I am done, outa here

[MichaelCorfman]

Mojo,

A well reasoned plea - but I'm afriad that you are not "following the money".

What we get as affiliates is :
- many "free" conferences from IGB on gambling affiliation
- a "free" active forum from GPWA that specialises in gambling affiliation.

Of course these products are not "free" and need to be paid for by commercial endevour.

Both the GPWA and IGB exist as commericial enterprises, and appear to be both to be mainly focused on growing the raw numbers of affiliates and sponsors following the BIG IS BEST credo.

Affiliate numbers are the eyeballs that make their model work. if IGB can say "we get 2000 affiliates to conferences" then they can charge $$ x 2000 to each of the attending programs. So IGB need large affilaite numbers and large sponsor numbers.

Likewise if the GPWA has 5000 registered members then they can say to new and intending "sponsor" program of course it's worth paying $1000 a month - look at all these affiliates you get an introduction to.

With very little attention currently being paid to affilaite concerns about murky programs it seems that affiliates are little more than a form of currency for these two organsations to use to barter and negotiate a higher fee from sponsor programs.

Of course neither organisation wants to alienate affiliates, so your plea might not fall on deaf ears, but I'm not sure that we will EVER see a change in policy that results in a reduction of these sponsors and the associated revenue stream.

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

Mojo, I'd love to see both organisations take a step back from BIGGEST IS BEST - and actually implement an active ethical or quality regime on sponsors, platform providers and affiliates ...

But it would have to be a concerted change of direction by GPWA and IGB to not automatically chase the highest dollars.

We personally do this on our own affilaite websites - make ethical choices not to include organisations that do not have the highest standards ... so I guess that challenge to IGB and GPWA is can you focus on quality as much as quantity ?

We shall see.

Your argument sounds good, and there is definitely logic to it, but I can state unequivocally is that it does not reflect my thinking or decision making.

Let me start by agreeing that the GPWA is a business in that we have real employees that need to be paid to provide the services offered by the GPWA. Those services do go well beyond operating a forum, although that is certainly one easy-point-out aspect of what the GPWA does.

What we do not have is any investors to answer to - there are no outsiders looking over our shoulders to whom we have financial commitments. We are free to make decisions based on what we think matters without those sorts of external concerns. Which is a good thing, because you are absolutly correct that when there are such concerns it is tempting to focus primarily on short-term financial results as the basis for making decisions.

Personally, I'm a pretty happy camper if I can put food on the table for my family, a roof over our heads, keep our ten-year-old cars running, and have some spending money for the things my family enjoys. Since I am quite able to do that completely independently of the GPWA, what I care about most is building things that those around me appreciate and that they and I can be proud of.

When there is an issue with an affiliate program, my concern is not with preserving sponsor revenue from the program. I have made, and will continue to make, decisions to terminate sponsorships when I think that is the right thing to do. To be quite frank, the sponsorship revenue from a few affiliate programs does not matter at all to me compared with the importance to me of acting properly.

What does matter to me in these decisions is acting ethically and responsibly even when that is not the easy path to take. To me that means a variety of things. One important aspect is exposing the concerns of affiliates to one another. Another aspect is to sever relationships with programs when I belive they cannot be trusted to pay affiliates or players.

Let me give an example.

When I became executive director of the GPWA all of the forums about sponsor affiliate programs were in private forums hidden away from most affiliates. I made a decision to try to move that dialogue into public forums, and today that is where almost all such discussions take place. This means that programs that do not do a good job of interacting with affiliates and do not respond appropriately have that exposed as a public record for all affiliates to see. This change was very deliberate on my part, and is an example of putting the interest of affiliates well ahead of any consideration of cultivating sponsorship revenue by providing a more sheltered environment.

We've actually taken this concept of the GPWA being a platform for what the affiliate community says further. We've provided forums for Andy at AGD to publish all of his findings, and we've put the AGD ratings for individual programs on our sponsor page. And when the GAU was started we did the same thing for them too. We've also added links to current forum posts from a sponsor's forums to the sponsor page. And then we have taken all of this a step further by creating the website iGamingAffiliatePrograms.com that lists all affiliate programs we know about, independently of whether they are sponsor programs, again showing links to forum discussions and AGD ratings.

But, the reason this thread was started is because questions are raised from time to time about specific affiliate programs and whether they should be allowed to remain sponsor programs. And there are definitely times that programs should not be allowed to remain sponsor programs.

More specifically, this specific thread was started, at least in part, because of the question of whether Star Partners should be allowed to continue to remain a sponsor. I've stated in the Star Partner's forum, I think quite clearly, the requirements for them to remain a sponsor (which are to answer the outstanding questions and to abide by the GPWA code of conduct). If there is not a satisfactory resolution of issues raised in that forum their sponsorship will be terminated. Simple as that.

