Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 70
  1. #41
    Anthony's Avatar
    Anthony is offline Affiliate Services
    Join Date
    June 2003
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    7,064
    Blog Entries
    67
    Thanks
    2,032
    Thanked 3,350 Times in 1,758 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PromoteCasino View Post
    So Anthony, on the above example of a player depositing €3050 loses and then self excludes your understanding according to the terms is that player gets all of his money back?

    If that is the true case it would be extrodinary to say the least. But my understanding if the player has lost the majority of the deposits but still has a balance and self excludes then the balance only would be returned. Which if the player does not have all the money returned then the affiliate should be more than entitled to the cpa.

    Still confused though!!!!
    As I understand it, the balance in the account is paid to the self-excluded player. If the balance is zero then there is no balance to return.
    I am here to help if you have any issues with an affiliate program.
    Become involved in GPWA to truly make the association your own:
    Apply for Private Membership | Apply for the GPWA Seal | Partner with a GPWA Sponsor | Volunteer as a Moderator


  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Anthony For This Useful Post:

    Cash Bonus (17 December 2017), PromoteCasino (17 November 2017), Roulette Zeitung (17 November 2017)

  3. #42
    eenzoo's Avatar
    eenzoo is online now Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2014
    Location
    Bella Italia
    Posts
    1,208
    Thanks
    425
    Thanked 893 Times in 532 Posts

    Default

    Thanks mate ... its incredible how many confusion occurred. It seems they AM´s have no insight of company policy or Sara you should work on you PR/Communication skills ...

    Btw. i send traffic only via 3th party networks on CPA base to Lapalingo. In the end i don't trust them.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to eenzoo For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (17 November 2017), Roulette Zeitung (17 November 2017), Triple7 (17 November 2017)

  5. #43
    Triple7 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2015
    Posts
    2,813
    Thanks
    2,040
    Thanked 2,441 Times in 1,319 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
    I agree, the communication is confusing. Considering how new terms seem to always be detrimental to affiliates, I understand everyone's concerns. So, I did reach out to Sara to get some clarity on this and now I do have a better understanding of the term and the reasons it was implemented.

    This is my personal take on this, not an official statement from Lapalingo:

    CPA fraud is an ongoing issue for affiliate programs. Some dodgy CPA affiliates have been sending players that make a deposit, the program pays the CPA, then the player self-excludes and gets their money back. The program takes a loss on the deal. If there is nothing in a programs T&C's that protect them from this action these affiliates will continue to exploit the system. Of course, problem gambling is an issue and it is wise having policies in place that addresses it. But I believe this term is designed to stop this type of CPA fraud and not a way to steal commissions from affiliates.

    I don't think this term will have any significant impact on the average affiliate. If any affiliate has an issue with Lapalingo in regards to the enforcement of the self-exclusion term please contact me directly.

    Programs don't like to publicly address certain things, especially when it comes to fraud. But in this case I believe a clear, simple explanation of the situation, without the PR spin, would have avoided all of the issues created in this thread. If anyone has any questions or would like additional information, please PM me and I will expand on my brief posting.
    Uhmm... before everything was about "responsible gaming" and now it seems to be 'just' something to act against fraud, what also means that CPA will not be paid even if clearly there's not any trace of fraud.

    If a player deposit € 3.050 that's not my cousin who's putting € 10 to get € 100 CPA.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Triple7 For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (17 November 2017), celena (20 November 2017), Roulette Zeitung (17 November 2017)

  7. #44
    Anthony's Avatar
    Anthony is offline Affiliate Services
    Join Date
    June 2003
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    7,064
    Blog Entries
    67
    Thanks
    2,032
    Thanked 3,350 Times in 1,758 Posts

    Default

    The CPA won't be paid if the player self-excludes within 30 days.
    I am here to help if you have any issues with an affiliate program.
    Become involved in GPWA to truly make the association your own:
    Apply for Private Membership | Apply for the GPWA Seal | Partner with a GPWA Sponsor | Volunteer as a Moderator


  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Anthony For This Useful Post:

    Cash Bonus (17 December 2017), Roulette Zeitung (17 November 2017)

  9. #45
    Roulette Zeitung is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,446
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    6,015
    Thanked 6,685 Times in 2,950 Posts

    Default

    I needed now two large cups of hot cocoa with a big mountain of whipped cream to recover from reading all posts in this thread from the beginning to the end.

