Printable View
Shaun,Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun O'neill
This is not about your company or me. Or your disagreement with me for a year. I'm not going to bite with your goading.
Let's stick to the thread. This is about Star Partners. It's not about you. Sorry. You are trying to promote yourself again. :lol:
Back to the topic please.
Apologies. Awaiting reply from Star Partner.
Mojo
I dont attempt to derail a thread for self promotion we are not a desperate opeartors far from it.
This is a public thread and does not focus on Star Partners it is about poor programs in general.
Shaun
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
Quote:
desperateopeartors
Let's talk later. :)Quote:
baging
I stand corrected, it's not about one program but about many programs.
?????
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
Sorry, but I have to chime in here to disagree. There seems to be different standards for different people/groups. IMO they need to do more than just collect the fees and have some responsibility for who the affiliates are exposed to, but that's just me and I hope that we don't start handing out timeframes on what can be discussed here. :D lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaun O'neill
For example. One affiliate site can be slammed for placing "questionable" sites while others are left completly untouched that promote the exact same brands.
Some industry individuals are called on the carpet for 'mistakes' made etc. and are blasted at some forums while others that are found to be witholding vital information etc. are given a free pass and forgiven without incident.
IMO folks should be allowed to voice opposition to stuff without being called out like you did mojo. I've learned to utilize the [Ignore] button for situations that irk me so that I don't lash out and it's worked pretty well so maybe that will work for others so that we can all just get along! :pray:
That being said you know that I have the utmost respect for you Shaun, but had to just way in.
Robin,Quote:
Originally Posted by GamTrak
Are you calling out Shaun? For what he said to Paula? Just so I understand clearly what is being said?
Because I happen to think that an org of any sort holds some responsibility for the decisions they make. If an affiliate promotes a bad program, where neither they nor their players are paid, they will feel it!
Likewise, if an event planner chooses to accept all money offered to them, regardless of past knowledge, then will have to accept the consequences of their behavior!! ALL MONEY IS NOT GOOD MONEY!!
I think what Robin is saying is that two individuals or orgs or what have you could be doing the same or similar (negitive) practice but only one gets called out. For some strange reason, the other gets a pass. That is how I read that.
Why is that? I think it may be due to popularity. I'm not really sure.
Similar to GPWA being called out for accepting sponser money when conference organizers do the same by also accepting sponser money but are not called out.
Hei Robin
i am fine wityou comments.
I only stated that Mojo has said the same thing for 1 year now, IGB is very differant to the GPWA.
I feel that IGB provides an event service they are in they simple business of filling floor space and getting people to attend but the GPWA on the other hand are as the name states a association for Gambling Portal Webmasters so i feel that the GPWA should offer some kind of safe haven but it's not the case.
Hope you are well.
Shaun
Quote:
Originally Posted by GamTrak
I don't think iGB or Alex views it quite that way. For one thing, I know they care about working with folks that at least have enough integrity to pay them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun O'neill
We do try to have reputable sponsors, and we do reject folks as sponsors ... far more often than people know or appreciate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun O'neill
But there is no such thing as a safe haven, and anyone who thinks that could possibly be the case does not have enough business savvy in my opinion to survive in this business. The reason is that it is simply impossible in a large percentage of cases to really know if an organization that appears to be reputable will prove to be reputable in the future. Sometimes an organization seems good, and even has a reputation built up over a period of time that seems good, but financial strains change matters and even with good intentions promises are broken.
Now, I agree there are questions that have been raised about Star Partners, and those questions need answers, and it is reasonable and good for there to be skeptics among affiliates because skeptics can help root out the truth when it is not obvious. And skeptics also help others realize that there are risks, and it is good for folks to understand that their are risks. It is these reasons, and the fact that this organization is for affiliates to voice their concerns and opinions, that you see in the GPWA forums a freedom to express these opinions that I think everyone has to acknowledge is held sacred in the way the forums are run.
There are folks who would not have us exercise very much patience when a question is raised. But, for better or for worse, that is not my style and it does not match my beliefs. For one thing, I do not believe that cutting off dialogue is good for the community overall, so it is an action I believe is appropriate only when it is clear an organization does not have integrity and does not care to be influenced by the opinions of webmasters.
There are more activities that go on behind the scenes than folks appreciate too. As one very specific example, in the case of Star Partners and the question about cross-promotion, while we don't have a post answering that question yet, there is a post forthcoming. Some of the reason for the delay has been one person being sick, and another is an internal requirement that the answer to a post like that needs to be reviewed to make sure it is both a correct statement and agreed by management.
Michael
Many different sides to this debate and all have valid points but for me some points are quite important and that includes how the GPWA handles its sponsors and the role of IGB when it comes to hosting an event.