While I believe that broad discussions are helpful, the fact of the matter is that specific issues with specific programs have to resolved on a case-by-case basis. If there is an issue with a specific program that you do not feel has been properly resolved in an acceptable timeframe, there is also a forum especially to bring focus to such issues.

If anyone does not feel the situation is reasonable with respect to a specific program, you are also invited to pm me about the specific program or to start a thread on that specific topic in the private forums and to bring the thread to my attention in addition to just posting in the sponsor's forum. I do pay attention to such requests, and pay particular attention to requests from private members of the GPWA.

Michael

[GCG]

But, the reason this thread was started is because questions are raised from time to time about specific affiliate programs and whether they should be allowed to remain sponsor programs. And there are definitely times that programs should not be allowed to remain sponsor programs.

More specifically, this specific thread was started, at least in part, because of the question of whether Star Partners should be allowed to continue to remain a sponsor. I've stated in the Star Partner's forum, I think quite clearly, the requirements for them to remain a sponsor (which are to answer the outstanding questions and to abide by the GPWA code of conduct). If there is not a satisfactory resolution of issues raised in that forum their sponsorship will be terminated. Simple as that.

I think this is just the other way around, if you see so many posts not being addressed properly one should suspend the program sponsorship asap for the time-being to prevent others from doing the same.

Besides that new affiliates assume it is ok to signup and find out those problems later and probably will not thank you for that.

There should also be a warning for affiliate programs that have a quota rule in their T&C. Starpartner as a matter of fact recently announced that.

A red flag (warning) next to the sponsor would be a start to warn affiliates that this program has important issues that have not been solved yet.

It is not just about the intention to do something - it is about doing something about it - and being in control of an important portal that does act swiftly and accordingly.

[alexpratt]

you'll still be doing business with firms like 888, Sportingbet and Casinoblasters.

This is kind of my point - Sorry if I am missing something but I have met and know many affiliates that massively value these programs, both big and small ....Actually off the top of my head one example is OLBG.co.uk a hugely respected UK sportsbetting affiliate portal was praising SportingBet just the other day on a thread on CAP

Why are these programs considered rogue to you ? If there isn't specific reasons then what can I do?

I have actually had one PM from an affiliate re a program exhibiting at BAC and although too late for Buda they are a repeat client of ours so I will put some pressure on them for LAC and see if I can open up some intelligent dialogue

[mojo]

I realize that the most recent posts are addressing both the IGB and GPWA. I do hope it can continue because the issues are very similar. I beleive that if the IGB and GPWA work together to address this, there is nothing that can't be accomplished.

Surprisingly I agree with everything you say and I actually don't think we have ever had rogues exhibit or sponsor at an event - few points in relation to that before you comment -

• We have had the likes of TwoLinx and Gamingang that went bust and didn't pay affiliates but we couldn't have predicted that and on the same note we didn't get paid either - GamingGang for example owe us well over £10,000 which is a lot of money to our company (margins are not as good as you think when you have bought lunch for the 2,000 affiliates!)
• There is a difference between rogue and "predatory" - What I mean by this is that some affiliates feel some programs are "bad" and shouldn't exhibit, but other affiliates will say this is rubbish and that the probram is brilliant. We actually went through this last year in the forums so at EIG I actually sat down with Casinomeister and had communication with both AGD and GPWA about how to deal with this but the end result was you can't police these types as there is no right answer. We did though in the end put "AGD approved" logos in the delegate guide on companies that had their t&C's approved
• Companies buy stands 3-6 months in advance and we have a 8 page contract that goes with that so if a program suddenly makes a serious retrospective t&c change a month before the event making them v bad as a program contractually we can't just dump them but would do for the following event.

The only clear answer I can see is when a company is properly rogue, i.e Grand Prive who have asked to work with us on a few occasions and we have flat out said no - We would equally do this with any other dodgy program but we need to see actual proof they are genuinely rogue not just a handful of affiliates that say " they are stealing players" "they didn't pay me", "they are spamming" etc. and on the otehr side there are other afifliates supporting the program. These are all valid questions to raise but we just don't have the resource to properly investigate them and are not set up in this way so we rely on sites like GPWA, CAP, Casinomeister, AGD and industry leaders to help us decide if they are really a genuine rogue program.