    My summery and opinion:

    Yes, calling grandma and all ex-girlfriends with the old green GDR rotary-dial telephone and order them to make a 10 Euro deposits to catch $200 CPA for each and every of them, this is bad.

    We all know, that the odds with 3,000+ online casinos on the air, the odds are very low, that a player will make a self-exclusion at Lapalingo, there of all casinos.

    Most players, if they are unlucky, they just change the casino. A self-exclusion is the last step, right before committing suicide or when they have stolen so much money, that they will be put behind bars shortly. Sad, but the truth.

    That means, no one will ever start a self-exclusion with a deposit of 10 Euro, because not even a mentally ill idiot claims, that the loss of 10 or 20 Euro is such a catastrophe, that a self-exclusion is imminent. When people start a self-exclusion, then they have lost more than a fistful of Euros, thousands and thousands, if not more. Before they made a lot of deposits.

    And no player starts a self-exclusion after his first deposit.
    This is simply insane and a for me as an operator a clear sign of CPA fraud.

    So the odds, that a self-exclusion after a first (!!!) deposit is real, are close to Zero.
    This is with high probability a CPA fraud and nothing else.

    My suggestion to Lapalingo:

    Every self-exclusion after a first deposit is a clear signal for CPA fraud, and the CPA should not be paid.

    Every self-exclusion after several deposits within the first 30 days, that in total does not exceed 50 Euro, is also a clear signal for CPA fraud, and the CPA should not be paid.

    Every self-exclusion after deposits with a total of minimum 150 Euro has no consequences for the webmaster. The CPA should be paid.

    This would be fair and balanced ... and it would also be no wishy-washy.

    Leopold

  10. #46
    -Shay- is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2012
    Posts
    3,062
    Thanks
    12,211
    Thanked 3,133 Times in 1,686 Posts

    Default

    I'm not sure I agree with all of that. I do 100% agree that affiliates should not get paid CPA on fraudulent traffic. The proposal you've made, Leopold, essentially puts a 150 Euro, 30 day trigger on the CPA.

    If the intent is to refuse affiliate CPA payment in cases of fraud, that is fine. I'm not sure that self-exclusion should be in the working definition of fraud though. I think it was Renee who mentioned that players unintentionally use self-exclude as a way by which to close their account. If this happens, I could see someone depositing once or twice, deciding "the casino is ****", and pushing the self-exclude button intending to close the account but not realizing this is not a proper way to close the account. For me, this comes down to the casino finding a way to not pay out on someone who has not given the casino the opportunity to make back the CPA amount paid but trying to spin it in a socially responsible manner.

    I could see value in a policy that states "if a player charges back within the first 30 days of play, this is considered player fraud and the CPA will be recaptured as a result of the charge back".

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to -Shay- For This Useful Post:

    Renee (19 November 2017), Roulette Zeitung (17 November 2017), Triple7 (17 November 2017)

  12. #47
    Progger's Avatar
    Progger is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,422
    Thanks
    282
    Thanked 931 Times in 584 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Triple7 View Post
    Uhmm... before everything was about "responsible gaming" and now it seems to be 'just' something to act against fraud, what also means that CPA will not be paid even if clearly there's not any trace of fraud.
    How many Players use the "self-excludes option" 2 of 100 ?
    I dont see any reason why the "fraud" player have to use the se option...

    Btw here are 2 ways to reduce the Cpa-Fraud:

    1.Cpa deals only for old affiliates.
    2.Cpa with a Tier system,splitted on 2-3 deposits.

    At the end are booth deals on Lapalingo Rev&Cpa nothing else than a way to shave affiliates...

    Regards
    Last edited by Progger; 17 November 2017 at 3:15 pm.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Progger For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (17 November 2017), Triple7 (17 November 2017)

  14. #48
    Triple7 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2015
    Posts
    2,813
    Thanks
    2,040
    Thanked 2,441 Times in 1,319 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Progger View Post
    How many Players use the "self-excludes option" 2 of 100 ?
    I dont see any reason why the "fraud" player have to use the se option...

    Btw here are 2 ways to reduce the Cpa-Fraud:

    1.Cpa deals only for old affiliates.
    2.Cpa with a Trier system,splitted on 2-3 deposits.

    At the end are booth deals on Lapalingo Rev&Cpa nothing else than a way to shave affiliates...