I am of the opinion that IGB should vet programs, i am not sure what my opinion was to be honest last year, it may have been different, but since then i have attended two conferences and i now have a firm belief that conferences are very important to affiliates and not carrying out due diligence is being neglectful.
Prior to London i was almost exclusively a sportsbook affiliate and new to casino affiliation, truth be known that when i went to London i could have signed up with any tom dick or harry and not known any different.
As it happens i am a semi regular on here and lurk at CM regular and lurk now and then at CAP, so i do know the good from the bad and would be able to identify, lets call them, questionable programs.
But what about those that don't use GPWA or CM etc, and believe me there are loads that don't that attend these conferences, no conference or exhibition should ever promote any product that is questionable, not just gambling but kitchen appliances, video games, knickers and bloomers, whatever it is, it should as a matter of course be vetted to ensure that those attending an event do so in the knowledge that the product on display is in good standing.
Otherwise you are nothing more than a glorified flea market.
Gamtrak is right, there are double standards, some do get pulled up and some do get free passes, but the reality is, that this goes on in life at all levels, is it right? no, but inconsistency is not just confined to affiliates or programs, it is everywhere we look.
Finally, GPWA, sorry Michael but for so long the GPWA has hidden behind the sponsorship angle, that the GPWA does not endorse programs, they are just sponsors and for so long so many on here have said that is not how it looks and to the average joe on the street that is indeed how it is perceived.
Perception is everything, and rather than constantly beating the drum about the difference between sponsorship and endorsement, it may pay to actually change the perception and thus avoiding this constant questioning of the role that the GPWA itself has in this industry.
Affiliates and programs alike constantly complain about the sponsorship on here and just as much as programs are asked to change their ways when constantly being told about the same thing and the way affiliates are constantly being told to get their house in order and do their own due diligence, then the GPWA should also take its role and responsibility in the industry seriously as well and not try and please all the people all the time.
That said i am fully aware of behind the scenes work and what the GPWA does and on many occasions the GPWA does do good work that some are not aware of and that the GPWA hands are tied on occasions because they are deeply involved in putting wrongs right.
But there is an issue here and it cannot keep being brushed under the carpet.
Frustration, claims, private members being left out in the rain, payment issues, robed traffic ..... and the friendly, but not saying anything, :lalala: answers form aff managers.
I was shocked when I fist come to the GPWA about 2 months ago.
This thread is a good example. It started with people saying activity here is coming to an end ... and ended up into the same type of discussion which maybe made them go.
But what?Quote:
Originally Posted by pgaming
Since I'm here one question is in my mind: Why don't some experienced GPWA private members go together and build up their own affiliate program?
Made from affiliates for affiliates !!
If anybody likes this idea, ping me. I have people close who make programs for less then you think!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCG
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkyt
Quote:
Originally Posted by casinogod
Quote:
Originally Posted by jctroy440
I don’t usually post long posts like this, please forgive me if it’s to long.
Here we are discussing probably the two largest and most influential and powerful affiliate organizations. GPWA and IGB.
GPWA - Michael is absolutely right that free speech is sacred. It wasn’t that long ago that free speech was not allowed. The GPWA with Michael has brought us a long way. He has paved the way in many ways. How many in the industry do you see taking on the DOJ? I know I will never undervalue Mr. C. We still have a ways to go but we have gained. Michael is fair and the type of person I would want on my jury.
Sponsorship is the single most important issue on the GPWA. I do appreciate behind the scenes correspondence is necessary and helpful. There are certain things, of course, that cannot be said in public.
However, I feel the GPWA has this one backwards. Behind the scenes drags on for weeks into months on end with no real incentive (except a few people bitching at the forums) to really fix anything in a timely manner.
I feel the opposite approach of a three strikes your out suspension followed by talks is far more effective. Programs simply have no real incentive to behave with integrity. The program in question continues on sponsorship and ROI and off to conferences to recruit more affs while these seemingly leisurly talks are taking place.
There is apparently no consideration to the affiliates with existing problems while maybe someone went to a wedding, or they are short staffed or who knows what. The affiliate is left feeling abandon and unable to earn a living after turning here for help.
IGB. - What may have worked in the past is no longer viable for the well being of affiliates today. Not to vet programs is negligence at BP pointed out and I agree. We have heard it’s not IGB’s job to police an event. Then I ask, who’s job is it? These are for-profit big money events and IGB owes it to affiliates to give back and help us fight. There has been many arguments why this cannot be done but no voluntary offer of solution.
This should not be to much of a problem for AM’s to have the integrity shown daily by example by programs such as Rewards and CWC with quick response to any query. Andy at AGD is another example of integrity when it comes to approving programs. I believe Alex cares very deeply and strives to achieve excellence.
IGB hierarchy could step up and be a valuable resource for affiliates but by not choosing to do so, what does the IGB stand for and how is it defined? There is a recent article about the top 10 questions for event organizers at the National Law Review.
Quote:
It is important to determine how an organization defines its reputation. It is especially important to see if their self definition matches the definition offered by previous attendees, sponsors & speakers.
Regulation is upon us but it isn’t here yet. There is a lot of talk about the pioneers of the industry paving the way. We are still the pioneers. Today. Right now.
When regulation comes, we can hold our head high that we did all that we could to keep predatory programs away from affiliates and players.
That is why, like it or not, I’ll probably be here next year too, saying the same thing. Or perhaps with regulation, this will all be moot except to refer to as when looking back on the good ole pre-regulation days.
That is why I ask IGB and GPWA for consideration for forum and conference reform.
If you have gotten this far, thank you for listening.
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.
That's exactly what I was saying and I have a log of posts/screenshots that goes back for years to prove it. (Gotta LUV MS OneNote) and once day it will come in handy, but until then I will just keep collecting data. It's popularity, cliques & more. Like BP said it happens in every industry, but when money is involved it gets even more convoluted.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
No one should be given a pass and must be held accountable for their actions because that free pass usually gets taken away if there is enough pushback from those affected.
This thread has twisted around quite a bit - an interesting read:
I think we all forget about the facts of running a business. The bigger the business, the more they tend to turn a blind eye to make a few bucks. I think GPWA does a pretty good job of turning down money when substantiated problems arise. But GPWA is also good about not listening to every gripe individually AND giving programs to learn from mistakes and improve. And they also have drawn a clear line where being unresponsive or changing terms isnt worth being kicked out - but falsifying stats or failure to follow ther own T&C is grounds for removal.
I cant speak for iGB - but I know many in the industry need to put ethics ahead of dollars on some level. I agree with mojo that rogue groups shouldn't be allowed into these meetings (and if they are, affiliate should gang up against them)... but lets face it - how many completely new affiliates go to these meetings?
It's also funny that companies use services like GPWA and iGB to recruit new webmasters... and many of them also implement policies that restrict those same new webmasters. The guys making the big bucks aren't going to just sign up for affiliate program X because they had a booth.
And last - the problem stems from the rev share model as well. If I am making a good amount aff affiliate program X I'm in a pickle. If I stop promoting them, they can essentially blackmail me to promote them more or they'll close my account. Our business is open ended making divorces nearly impossible. Once the player is recruited the hard work has been done and the rest is easy money for the affiliate.
Point well taken Gooner. As usual an accurate assessment. It is a given that the perception is bigger is better and that's where the money is. Another thing I may have overlooked is that the big orgs like IGB and GPWA have employees depending on them for salary adding an extra responsibility to chase the dollar.Quote:
A well reasoned plea - but I'm afriad that you are not "following the money".
Since we are all here for the money, of course no one would begrudge anyone for their pursuit. It is when it enters the grey area and then the black area of sacrificing others in the name of that.
Which is what we have seen happen before Robin. There is only so far affiliates will go when they feel they are becoming the sacrificial lamb. We have seen this with the last large conf/forum company. While that company still benefits from todays conferences, it is extermely difficult to recover from that. Does history repeat itself? If steps to improve are not taken, most likely it will eventually.Quote:
that free pass usually gets taken away if there is enough pushback from those affected.
I had not even thought of that Matt. Good point. Probably the new webmasters are not being made aware by the program at the time. I had asked Star if they would let new sign ups they aquire at conferences know about their (new) 20% quota but I did not get an answer.Quote:
It's also funny that companies use services like GPWA and iGB to recruit new webmasters... and many of them also implement policies that restrict those same new webmasters. The guys making the big bucks aren't going to just sign up for affiliate program X because they had a booth.
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 -
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.
- 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.
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.
I also find the value of this site greatly diminished so I am taking a break and will re-evaluate it in the future. Too bad, this use to be a very useful forum.
Brian
The collective do not agree with each other I'm afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by alexpratt
Mojo's right of course. If her definition of rogue is all encompassing. The truth be told, Mojo's rogue list is shorter than mine, and I'm not for shortening mine anytime soon.
So, you can consult CM, and AGD, plus please Mojo, but you'll still be doing business with firms like 888, Sportingbet and Casinoblasters.
I don't think you can clean up the industry. If you don't work with self policers like Micro, 888, Ecogra, or the unpoliced like Kahnawake, there will be no IGB.
Much obliged to you for your efforts and want, I believe you mean well.
What we need is truth, yes it is that simple. And for some reason I had no idea truth is a currency. Truth helps us do our job better lies, deception, or whatever serves only too hinder us all.
greek39