Please take a look at the BAC sponsors and let me know who we shouldn't have exhibiting/sponsoring and exactly why and I will do my best to look into your claim and if correct they won't have a presence again until they correct what ever they are doing but this needs to be collective as I say-

I will finish this essay that its of course true that my job is to deliver a bigger profit year on year BUT I am also fully aware that the reason we have grown this business so fast over the last 5 years is through affiliates support and its precisely the reason when we started we made everything free for affilates as opposed to charging which is what everyone else was doing at the time.

Thanks for coming in Alex, the dialog is much appreciated.



It is disappointing yet not surprising to hear this answer that nothing can be done again. Although I admit I am somewhat surprised that CM feels that there is nothing you can do. CM does his part for players in that area as the largest venue for players.

Of course there is a solution. To simply throw up our hands and do nothing is not the community I know and love.

I do appreciate your following up on the AGD seal that we discussed last year and for being open to that suggestion.

Of course there would need to be an overwhelming issue and not just an individual complaint. I believe there is a level of underestimating affiliates that we couldn’t differentiate between normal complaints and those that have severe implications. As arkyt said, we won’t get collective voice. It only need be a majority. I doubt that this would even have to be applied often and only in extreme cases.

Looking to AGD, CM etc is a good start and working closely with GPWA. A collaborate effort but adding affiliates to that list I hope? How does CM know when someone is heading to rougedom? He listens to his market, the players.

The beauty of contracts is that they can be changed and both parties agreeing creates a new contract. Would that be something detrimental to your events to add a good standing clause? Of course the details would have to be defined but it’s a suggestion. Would programs mind that? I am asking because I really don't know and I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything! It was also brought up here that this would cause the sponsor fees to rise. Do you agree that would happen?

I’m sure the good ones wouldn’t have a problem and may even appreciate it. It would be a win-win for your events to reach for a higher standard of ethics that cannot be bought. Waiting for the following event is clearly locking the barn door after the horse has bolted.

As stated just now by Michael:

If there is not a satisfactory resolution of issues raised in that forum their sponsorship will be terminated. Simple as that.

Is that something that may be able to apply to IGB? Something that the IGB and GPWA could collaborate on?

I have seen the term ’uninviting’ at other conference venues and sponsors do get ‘uninvited’ so yes, it can be done. Rather than go to that extreme however, encouraging programs to avoid that unpleasant event is something that could work very well for all parties, except the unscrupulous ones.

The only resources needed is awareness on the forums and a process for the extreme cases.

I am just brainstorming Alex. I admit that there are other variables and I am only asking that due diligence be seriously considered.

[MichaelCorfman]

I think this is just the other way around, if you see so many posts not being addressed properly one should suspend the program sponsorship asap for the time-being to prevent others from doing the same.

Actually, I think in many cases such an approach lets affiliate programs off the hook and works against the interest of affiliates.

Let me try to explain the dynamics and economics of this a bit better. Most GPWA sponsor programs pay for a year of sponsorship in advance. If a sponsor is in violation of the code of conduct we have the right to suspend sponsor services while such a violation is going on without any requirement to refund or otherwise reduce the sponsorship fees. Contractually the sponsorship is continued, but we have no contractual obligation to deliver any services to the sponsor.

Now, if a sponsor is having issues in the forum, nothing could possibly be better for the sponsor than for us to turn the spotlight off for a bit. They are probably losing far more potential affiliates than they are gaining while that is going on. Of course, leaving them as a listed sponsor also causes problems for the GPWA, because an affiliate who does not think a particular organization should be allowed to be a sponsor often gets angry at us too.

So, why don't we just pull the plug on sponsor benefits sooner? Two reasons. First, I think there is an issue of fair play with affiliate programs, and a process we need to follow with them that takes some time. But, just as important, during the period of time when an affiliate is unhappy with a program, and they are listed, the affiliate is likely to let their unhappiness be known more strongly in the forums.

Now, this second part is not great for me or anyone involved in managing the GPWA, because it also tends to translate into unhappiness with the GPWA. And that is no fun for me or my staff, because, believe me, we all want folks to be happy with the GPWA.

But the escallation of comments and criticisms that arise in this process are also sometimes what are required for a program to learn and move in a better direction, as painful as the process is. Behind the scenes it means that sometimes programs can see and learn for themselves, and sometimes we can better explain to a program the dynamics of what matters to affiliates. And in today's tough economic climate, sometimes it helps to see consequences clearly to be able to reach a concensus to do the right thing. It is not uncommon for the affiliate manager to understand and be fighting for the right things from near the beginning, but for the process of their obtaining agreement from upper management to take time.

We deliberately let this process go on when we are in communication with a program and believe the folks we are working with are trying to make the right thing happen and believe they might succeed.

There can, of course, come a point in time where it is clear a program is not trying to learn from its mistakes, and when that is the case and when the mistakes are serious, then little is accomplished, and we sever relationships from our side.

Michael

[mojo]

So, why don't we just pull the plug on sponsor benefits sooner? Two reasons. First, I think there is an issue of fair play with affiliate programs, and a process we need to follow with them that takes some time. But, just as important, during the period of time when an affiliate is unhappy with a program, and they are listed, the affiliate is likely to let their unhappiness be known more strongly in the forums.

Michael

I agree there are different ways to look at this. I think sometimes what happens is that the upset affiliate is also the recipient of anger for being aggresive. What is forgotton is that the affiliate is the same as every other factor of the industry in earning and the pursuit of happiness.

When these things happen, the programs are actually removing income from the affiliate that trickles down to his family. I really feel this is forgotten in the midst of the controversy.

Let's take the cross marketing. Affiliates are absolutly being robbed. What usually happens?

The program comes in and says sorry, we fired that employee. Or, sorry, we'll never do it again. Then life goes on. But what about the affilaite loss? It is ignored.

Many feel the current methods are simply not aggresive enough and it is actually damaging affiliates and thus their families.

I think that there is a feeling that there is room for improvement and requesting we update and reform. Fair play for both affiliates and programs puts us all in a better place.

[MichaelCorfman]

Because this thread touches on policy issues, I've been the one responding, but in parallel with my responding I have received an e-mail or two from others. In particular Anthony, who devotes a great deal of time to working on resolving issue that are brought up in the forum sent me an e-mail in response to the following quote:

It is not just about the intention to do something - it is about doing something about it - and being in control of an important portal that does act swiftly and accordingly.

With Anthony's permission, I'm quoting below exactly what he e-mailed to me because I think it is important to understand how the process around dealing with issues raised in the forums feels to members of the GPWA staff:

When there is a complaint in the forum we do act.

Some of these issues that come up the affiliate manager does not have the authority to change company policy or fix it on the spot. Discussions have to go on at higher levels and we do our best to let the program know it is in their best interests to make it right.

Like it or not communication and effecting change does takes some time.

Every issue we have solved, every term and condition we have changed has taken a lot of discussion and work. Unfortunately some programs have taken longer than others to make decisions.

To criticize us for doing what it takes to resolve issues, really is not fair.

What I know is that Anthony does more behind the scenes than most folks understand, and I for one really appreciate the work he does. As much as we would all like dealing with these issues to be easy, they are not. And, unfortunately, the more stressful the general economic environment, and the longer the period of stress goes on, the greater the number of issues and the harder they are to resolve fast in a positive fashion. Issues that an affiliate manager might have been able to get quickly agreed are not always as easy today. That is just what happens in a harsh economic environement.

In terms of critism and whether it is felt to be fair or not by members of my staff, I have a simple view: we cannot be concerned with whether we think it is fair or not, Criticisms of the GPWA are there for us to listen to, learn from, and use to move forward to a better place. Even though criticisms are rarely pleasant, they do help get issues out on the table, and that is a first step in getting issues resolved. Even when criticism is not felt to be 100% correct it usually helps explain an issue when listened to carefully, even if the issue is partly a misunderstanding that needs to be addressed.

Anthony knows he can feel completely free telling me whether he thinks something is fair or not. But he also knows that such a criticism in public contradicts the way I want the GPWA to interact with its members. But, here I thought there was value in GPWA members understanding how Anthony feels, and that he is passionate about trying to do a good job addressing issues raised about programs.

I believe we are all on the same side here, and I for one am committed to doing as good a job as possible. And I know Anthony and the other members of the staff here are as well.

And I know I can count on the members of the GPWA to keep us on our toes. That's good for us.

Michael

[joeyl]

This is kind of my point - Sorry if I am missing something but I have met and know many affiliates that massively value these programs, both big and small ....Actually off the top of my head one example is OLBG.co.uk a hugely respected UK sportsbetting affiliate portal was praising SportingBet just the other day on a thread on CAP

Why are these programs considered rogue to you ? If there isn't specific reasons then what can I do?

I have actually had one PM from an affiliate re a program exhibiting at BAC and although too late for Buda they are a repeat client of ours so I will put some pressure on them for LAC and see if I can open up some intelligent dialogue

Probably, and I'm surmising, for the same reasons CM does'nt advertise 888, and the golden palace crew.

Anyway, face to face, this convo might take an hour. Online here, that's a quarter of tooing and froeing. Let's not. I can't say it all again.

Have a look at partypoker's history then. Right back when called iglobalmedia. You would'nt want them guys mowing your lawn.

Today's rogue could be floating tomorrow Alex.

What can we do?

cheers

[MichaelCorfman]

Many feel the current methods are simply not aggresive enough and it is actually damaging affiliates and thus their families.

I think that there is a feeling that there is room for improvement and requesting we update and reform. Fair play for both affiliates and programs puts us all in a better place.

I think there is always room for improvement, and I am generally an advocate for change whenever a clear path to a better place can be painted.

In terms of damaging affiliates and thus their families, I think that just about every affiliate organization does make things better than they would otherwise be for affiliates, so I don't think the organizations damage affiliates or their families.

The question is how can these organization help even more to create an environment where affiliates and the programs they partner with can prosper. If I personally saw a clear and easy path to a better place, it would probably already be done here at the GPWA.

One of the issues is that more aggressive action (which I will translate to be more effective action, since that is what really matters) depends on a strong concensus by a group that is able to act cohesively in a way that really makes a difference.

That is a challenge with affiliates, who frequently act very independently of one another since by their very nature they are independent businesspeople. To be able to strongly influence with numbers requires a strong concensus backed by the willingness of a lot of folks to abide by the concensus.

To be blunt about it, my view is that the job of having all affiliate programs act the way affiliates would like in all respects is very hard because of the lack of unity affiliates demonstrate for some of the things they would like.

Fortunately, there is a degree of unity, and that makes progress possible in many cases where there are issues, although it also means it can take more time than folks would like - sometimes a lot more time.

But, except in a limited number of cases, the unity of affiliates does not rise to a level of solidarity that creates a clear, compelling, and easily understood rationale quickly accepted by everyone within an operator organization that much agree to a resolution of such issues. Unfortunately, when there is a high degree of unity, it frequently occurs because an organization is so out of tune that the situation is hopeless - as in the case of Grand Prive.

So, I think the issue of more effectively reaching positive results boils down to how to organize webmasters as a whole more effectively. I believe that ideas that make a difference on that front can made a difference.

Transparency is definitely part of the equation (I tend to think creating transparency is at the heart of what the GPWA is all about). I've tried to work to increase transparency, since transparency increases the liklihood that potential business partners will act in a way that is effective in the marketplace. It tends to help ensure good behavior is rewarded and bad behavior is punished.

Michael

[mojo]

But, except in a limited number of cases, the unity of affiliates does not rise to a level of solidarity that creates a clear, compelling, and easily understood rationale quickly accepted by everyone within an operator organization that much agree to a resolution of such issues. Unfortunately, when there is a high degree of unity, it frequently occurs because an organization is so out of tune that the situation is hopeless - as in the case of Grand Prive.
Michael

I certainly agree with that. I read somewhere someone likening it to herding cats and that is true. Affiliates can stand some critisism for sure. If there is a call to arms however, we can come together in a wonderful way.

Transparency is a key element that the GPWA holds as a constitutional right. I imagine that some operators don't appreciate that but I give it a standing ovation.

Anthony (whom I adore) tirelessly travels post to post and tackles problems one at a time. If we look in the Euro Parnters thread, just as a small example, Anthony has done a tremendous amount of assisstance. I'm going to go out on a limb and herd the cats for a collective THANK YOU to Anthony for your impossible and I imagine frustrating as hell task well done.

The program comes in and says sorry, we fired that employee. Or, sorry, we'll never do it again. Then life goes on. But what about the affilaite loss? It is ignored.

As predicted, the cross marketing issue has been answered. There is no attempt to retag the aquired acquistions from the campaign back to the original affiliate. Or if that is even possible.

Star Partner will continue on, go to the conference etc and how do we think the affiliate is taking the loss to himself and yes, his family. He has been damaged.

The only reprocussion the programs receive is anger on the forums. That will pass and business as usual but the affiliate will not forget how it made them feel. Questionable programs viewing this may consider that they can do the same and take the risk of getting caught because the end result is nothing that is to serious.

I don't think there is anything more I can say further. It does seem in vain.

I do want to thank you Michael for this venue and all that you do and I think you know I will always be a supporter. I admire the staff and feel priviledged to get to know them a bit.

[arkyt]

That baker sure knows how to talk up a mean cake. Hes one of the best icers a cake has ever known - he always makes the cake look so very pretty. He knows exactly when to use pink or blue piping and always does a fine job determining when to toss on an orange flower or two.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day all the beautiful decorations can't hide the taste that lies beneath the iced facade. After all as in most cases, in this business the customer is always right and if you don't service them, they will eventually figure the hype game out.

[Daera]

Anthony (whom I adore) tirelessly travels post to post and tackles problems one at a time. If we look in the Euro Parnters thread, just as a small example, Anthony has done a tremendous amount of assisstance. I'm going to go out on a limb and herd the cats for a collective THANK YOU to Anthony for your impossible and I imagine frustrating as hell task well done.

Anthony does tackle the problems post by post. I'm really impressed at how much time he spends making sure he is on top of most all the posts, and giving notice to sponsors that aren't responding, etc.,

Thanks Anthony! You do a super job here at GPWA!

[AK]

Your argument sounds good, and there is definitely logic to it, but I can state unequivocally is that it does not reflect my thinking or decision making.

Let me start by agreeing that the GPWA is a business in that we have real employees that need to be paid to provide the services offered by the GPWA. Those services do go well beyond operating a forum, although that is certainly one easy-point-out aspect of what the GPWA does.

What we do not have is any investors to answer to - there are no outsiders looking over our shoulders to whom we have financial commitments. We are free to make decisions based on what we think matters without those sorts of external concerns. Which is a good thing, because you are absolutly correct that when there are such concerns it is tempting to focus primarily on short-term financial results as the basis for making decisions.

Personally, I'm a pretty happy camper if I can put food on the table for my family, a roof over our heads, keep our ten-year-old cars running, and have some spending money for the things my family enjoys. Since I am quite able to do that completely independently of the GPWA, what I care about most is building things that those around me appreciate and that they and I can be proud of.

When there is an issue with an affiliate program, my concern is not with preserving sponsor revenue from the program. I have made, and will continue to make, decisions to terminate sponsorships when I think that is the right thing to do. To be quite frank, the sponsorship revenue from a few affiliate programs does not matter at all to me compared with the importance to me of acting properly.

What does matter to me in these decisions is acting ethically and responsibly even when that is not the easy path to take. To me that means a variety of things. One important aspect is exposing the concerns of affiliates to one another. Another aspect is to sever relationships with programs when I belive they cannot be trusted to pay affiliates or players.

Let me give an example.

When I became executive director of the GPWA all of the forums about sponsor affiliate programs were in private forums hidden away from most affiliates. I made a decision to try to move that dialogue into public forums, and today that is where almost all such discussions take place. This means that programs that do not do a good job of interacting with affiliates and do not respond appropriately have that exposed as a public record for all affiliates to see. This change was very deliberate on my part, and is an example of putting the interest of affiliates well ahead of any consideration of cultivating sponsorship revenue by providing a more sheltered environment.

We've actually taken this concept of the GPWA being a platform for what the affiliate community says further. We've provided forums for Andy at AGD to publish all of his findings, and we've put the AGD ratings for individual programs on our sponsor page. And when the GAU was started we did the same thing for them too. We've also added links to current forum posts from a sponsor's forums to the sponsor page. And then we have taken all of this a step further by creating the website iGamingAffiliatePrograms.com that lists all affiliate programs we know about, independently of whether they are sponsor programs, again showing links to forum discussions and AGD ratings.

But, the reason this thread was started is because questions are raised from time to time about specific affiliate programs and whether they should be allowed to remain sponsor programs. And there are definitely times that programs should not be allowed to remain sponsor programs.

More specifically, this specific thread was started, at least in part, because of the question of whether Star Partners should be allowed to continue to remain a sponsor. I've stated in the Star Partner's forum, I think quite clearly, the requirements for them to remain a sponsor (which are to answer the outstanding questions and to abide by the GPWA code of conduct). If there is not a satisfactory resolution of issues raised in that forum their sponsorship will be terminated. Simple as that.

While I believe that broad discussions are helpful, the fact of the matter is that specific issues with specific programs have to resolved on a case-by-case basis. If there is an issue with a specific program that you do not feel has been properly resolved in an acceptable timeframe, there is also a forum especially to bring focus to such issues.

If anyone does not feel the situation is reasonable with respect to a specific program, you are also invited to pm me about the specific program or to start a thread on that specific topic in the private forums and to bring the thread to my attention in addition to just posting in the sponsor's forum. I do pay attention to such requests, and pay particular attention to requests from private members of the GPWA.

Michael

Are You trying to say You basically live on food stamps Michael? There is nothing wrong with asking for assistance don't get me wrong, but fooling members into thinking your not making serious money on this forum is comical.

We have had this dance before Michael. I'm glad the members are finally realizing something isn't adding up here. Am I getting under your skin and on the borderline questioning your integrity? Probably, but that's how I feel and I'm not going to spin anything. I hope You can respect that.

[MichaelCorfman]

Are You trying to say You basically live on food stamps Michael? There is nothing wrong with asking for assistance don't get me wrong, but fooling members into thinking your not making serious money on this forum is comical.

We have had this dance before Michael. I'm glad the members are finally realizing something isn't adding up here. Am I getting under your skin and on the borderline questioning your integrity? Probably, but that's how I feel and I'm not going to spin anything. I hope You can respect that.

No, I never said anything to imply I'm not able to support myself, but I'm not making my living off of the back of the GPWA either. There is a product that the company my wife and I started 20 years ago created under my guidance in a completely different marketplace before we started Casino City that provides pretty much all the net revenue needed to cover my paycheck. On a personal level, I believe in living in a pleasant but not an extravagent environment. My wife and I bought the house we live in 20 years ago, and I bought a 4-family house 30 years ago that I still own, that provides us with rental income too. We have cars that work but nothing fancy. And all the spending money I need to be happy, which isn't that much (my big treat to myself is buying a couple new blu ray disks each week). So, maintaining our personal lifestyle is not based on a need to extract a lot of money out of the casino city and related businesses we operate today.

We've reinvested pretty much everything we have received in income from sponsors back into the GPWA in the form of salaries for staff that are involved with it. There are, of course, a few other expenses too, but those are relatively small in comparison with the salaries of staff.

You have repeatedly attempted over the years to try to discredit the GPWA by falsely implying that it is some sort of personal cash cow. But that is simply not the way it is operated. And you cannot get under my skin with false accusations. I have pretty thick skin, and I just counter with the truth since I have nothing to hide.

Michael

[AK]

No, I never said anything to imply I'm not able to support myself, but I'm not making my living off of the back of the GPWA either. There is a product that the company my wife and I started 20 years ago created under my guidance in a completely different marketplace before we started Casino City that provides pretty much all the net revenue needed to cover my paycheck. On a personal level, I believe in living in a pleasant but not an extravagent environment. My wife and I bought the house we live in 20 years ago, and I bought a 4-family house 30 years ago that I still own, that provides us with rental income too. We have cars that work but nothing fancy. And all the spending money I need to be happy, which isn't that much (my big treat to myself is buying a couple new blu ray disks each week). So, maintaining our personal lifestyle is not based on a need to extracting a lot of money out of the casino city and related businesses we operate today.

We've reinvested pretty much everything we have received in income from sponsors back into the GPWA in the form of salaries for staff that are involved with it. There are, of course, a few other expenses too, but those are relatively small in comparison with the salaries of staff.

You have repeatedly attempted over the years to try to discredit the GPWA by falsely implying that it is some sort of personal cash cow. But that is simply not the way it is operated. And you cannot get under my skin with false accusations. I have pretty thick skin, and I just counter with the truth since I have nothing to hide.

Michael

"And all the spending money I need to be happy, which isn't that much (my big treat to myself is buying a couple new blu ray disks each week)"

Sounds like my Wife and I.
.
.
.
.
I have nothing against You Michael, I never have. I will probably buy you a drink someday. I just don't like 1/5th of the affiliate programs on here that do nothing but steal from your guest. If your friends with the owners of a company then your answers and responses will be biased. Sorry this is just a fact with anyone in life. If this means You have to lower salary on your team to have a limited set of SOLID affiliate programs so be it. You have always stuck with your guns Michael. That's a good thing, You have always tried to show good merit and draw a picture on how this industry should be. But then some how these rogue programs seem to get added and regularly.

Members at GPWA and myself have asked You to set up a "should we approve" type of program just like what us webmasters had to accomplish to get approved. Some reason this just seems to get pushed to the back burner. One would would think cash is the reason, or possibly your friends with the program?

Michael, when GPWA is selling sponsorships what promotions and statistics do You offer these affiliate programs?

I assume listing websites from US webmasters, and being able to get a sponsor email send out is part of it. This affects us, the webmasters.. Every time You sell a spot here to a rogue program there is a chance them funds came from a rogue affiliate program and from guest from my network. I think we should be at the slightest entitled to some say on who is promoted and who is not. I understand we all have a choice on who we promote or not but new webmasters have no idea who is legit and who is not. They need protected not only from other webmasters but GPWA as well.

Warm Regards

Al

And for the record, I don't care what You spend your money on or how much You make. I care on how You obtain your money and if it's in a reputable way.

[Betpartners]

My issue with the GPWA is not the process when a complaint is issued or how long it takes, i am fully aware of what Anthony does and what goes behind the scenes, i have no complaints there, my concern is the ambiguity between sponsorship and endorsement.

It is ok Michael or anyone explaining the difference and i and most medium to long term members on here know the difference, but for a lot of people when they look at the list of programs on here they take it that these are in fact approved and endorsed by the GPWA, when that is not the case.

I know that there are different icons etc on each sponsor explaining their status, like forum links, AGD seals etc, but i just do not see why a clearly visible link or logo stating these programs are sponsors only and in no way way endorsed by the GPWA, to me that would go someway to clearing up the ambiguity.

And to me this is not a case of the icing sugar looking all nice and the cake tasting like crap, in fact the opposite, the cake actually tastes nice, but some people thought it was a chocolate cake and it turns out it was in fact an orange cake.

Finally, who cares what Michael spends his own money on, up to Michael to spend his own money on dvds or a circus troupe of bearded call girls, really no one else's business as far as i am concerned.

[greedygirl]

Finally, who cares what Michael spends his own money on, up to Michael to spend his own money on dvds or a circus troupe of bearded call girls, really no one else's business as far as i am concerned.

C'mon, already--Michael was stuck in Amsterdam for an extra week, due to the volcanic ash. Can't people just cut him some slack?!?!?!?



Sorry...just couldn't resist.

[Betpartners]

C'mon, already--Michael was stuck in Amsterdam for an extra week, due to the volcanic ash. Can't people just cut him some slack?!?!?!?



Sorry...just couldn't resist.

I was stuck there as well, how do you think i knew

[thepokerkeep]

My issue with the GPWA is not the process when a complaint is issued or how long it takes, i am fully aware of what Anthony does and what goes behind the scenes, i have no complaints there, my concern is the ambiguity between sponsorship and endorsement.

It is ok Michael or anyone explaining the difference and i and most medium to long term members on here know the difference, but for a lot of people when they look at the list of programs on here they take it that these are in fact approved and endorsed by the GPWA, when that is not the case.

I know that there are different icons etc on each sponsor explaining their status, like forum links, AGD seals etc, but i just do not see why a clearly visible link or logo stating these programs are sponsors only and in no way way endorsed by the GPWA, to me that would go someway to clearing up the ambiguity.

And to me this is not a case of the icing sugar looking all nice and the cake tasting like crap, in fact the opposite, the cake actually tastes nice, but some people thought it was a chocolate cake and it turns out it was in fact an orange cake.

Finally, who cares what Michael spends his own money on, up to Michael to spend his own money on dvds or a circus troupe of bearded call girls, really no one else's business as far as i am concerned.

+1

One word comes to mind....
TRANSPARENCY

[bb1web]

I just wanted to connect some dots in case they are not being seen.

Any support of a sponsor which has proven to be affiliate-unfriendly, and by that I mean the non-payers, the cheats and anybody like Grand Prive who have all but signed their name to a statement saying they'd screw over their partners ... is greatly hurtful to every party involved.

As a program gets worse, (because they seldom start out completely unscrupulous) , they lose quality affs, this forces them to cheat their remaining partners further until they reach a point where the only choice is paid media buys and those are only accomplished with the kind of places willing to allow unscrupulous casinos to advertise.

They exist. Therefore every single click that is sent, is an offense against not only the community in general, but even against the website which is sending the clicks. - Because the unscrupulous casino couldn't continue to exist if it didn't have the money to advertise. That money comes in from the unknowing who follow those advertisements. When they don't get paid, it is another black eye on our industry.

....................

Which is why I was very upset with CC when they refused to take down a page about a casino (I can't even remember who it was now) and their reasoning for this was that it was okay because they put up a disclaimer telling people this casino shouldn't be trusted.

My argument back was that I have experience in this area and know for a fact that people searching for that casino will ignore any warnings, no matter how direct, to get to that casino. So by leaving up a link to it. you have helped more than hurt, because while the disclaimer is responsible approached, so must be the facts at hand, which are as I stated. People WILL click thru. The only way to truly protect them, and more importantly the industry (because if they can't appreciate the disclaimer, then that is THEIR problem not ours) is to not link to that casino. Because those people who ignored the disclaimer, are certainly going to be dumb enough to deposit into the casino which would be fine but it comes back to bite the rest of us in the azz.

I believe Mr C when he says his approach is not completely financially motivated, but at same time you cannot help but raise these questions when in as the above scenario, the argument that you want to have a "complete" listing of casinos only makes it look like you're trying to be able to offer something that the others cannot. The others have made a conscious choice to not list that casino. What makes CC more important than any of the rest of us?

Now if you want to know why I give credibility to Ark's questions, that is my reason.

I have never accepted your reasoning for listing that casino, and as is obvious, i can't even remember which unscrupulous casino it was, but I sure remember feeling the above way towards CC.

Doesn't mean I hold grudge, but it does mean I will question motivation and I feel for good reason. That reason being that I never got an acceptable logic for some of its actions in the past.