    Regards
    I don't know exactly how many, but what I've understood from some casino owners and representatives is that's used also by angry players after a bad streak. Especially in the UK.

    But I agree completely with you. A fraud player can deposit just € 10 and stop depositing. There's no need to use the self-exclusion option. Also, Lapalingo can conclude easily that a player depositing (and losing) € 3.000 was not a friend that was depositing some money to get a € 200 CPA.

    To me also the way how they try to sell this action says enough. First, it was for responsible gaming. That was not taken here. It didn't make sense either, as they aren't giving back the deposit. So now it's suddenly against fraud. While it would be more effective to be a bit more selective in who they're giving CPA-deals, giving a higher turnover and the tier-system...

    I also remember they entered here as a sponsor with the announcement that there was no limitation on the time of earning, while shortly after that a good reader found out that it's a year.
    Last edited by Triple7; 17 November 2017 at 3:04 pm.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Triple7 For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (17 November 2017)

  16. #49
    -Shay- is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2012
    Posts
    3,062
    Thanks
    12,211
    Thanked 3,133 Times in 1,686 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Triple7 View Post
    I don't know exactly how many, but what I've understood from some casino owners and representatives is that's used also by angry players after a bad streak. Especially in the UK.

    But I agree completely with you. A fraud player can deposit just € 10 and stop depositing. There's no need to use the self-exclusion option. Also, Lapalingo can conclude easily that a player depositing (and losing) € 3.000 was not a friend that was depositing some money to get a € 200 CPA.

    To me also the way how they try to sell this action says enough. First, it was for responsible gaming. That was not taken here. It didn't make sense either, as they aren't giving back the deposit. So now it's suddenly against fraud. While it would be more effective to be a bit more selective in who they're giving CPA-deals, giving a higher turnover and the tier-system...

    I also remember they entered here as a sponsor with the announcement that there was no limitation on the time of earning, while shortly after that a good reader found out that it's a year.
    They also beat the drums of "years of experience" but were reluctant to disclose their history.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to -Shay- For This Useful Post:

    Roulette Zeitung (20 November 2017), Triple7 (17 November 2017)

  18. #50
    Progger's Avatar
    Progger is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,422
    Thanks
    282
    Thanked 931 Times in 584 Posts

    Default

    https://www.gpwa.org/forum/welcome-l...or-228815.html
    Earnings Time Limited: No

    https://www.lapalingo.com/en/affilia...and-conditions
    The Affiliate Partner receives for each new customer, from the date of registration, a claim on the provision for one year.


    Some months later...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gosu View Post
    Is this 1 year term still active? If so, once again I am almost out of words regarding our "partners"...
    But no answer from Sara...

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Progger For This Useful Post:

    Anthony (20 November 2017), Triple7 (17 November 2017)

  20. #51
    Broadway_Simon is offline Former Affiliate Manager
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 32 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Another case of an operator using regulation to screw affiliates. (Like Sky, Foxy, Sun)

    5-10% of players will self exclude. Some will be because they have gambling problems. Some will be because they have had a bad run. Some will do it accidentally. It's part of the business model. They are also able to open their account again AFTER 6 months. Are lapalingo going to ensure the CPA is then validated?

    SE should have absolutely no impact on whether a CPA is paid or not.

    All this is is Lapalingo lowering their CPA's by 5-10%.

    Quite frankly, it's disgusting. They'd be better taking an honest approach, looking at the self exclude rate and openly reducing CPA and telling affiliates that the ROI has gone down and in order to maintain the relationship this reduction is necessary.

    Using regulation to create an excuse for scrubs is shocking.

  21. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Broadway_Simon For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (17 November 2017), eenzoo (20 November 2017), Roulette Zeitung (14 February 2018), Triple7 (17 November 2017)

  22. #52
    Roulette Zeitung is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,446
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    6,015
    Thanked 6,685 Times in 2,950 Posts

    Default

    "5-10% of players will self exclude."

    But not in one specific casino.
    This is an empiric [and also mathematically] fallacy!
    Think about that when you go to bed today.
    Turn of the TV, ask your wife, she may be silent and then use the darkness as a tool for new horizons.

    Leopold

  23. #53
    Broadway_Simon is offline Former Affiliate Manager
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 32 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roulette Zeitung View Post
    "5-10% of players will self exclude."

