GPWA rankings of the various affiliate programs. Does the platinum, gold, etc. mean that some programs have better payment histories or reputations and so forth?

Thanks,
Scott

**CityGuard** · 3 July 2008, 2:20 pm

The sponsorship levels are a reflection of the support the programs are providing financially to the association's operations. Although it is often a reflection of the size of the affiliate program, with larger more successful programs being able to support at higher levels.

For information about program payment histories and reputations, I recommend reviewing the program's activity in the forum plus information other members post about them. A lot of this information is in the affiliate program's individual sections and in the private area -- if you're an affiliate/portal webmaster you can apply for free private membership (which includes access to these other forum areas and a range of other benefits). The criteria and application form are available at www.gpwa.org/private_registration.asp.

**ck8795** · 7 July 2008, 4:00 pm

For information about program payment histories and reputations, I recommend reviewing the program's activity in the forum plus information other members post about them.

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-CA</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m

athPr> <m

athFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m

athPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format

ther; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font

inor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font

inor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} </style> <![endif]--> I agree and not to discredit anyone or anything but I think labelling them (which I think is based on the financial amount they contribute) a platinum is misleading or at least it was to me. I assumed that this meant that the programs were the top rooms that affiliates should promote, and which provide a great service to both the player and affiliate. This is not always the case as can be seen by a certain program. I think maybe something on the affiliate program page explaining to people that these are sponsors and not recommendations and affiliates should do their homework prior to joining any program. I really think this would be an asset to new affiliates who don’t understand that these companies are not there on good faith alone...please don’t take offensive to this at all just a suggestion.

**pgaming** · 7 July 2008, 9:30 pm

I think maybe something on the affiliate program page explaining to people that these are sponsors and not recommendations and affiliates should do their homework prior to joining any program.

Kaus,

I could not agree more!

pgaming

**matted** · 7 July 2008, 10:09 pm

There has been a lot of confusion and this question I've seen come up every few months. Clearly, there needs to be some kind of disclaimer that the levels are based on their financial performance.

I do also want to add the question comes up because certain programs have a bad reputation - and a lot of newcomers don't really understand how they can be "platinum" which would indicate they are recommended.

I recognize finances are important, but the integrity issue seems to be what causes the misunderstanding.

**ck8795** · 7 July 2008, 11:51 pm

Exactly Matt....especially when you read the page which provides the standards that these rooms must meet to get listed. I dont even think I need to mention a particular company since we have all read the countless threads but when you read the page saying they must meet the criteria, then see them as a platnium member assumption would be that that company in particular is as solid as the come...meanwhile some truely solid programs are listed as bronze and I would suggest them to any affiliate because they have kick ass AM's, a great program, no complaints from players or affiliates. And yet an affiliate may not go that far down the list because they are seen as bronze ( three levels below the others) Just a bit confusing...and understandably the company needs to run as a business as well but you could also get some more subaffiliates for these other rooms if it was explained better

**TheGooner** · 8 July 2008, 12:48 am

Agreed.

Some of the "sponsors" on this site are on my "never touch with a bargepole" list - and the confusion created by this prominantly displayed list is so obvious it must be deliberate.

This isn't a go at the good folk at GPWA and CasinoCity, I take my hat off to most of the good work you do ...

... but that "sponsorship" list mixes the fair and trustworthy sites up the the real rogues.

**scottl31** · 8 July 2008, 12:58 am

Hi all,
I guess I've opened a can of worms with this one.

Although I had started writing to affiliate managers directly to ask questions (and thereby doing research), I thought that if the metallic rating system was an indicator, I could save some time. Especially since the ones I was interested in were in the platinum category.

I'm really glad I asked. Thanks everybody. It just goes to show that there are no shortcuts.

Scott

**pgaming** · 8 July 2008, 9:28 pm

but that "sponsorship" list mixes the fair and trustworthy sites up the the real rogues.

Suppose it could be worse programs could be certified. Define certified now there's a challenge!

pgaming

**scottl31** · 8 July 2008, 10:30 pm

Is there any point in asking which are the ones to stay away from, or should I just find out the hard way?

Thanks,
Scott

**ck8795** · 8 July 2008, 10:50 pm

What I used to do is search the company name and affiliates or company name and complaints but do all in searches so for example

http://www.google.com/search?q=inter...rch&hl=en&sa=2

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ts&btnG=Search

and go on from theer then when you find a topic look on the forum for up to date information. Remember to take everything you read with a grain of salt because some people post for the sake of posting. But the way I look at it is, if people who have been in this industry for ages are complaining about not getting paid or their players not getting paid then I have my guard up. Just read as much as you can and ask questions.

Also look for posts from affiliates commending programs to. There are some amazing AMs out there who will help you

**pgaming** · 8 July 2008, 10:53 pm

Hey Scott,

I will admit not knowing every non-reputable program out there but can list a few. I won’t bother giving any explanation because the roguish nature is well documented.

In order of priority:

1. Cpays (almost all Playtech driven casinos)
2. 888.com (including all casinos powered by 888.com software)

Believe me they have earned every roguish point against them.

There is more but I am confident most senior affiliates would agree with this shot list.

pgaming

**TheGooner** · 8 July 2008, 11:49 pm

Originally Posted by pgaming

In order of priority (for avoidance) :

1. Cpays (almost all Playtech driven casinos)
2. 888.com (including all casinos powered by 888.com software)

Believe me they have earned every roguish point against them.

Like the man says - avoid at all costs

I also don't like EuroPartners - who were so bad a while back that they changed the company name in order to try and make a clean sheet - but its the same old same old.

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

On the positive side - and lets do that ... I do work the following outfits that I find straight-up, good performance and fair to deal with :

Reward Affiliates
Brightshare
Bet365
PaddyPartners
Income Access
CommissionKing
Canbet affiliates
Betfred

All good reliable programs - that may work for your site depending on who you are targetting and what the demographics of your visitors are.

There are other good ones in there too - but I can't personally recommend them as I haven't used them.

**AE-Martyn** · 9 July 2008, 3:38 am

Originally Posted by pgaming

In order of priority:

1. Cpays (almost all Playtech driven casinos)
2. 888.com (including all casinos powered by 888.com software)

Mmmm, I can see what you are saying with this list but with regard to point 1 this can be very misleading, especially to new affiliates. You need to specify which are Cpays casinos rather than just say almost all. I have worked for a couple of Playtech casinos and also fell into a heated debate at a conference with regard to us being owned and run by Cpays. THis was not correct but in light of their shady past it reflects on all Playtech licencees negatively. I am not longer at a Playtech casino mind. Cpays have a network of sites some I know, some I don't and this was purely down to a bit of research and working with them.

The sites I am aware of under the Playtech web:

Cpays (obviously)
Web Route Services/Blackpool Bingo
Adgency
EuroPartners? not 100% on this one though.

Plus a large number of affiliate sites that look to get massive monthly tennancy deal with the prospect of massive ammounts of players being delivered. I know some affiliates have sold their sites to Cpays and have regretted it but business is business and sometimes this has to be done.

Playtech account managers push their clients to go for the services of a company they "work with" called Adgency, these guys will make you a MILLION DOLLARS in 6 months....apparently. Hook up with them and then as if by magic in steps Cpays to take over. I know this as a previous well known UK bookmaker I worked with took steps in bringing in Cpays against my wishes and recommendations...part of the reason I left.

But getting back to classification, there are obviously certain benefits to taking up the various levels of sponsorship within the forum and its down to the particular property to take up what they think is best for them. GPWA do check out the certified casinos some to the like of most some not, but at the end of the day it does provide a choice.

Hope this helps a little?

**ck8795** · 9 July 2008, 8:55 am

Some people I love working with is Affiliate Club < Chris rocks btw

Same goes for Focal Click, Mark is awesome

As for the other casinos I basically went with the majority of what I see written positive about the companies so CWC Affiliates and a few others. Mind you I am just starting in the casino niche (normally in poker) but things have been ok so far,

Good Luck with your site

**mojo** · 9 July 2008, 9:53 am

This has come up many times regarding sponsership. I don't think there is anything wrong with programs sponsering and helping to support the GPWA. The major concern is new affiliates coming in and assuming they are 'recommended' such as what is brought up here.

There was some talk of a rating system by affiliates so that we can rate each program while at the same time keeping the sponsership levels. Whether it be a star rating or number rating, affiliates will have a say on how they feel as a group so new affiliates at least have some idea.

I would like to see something like that. Although it probably sounds simpler than it is.

**AE-Martyn** · 9 July 2008, 10:00 am

The issue you have with that is that other programs can damage anothers by continuenly rating another casino as dog toffee, so in theory its not such a great way of working it.

You can validate it for a single IP etc but how do you stop someone telling their family and friends to click here and this casino is rubbish?

Wouldnt work, plus people have different experiences of each casino.

And Chris does Rock, that guy is a Leg End!

**mojo** · 9 July 2008, 10:11 am

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

The issue you have with that is that other programs can damage anothers by continuenly rating another casino as dog toffee, so in theory its not such a great way of working it.

You can validate it for a single IP etc but how do you stop someone telling their family and friends to click here and this casino is rubbish?

Yes, good point Martyn. However, one of the advantages of the GPWA is that there is a private membership. Since only private members can see the sponsered forums, it would make sense that they be the ones to vote. It probably shouldn't be out there for the public. At least that's how I would see it. It could even be a seal holders only voting system if there is concerns. I would have a lot of faith in the private members to accurately give a general consensus.

**AE-Martyn** · 9 July 2008, 10:31 am

Touché!

Good point.

Thread: GPWA Affiliate Program Ratings question

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

GPWA Affiliate Program Ratings question

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CityGuard For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to ck8795 For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to matted For This Useful Post:

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ck8795 For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to pgaming For This Useful Post:

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TheGooner For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to AE-Martyn For This Useful Post:

Posting Permissions