Is that a yes or a no?
Printable View
Is that a yes or a no?
I am going to contact Sara directly so I can better understand how this term works and how it impacts affiliates based on the various commission models.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sara-lapalingo
That is skating around an answer. Please answer the question directly, I just want to make sure I understand the situation correctly. This policy is taking money back from affiliates citing a "humanitarian issue" of sorts. IF the casino is also giving the entire money back to the player, then at least your program's heart is in the right place (regardless of whether I believe this policy is right or wrong).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sara-lapalingo
If the casino is keeping the money but taking the CPA back from the affiliates, then the program is simply stealing from the affiliate and doing so in the name of humanity.
As such, please confirm one way or the other whether the casino keeps money lost from players who have self-excluded within thirty days.
Hi guys, please find the info from our t&c always accessible to anyone anytime:§ 2 Absatz 20 und 21In case of blocked/closed/excluded accounts or if the player cannot log into his account for any reason, the player can contact Rabbit Entertainment on info@lapalingo.com to recover his funds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple7
Players can close their account at any time by sending an email to info@lapalingo.com. The balance remaining in the account will be made available for withdrawal. This withdrawal will be conditional upon establishing the Player’s identity and producing the documents required in these General Terms and Conditions.
https://www.lapalingo.com/en/terms-and-conditions
The question was: will they get their deposit back, not if they can claim any outstanding money back. Sorry but it seems just a lot of bla-bla to avoid answering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sara-lapalingo
Let's make it simple:
Player X deposits € 1k at 1-11, € 1k at 2-11 and € 1 at 3-11. After that € 50 at 29-11. He loses all. At 30-11 he asks self-exclusion. The player was sent by affiliate Y, who has a CPA-deal with Lapalingo of € 200 CPA.
Result:
Affiliate loses his € 200 CPA.
Will Lapalingo pay back the € 3.050 to the player. Yes or no?
Dear Triple7,please noteQuote:
Originally Posted by Triple7
as advised above "The balance remaining in the account will be made available for withdrawal" the money he has in his account will be available for withdrawal.
@triple7, I would take it as no. Casino €3000 euro up affiliate €0
really interesting!
1. They kick your players after one year from your account, nice term for the house!
2. Now they steal the money with a new pseudo term of self-excluded players, but this is the risk if you give your affiliates hybrid or cpa deals.
3. Sara answer not one question, only alot of words without content
What is your point to promote a brand like this?
Hi Everyone,
I realized that this topic is confusing many of you.
So let me explicitly go into details. This modification to our terms is for 2 main reasons.
1) To filter fishy traffic from bad affiliates who try to scam and send fraudulent traffic (sending their friends to deposit 10€ to trigger 200€ CPA) and the simply to self-exclude themselves, which is not a serious partnership Lapalingo wants
2) when the gambling addicted players targeted by eventually dodgy affiliates and risk put at risk. As mentioned many times we do protect our players and work with serious organizations to enhance the safe gambling at Lapalingo. If the player is depositing, wagering and then realizes he wants to be excluded, we will immediately exclude him/her upon which the available money in his/her account can be withdrawn.
Bottom line no dodgy traffic will be allowed at Lapalingo, hence the upset comments as the niche for those is being shut and our traffic is more regulated now. No serious affiliate was concerned by this modification furthermore support this dicision.
I find the tone of voice of Lapalingo's affiliate management very denigrating. Is the affiliate staff manned by human beings or just by content-producing and point-ignoring bots?
There's no confusing at all here and no need to suggest that question-askers would be idiots that are not getting the point, bad, dodgy, not serious affiliates or even scammers.
I've asked a question. Two answers possible:
[ ] Yes, we give the player back his € 3.050.
[ ] No, we don't give the player back his € 3.050.
Just mark the right one. Very simple and not confusing at all.
But fishy rules are, OK ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sara-lapalingo
I'm just removing Lopalingo from 4 Pages...
Btw,Triple7 we all know,the player dont get the money back...
Please take few minutes time and read all the responses above!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple7
I will take it as "No, we don't give the player his deposits back. We were just looking for some opportunities to cut some costs and gave it a "responsible gaming" sauce".
Lapalingo is one for the list to not do any business with. It seems that responding simple questions is asking too much of them and that they're just interested in trolling.
So then we can agree the program is not depriving affiliates of CPA due to any sort of humanitarian efforts. Instead, the program is deciding to keep 100% of the funds lost by the players in these cases rather than give the affiliate their fair cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sara-lapalingo
Thank you for your participation in this discussion.
If there are any particular/ spesific questions regarding this matter, which havent been explained, discussed and detailed elaborated, please feel free to contact me directly and we can look into any individual cases if there will be any as the rules are straight forward and transparent.
You're acting as if the answers to the questions we've posed are clear (they are not). We are looking for specific insight as to just how socially responsible this policy truly is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sara-lapalingo
Specifically and directly I ask, if affiliates are getting their cpa recaptured if a player excludes within thirty days of sign up, is the casino keeping the losses or are they returning the money the player lost prior to self-excluding to the player?
Hi Sara,
you might be a nice person, but this confusing style of communication ...
After reading all this, my head is aching as the result of a melancholic fever.
From my understanding and feeling, the main point obviously is this here:
"sending their friends to deposit 10€ to trigger 200€ CPA"
I agree, that this behavior by some criminal rent boys in this industry must be stopped by all available means.
But in your case it's only legal and possible if you have as a casino no financial benefit from a player who ordered a self-exclusion within the first 30 days [with your new self-exclusion exit-term as a result of that behavior?].
Again: If the true reason is, that some scapegraces "sending their friends to deposit 10€ to trigger 200€ CPA", then continue in your communication this main point without writing wishy-washy like "Thank you for your participation in this discussion. If there are any particular/ spesific questions regarding this matter, which havent been explained, discussed and detailed elaborated, please feel free to contact me directly and we can look into any individual cases if there will be any as the rules are straight forward and transparent."
Sometimes less is more and being straight is better.
Leopold
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.
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!!!!
I do take on board though about cpa fraud which is on the rise where they just trigger the cpa and the player is never seen again or self excludes so there does seem to be some need for protection. Maybe the cpa amount should be the trigger level before deeming it a fraudulent player.