    But not in one specific casino.
    This is an empiric [and also mathematically] fallacy!
    Think about that when you go to bed today.
    Turn of the TV, ask your wife, she may be silent and then use the darkness as a tool for new horizons.

    Leopold
    Who works for the casino here bud and has access to the actual facts?

    Ukgc state 2-3% have gambling problem and it's topped up with people who had a bad run and people who inadvertently self exclude.

  24. #54
    Roulette Zeitung is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,446
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    6,015
    Thanked 6,685 Times in 2,950 Posts

    Default

    This case is a textbook example of lack of communication, which ended in a disaster.
    To be fair, the trigger for this disaster are some scallywags who believe, the programs are filled with complete idiots, who do nothing against CPA fraudsters.

    And now, there is a lose-lose situation for both sides, the program and the honest affiliates, because of CPA fraudsters. This is also part of the truth obviously.

    I would have no problem with making all these fraudsters public, with names and everything.
    And I do not believe, if one programs starts this anti-fraud operation, that the honest webmasters will yell against it, because they also suffer under those criminals as you can see with this case.

    You should not only be one-sighted. If there is a group of people, who are milking programs illegaly, then no one should wonder, if there is a reaction. In this case, it was not very professional and very bad communicated, but this does not change the fact, that in this case criminal webmasters are the trigger for all of this and no one else.

    And after observing this industry for decades now, I am highly convinced, that with some exception, round about 30 people maximum, there is something wrong with the people in this industry ... on both sides.

    This insanity scares me and also my wife, my dogs and my cats when I read them posts and stories directly here from the forum.

    So, and now we have had all our opinions, and we will wait for the representative of Lapalingo with a final statement, hopefully no wishy-washy. If it is straight and honest, then I support that, because Sara also deserves the chance to take a breath, right?

    Yes, because she is no Alex, Fernanda, Betway Mobster or an Income Access clown!

    So give her a chance!

    Good night!

    Leopold

  25. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Roulette Zeitung For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (17 November 2017), celena (20 November 2017), PromoteCasino (18 November 2017)

  26. #55
    Sara-lapalingo's Avatar
    Sara-lapalingo is offline Former Affiliate Manager
    Join Date
    July 2017
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    69
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 32 Times in 32 Posts

    Default

    Hi Progger, Triple7 and Shay,
    appologiez for the delayd response.
    Please let me confirm that this is correct, as per our t&cs the player is still tagged to the affiliate for one year, which was communicated in earlier threads!
    Please also note that our affiliates get in touch with us for a customized life time rs set up, which is done upon reevaluation of the affiliate´s traffic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Progger View Post
    https://www.gpwa.org/forum/welcome-l...or-228815.html
    Earnings Time Limited: No

    https://www.lapalingo.com/en/affilia...and-conditions




    Some months later...



    But no answer from Sara...

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to Sara-lapalingo For This Useful Post:

    Cash Bonus (6 January 2018)

  28. #56
    Sara-lapalingo's Avatar
    Sara-lapalingo is offline Former Affiliate Manager
    Join Date
    July 2017
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    69
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 32 Times in 32 Posts

    Default

    Good morning Broadway_Simon,
    thank you for your input.
    Let me once again ensure that we act in transparent and serious manner.
    You would be surprised by the rate of SE within the short period of time is quite high within the industry, hence we take these precautions to protect us from fraudulent behaiviour, all other methods are being implemented too. Also to comment on your question regarding the SE and new sign up after 6 months, we set it up in the system the block so the affected player can´t do this again not after 6 months nor later.
    Quote Originally Posted by Broadway_Simon View Post
    Another case of an operator using regulation to screw affiliates. (Like Sky, Foxy, Sun)

    5-10% of players will self exclude. Some will be because they have gambling problems. Some will be because they have had a bad run. Some will do it accidentally. It's part of the business model. They are also able to open their account again AFTER 6 months. Are lapalingo going to ensure the CPA is then validated?

    SE should have absolutely no impact on whether a CPA is paid or not.

    All this is is Lapalingo lowering their CPA's by 5-10%.

    Quite frankly, it's disgusting. They'd be better taking an honest approach, looking at the self exclude rate and openly reducing CPA and telling affiliates that the ROI has gone down and in order to maintain the relationship this reduction is necessary.

    Using regulation to create an excuse for scrubs is shocking.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to Sara-lapalingo For This Useful Post:

    Cash Bonus (6 January 2018)

  30. #57
    Sara-lapalingo's Avatar
    Sara-lapalingo is offline Former Affiliate Manager
    Join Date
    July 2017
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    69
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 32 Times in 32 Posts

    Default

    Good morning Leopold,
    and thank you very much for your supporting words.
    I completely agree that there are way too many dodgy people in this industry and we all fight with the fraud and try to filter this industry. I do work closely with our good partners/affiliates to enhance this and filter the fraudulent affiliates. And yes I have to agree with few of you above that I do give good and generous deals to our affiliates but in the end it is all based on trust and good partnership so if there is anything fraudulent monitored we fight it and stop it.
    In regards to the new regulation, as mentioned in the email and various times in this thread, if you happen to be affected by this new regulation and you are sure that there was nothing fraudulent about your traffic, please contact me and we revise it together, we look closer into the scenario and solve it fairly among all three parties.
    Once again apologies for any confusion caused and thanks to Anthony by helping to clarify this matter.
    Please feel free to contact me directly, you can find my details in my account, and I am sure we can solve any issue commonly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Roulette Zeitung View Post
    This case is a textbook example of lack of communication, which ended in a disaster.
    To be fair, the trigger for this disaster are some scallywags who believe, the programs are filled with complete idiots, who do nothing against CPA fraudsters.

    And now, there is a lose-lose situation for both sides, the program and the honest affiliates, because of CPA fraudsters. This is also part of the truth obviously.

    I would have no problem with making all these fraudsters public, with names and everything.
    And I do not believe, if one programs starts this anti-fraud operation, that the honest webmasters will yell against it, because they also suffer under those criminals as you can see with this case.

    You should not only be one-sighted. If there is a group of people, who are milking programs illegaly, then no one should wonder, if there is a reaction. In this case, it was not very professional and very bad communicated, but this does not change the fact, that in this case criminal webmasters are the trigger for all of this and no one else.

    And after observing this industry for decades now, I am highly convinced, that with some exception, round about 30 people maximum, there is something wrong with the people in this industry ... on both sides.

    This insanity scares me and also my wife, my dogs and my cats when I read them posts and stories directly here from the forum.

    So, and now we have had all our opinions, and we will wait for the representative of Lapalingo with a final statement, hopefully no wishy-washy. If it is straight and honest, then I support that, because Sara also deserves the chance to take a breath, right?

    Yes, because she is no Alex, Fernanda, Betway Mobster or an Income Access clown!

    So give her a chance!

    Good night!

    Leopold

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to Sara-lapalingo For This Useful Post:

    Cash Bonus (6 January 2018)

  32. #58
    Triple7 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2015
    Posts
    2,813
    Thanks
    2,040
    Thanked 2,441 Times in 1,319 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sara-lapalingo View Post
    Please also note that our affiliates get in touch with us for a customized life time rs set up, which is done upon reevaluation of the affiliate´s traffic.
    The communication-style doesn't motivate very much to sign up and get in touch. Also first evaluate the traffic and then decide if RS is a year or longer, is a bit an egg-chicken-story.

  33. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Triple7 For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (20 November 2017), Progger (20 November 2017), PromoteCasino (20 November 2017), Roulette Zeitung (20 November 2017)

  34. #59
    Roulette Zeitung is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,446
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    6,015
    Thanked 6,685 Times in 2,950 Posts

    Default

    I really tried everything to make clear, what a communication champion can do better.
    One chance, two , three ...

    Sorry, but for me it doesn't make sense anymore.
    Now I read something, while scrolling up and down, that the holy grail, the revenue share, is limited to one year and longer only for the better people or something like that?
    Probably I have misread some of the stuff here.
    As you know, I am not the youngest anymore.

    However, my battery is empty in this matter.

    Leopold

  35. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Roulette Zeitung For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (20 November 2017), Cash Bonus (6 January 2018), Triple7 (20 November 2017)

  36. #60
    Progger's Avatar
    Progger is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,422
    Thanks
    282
    Thanked 931 Times in 584 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roulette Zeitung View Post

    Probably I have misread some of the stuff here.

    No, you haven't!.

    Some other brands drop the revshare to 5% or 10%, for inactivity - but lopalingo prefer to shave the whole amount.

    Take care if u join a program,and double care for all gpwa sponsors here...

    Regards

  37. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Progger For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (20 November 2017), Triple7 (20 November 2017)

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •