Member Focus

[-Shay-]

Thank you Shay.
Now I feel better ... if that is at all possible on days like today.

Leopold

No problem. I didn't realize my inbox was full until you mentioned it. Going through my private folder records, it amazes me as to how many issues are still outstanding and/or continuing on today despite being raised over a year ago...

Sponsor-wise, I first raised issues with Income Access about their reporting/tracking over a year ago. Mira Bingo (part of the Income Access Network) still owes a member of this forum a substantial sum (PS - I don't care that they also owe IA... the fact is that IA negotiated a deal with this member and acted on behalf of Mira Bingo and then played victim when approached for payment).

Moving on, Club Gold (still crooks), Winner (still frequently complained about, short paying, skipping payments, spamming...), hacking issue still exists (as does paid sponsorship here at GPWA with programs who do business with hacks)...

Extremely tiring and very sad (pathetic to be exact).

[-Shay-]

In a Stan James thread, I suggested I was going to go on a rant. I'm going to try to keep it short and to the point.

The GPWA leads many to believe that their order of priorities place the member first. The implication is made that the sponsor programs are held to a set of affiliate & member friendly standards. There is also statements that suggest if programs choose not to uphold the written sponsor code of conduct, they can and will be suspended until such time where the program comes back into compliance.

If the above is the case, why does Stan James not have their sponsorship suspended? Why are programs such as Stan James permitted to walk all over the GPWA membership with no recourse?

While GPWA may be helpful behind the scenes, the fact that they continue allowing such behaviour from their sponsors is unacceptable. Quite frankly, by not suspending their sponsorship, it enables this rogue and unethical thievery.

You, GPWA have it within your power to suspend sponsors for not complying with the code of conduct they agreed to when offering up money for sponsorship. They agreed to terms and based on your wording, you imply to your membership that you will police them to ensure compliance.

I call on you to be proactive and begin suspending non-compliant programs to send a message to the entire industry that you only accept programs who act ethically towards their affiliate partners (your members) and that you do in fact put membership over sponsor money.

-shay-

One year ago, I started this thread with the quoted post (above). I wonder, has anything changed...?

[Roulette Zeitung]

"One year ago, I started this thread with the quoted post (above). I wonder, has anything changed...?"

Oh, I am sure, your good reputation because of charity work in the city grew again.
Furthermore, I think that this industry is not what it pretends to be.
It is becoming even clearer.

Leopold

[Triple7]

One year ago, I started this thread with the quoted post (above). I wonder, has anything changed...?

I think nothing changed. But it's not up to just GPWA...

[Jokerman99]

No problem. I didn't realize my inbox was full until you mentioned it. Going through my private folder records, it amazes me as to how many issues are still outstanding and/or continuing on today despite being raised over a year ago...

Sponsor-wise, I first raised issues with Income Access about their reporting/tracking over a year ago. Mira Bingo (part of the Income Access Network) still owes a member of this forum a substantial sum (PS - I don't care that they also owe IA... the fact is that IA negotiated a deal with this member and acted on behalf of Mira Bingo and then played victim when approached for payment).

Moving on, Club Gold (still crooks), Winner (still frequently complained about, short paying, skipping payments, spamming...), hacking issue still exists (as does paid sponsorship here at GPWA with programs who do business with hacks)...

Extremely tiring and very sad (pathetic to be exact).

If they suspend them, how can they get paid the renewal fees?

It's obvious that top of the GPWA list isn't look out for Gambling Portal Webmasters, rather it's look after their own coffers. Some of the sponsor programs here are an absolute disgrace and if the brass behind the GPWA had any moral scruples at all they would tell a number of programs they wern't welcome here. However, money talks.

In fairness to Michael et al, you could say the same about half the affiliates on this site who promote the worst casino brands out there in order to line their own pockets at the expense of the players.

[MichaelCorfman]

I would like to be clear that Stan James did have their sponsorship terminated by us last year due to their interactions with affiliates. They wished to continue to be sponsors, and we refused to renew their sponsorship. We can and do turn away sponsors and the associated revenue when we believe it is appropriate. Certainly some, or even many webmasters, might not draw the line in the exactly the same place we draw it. But in those cases webmasters are free to share the issues they see, as long as it is done in a civil fashion. Personally, I believe GPWA sponsorship benefits a program in proportion to the respect they have within the forum. Lots of respect, lots of benefit, no respect, very negative benefit due to the visibility of negative comments about the program in the forum. As a practical matter, my view is that the fact Stan James remained a sponsor for a while after the initial complaints only served to increase the visibility of their behavior among the affiliate community.

Michael

[Jokerman99]

I personally don't think scam casinos should under any circumstances be allowed to sponsor or advertise on the GPWA. At the end of the day allowing sham operators to freely advertise their brands on the GPWA is condoning the theft of money from players. That is not an association I would want with any of my sites and I'm actually surprised it isn't policed here.

[Triple7]

I agree with you Jokerman. But, a fact is that perhaps half of all affiliates here do promote casino's that shouldn't be sponsor or shouldn't be promoted at all. It would be weird if a program is not allowed to sponsor anymore, but half of the community is still promoting them.

[-Shay-]

I agree with you Jokerman. But, a fact is that perhaps half of all affiliates here do promote casino's that shouldn't be sponsor or shouldn't be promoted at all. It would be weird if a program is not allowed to sponsor anymore, but half of the community is still promoting them.

If this hub and association of gambling portal webmasters were nothing more than a big sheep in the flock, I'd agree. This place should be on the leading edge - directing and protecting. Instead, what I view as a minimalist approach is often taken, turning a blind eye to danger and a deaf ear to warning - acting only when the threat is too loud or too obvious that it cannot possibly be ignored.

This place is nothing without the members and the members are nothing without the players. All these seals and stamps imply accountability and credibility, standards. And yet, there are programs still listed who choose not to pay American affiliates, there are programs with tracking issues, shaving issues, programs doing business with criminal hackers, programs slow-paying/no paying players, changing their terms and conditions, and finding new creative ways to scam/steal - and somehow many of these programs are still sponsors in good standing. To me, it cheapens the seal.

I'm capping my rant as I sit and ponder things.

[Triple7]

If this hub and association of gambling portal webmasters were nothing more than a big sheep in the flock, I'd agree. This place should be on the leading edge - directing and protecting. Instead, what I view as a minimalist approach is often taken, turning a blind eye to danger and a deaf ear to warning - acting only when the threat is too loud or too obvious that it cannot possibly be ignored.

This place is nothing without the members and the members are nothing without the players. All these seals and stamps imply accountability and credibility, standards. And yet, there are programs still listed who choose not to pay American affiliates, there are programs with tracking issues, shaving issues, programs doing business with criminal hackers, programs slow-paying/no paying players, changing their terms and conditions, and finding new creative ways to scam/steal - and somehow many of these programs are still sponsors in good standing. To me, it cheapens the seal.

I'm capping my rant as I sit and ponder things.

Well, I think under the line we agree. Most ideal situation should be that if an online casino / aff. program is an absolute disgrace, it shouldn't be a GPWA-sponsor anymore, it should lose it's GPWA-approval and every affiliate that wants to do his business as legal as possible, would not promote these brands. I think we agree on that.

My point was and is, that's it's also a bit the responsability of affiliates and my conclusion is that most of them don't care. I agree with you that some affiliate programs should not be sponsor anymore, but I also see a responsability for affiliates. I mean, affiliates that complain about illegal issues, spam, non-payments, late payments and no response on questions about payments, do promote those brands... As long as they got paid. To me that's also against the conditions of the seal. Just my 2 cents. See it as an additional point.

[mojo]

As a practical matter, my view is that the fact Stan James remained a sponsor for a while after the initial complaints only served to increase the visibility of their behavior among the affiliate community.

Michael

I have the opposite view. I feel waiting so long to suspend a program that is clearly harming affiliates breeds discontent. Affiliates grow frustrated and then are seen as too aggressive. Sometimes taking a stronger stance is needed. I have learned the wheels of the GPWA turn very slowly sometimes. That's just my opinion and I don't envy GPWA staff. There's no way to please everyone.

I don't have a problem with sponsorship money nor do I judge other affiliates on whom they choose to promote. I'm happy to see GPWA do well and continue to employ a great staff. Maybe a raise or bonus here and there or profit sharing.

I do wish there was a way for affiliates to rate programs to warn others if needed. As it is, it looks like sponsors = quality when that is not always the case. Also if there is a clear and harmful violation that GPWA expedites suspension in a more timely fashion.

[GCG]

Some affiliate programs that work with hackers like Buffalopartners, Iaffiliates, Affactive, Revenuejet have absolutely no respect for the affiliate community who find their hard work (content) being stolen (20-30 words scraped each time not detected by copyscape) mixed with other sites content and republished on 100+ hacked sites.

Both an absolute disgrace and disrespect and outright theft let alone the criminal and illegal activities they are part of.

This industry has seen new lows and don't think google will save your a$$ from these SEO-ed doorway pages.

The hackers want YOU out and to win this game by destroying your sites SERP and they can make no mistake about this.

But don't listen, relax and sit back trust your sites backlinks, reputation and watch your keyword traffic diminish each day.

Better have a backup plan ready just in case your sites will rank nowhere in the SE.

[thebookiesoffers]

I would like to be clear that Stan James did have their sponsorship terminated by us last year due to their interactions with affiliates. They wished to continue to be sponsors, and we refused to renew their sponsorship. We can and do turn away sponsors and the associated revenue when we believe it is appropriate. Certainly some, or even many webmasters, might not draw the line in the exactly the same place we draw it. But in those cases webmasters are free to share the issues they see, as long as it is done in a civil fashion. Personally, I believe GPWA sponsorship benefits a program in proportion to the respect they have within the forum. Lots of respect, lots of benefit, no respect, very negative benefit due to the visibility of negative comments about the program in the forum. As a practical matter, my view is that the fact Stan James remained a sponsor for a while after the initial complaints only served to increase the visibility of their behavior among the affiliate community.

Michael

Permission to laugh out loud please? You didnt terminate them, you didn't renew the deal, completely different things.

Also all my requests went totally ignored, as did most of my PM's to you all. I requested all the info Stan James were supposed to be sharing with you lot be shared with me, nothing happened, you brushed it all under the carpet, hoped it would go away, and quietly waited for the deal with stan james to expire.

And when you say 'remained a sponsor for a while' you mean I brought up something in April 2014 and they were still listed as a sponsor in Jan 2015, hardly clamping down

[GCG]

Permission to laugh out loud please? You didnt terminate them, GPWA didn't renew the deal, brushed it all under the carpet, hoped it would go away, and quietly waited for the deal with stan james to expire.

At least Stan James is gone now.

I wish there was a rogue pit on GPWA for programs that are known for :

a. working with hackers and/or
b. have kept their casinos open but not the affiliate program or
c. intensive investigation by the APCW concludes their tracking is faulty.

Then I do not mind if they wish to be a GPWA sponsor or not.

GPWA does not have to terminate the contract but can point out to sponsor code of conduct why the affiliate program is now in the rogue pit. Once solved they can be white listed again.

Opinions please.

thanks.

[-Shay-]

At least Stan James is gone now.

I wish there was a rogue pit on GPWA for programs that are known for :

a. working with hackers and/or
b. have kept their casinos open but not the affiliate program or
c. intensive investigation by the APCW concludes their tracking is faulty.

Then I do not mind if they wish to be a GPWA sponsor or not.

GPWA does not have to terminate the contract but can point out to sponsor code of conduct why the affiliate program is now in the rogue pit. Once solved they can be white listed again.

Opinions please.

thanks.

There is (kind of). However, the affiliate program warning section is (sadly) buried near the bottom of the forum.

[-Shay-]

I would like to be clear that Stan James did have their sponsorship terminated by us last year due to their interactions with affiliates. They wished to continue to be sponsors, and we refused to renew their sponsorship. We can and do turn away sponsors and the associated revenue when we believe it is appropriate. Certainly some, or even many webmasters, might not draw the line in the exactly the same place we draw it. But in those cases webmasters are free to share the issues they see, as long as it is done in a civil fashion. Personally, I believe GPWA sponsorship benefits a program in proportion to the respect they have within the forum. Lots of respect, lots of benefit, no respect, very negative benefit due to the visibility of negative comments about the program in the forum. As a practical matter, my view is that the fact Stan James remained a sponsor for a while after the initial complaints only served to increase the visibility of their behavior among the affiliate community.

Michael

Letting their contract time out was the "easy way out" in my opinion. Suspending their sponsorship per the GPWA terms and conditions while their sponsorship and contract was alive and kicking with time left - THAT would have created the visibility of their behaviour among the affiliate community we were looking for (and quite frankly deserved).

Also, redirecting their GPWA affiliate program page to something that characterizes their program as trustworthy is insulting to this community. Do not try to tell me you have our back on this matter.

Stan James Affiliates is the affiliate program for StanJames.com, one of the most trusted brands in online betting and gaming, including Sportsbook, Casino, Poker, Games, and Mobile. The affiliate program offers up to 35% revenue share with no negative monthly carryover. Stan James Affiliates provides striking, lively, and up-to-date creative banners and copy for your website; detailed statistics and tracking; excellent conversion and retention rates; and prompt, professional service from their friendly affiliate team. source

An exerpt of the page that GPWA now redirects to - just to clarify my position.

[universal4]

thebookieoffers,

Your pms were NOT ignored by everyone, some of us just didn't control the actions taken.

Rick
Universal4

[Roulette Zeitung]

My prediction is that in 18-20 years all paid forums in this field are completely vanished, also 80% of all existing online casinos and 85% of all programs. One reason is that the governments will not intend to sit and watch the erosion of law and order.
It is my firm conviction that the first moaning in this industry will be: "We have lost Central and Northern Europe!"

Leopold

[thebookiesoffers]

thebookieoffers,

Your pms were NOT ignored by everyone, some of us just didn't control the actions taken.

Rick
Universal4

a simple reply stating that would of been better then, instead of not replying, also known as ignoring

[mojo]

I'm not sure I've ever seen such negativity towards the GPWA in my years here. What exactly do affiliates expect from the GPWA? Surely we cannot expect the GPWA to solve the gambling worlds problems. Yes, they are slower than molasses to take action. But do they really deserve this?

A little history lesson.

Did you know that Mr C sued the DOJ for the right to promote gambling in the USA? https://www.gpwa.org/forum/casino-ci...ng-160437.html Does anyone else have the ways and means (and balls) to do this?

Then Mr C decided to take on the biggest, baddest most corrupt gambling affiliate forum ever. That forum was a black hole of greedy, lying, thieving bastards. Mr C and his team freed us of them. He took them down. The bigger they are the harder they fall. To this day that casino affiliate program forum is dead in the water. Thanks to the GPWA and staff. I am grateful. https://www.gpwa.org/forum/dancing-a...ht=lou+fabiano

It got ugly. http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-...on-013009.html

After that we had freedom of speech which is what we all enjoy right here in this thread.

We've see a lot over the years. Affiliates don't care unless it happens to them. Blame affiliates for sleeping with the enemy. To put it all on the GPWA like this is unfair IMO. It goes in one ear out the other for me when affiliates jump to vote for these questionable awards.

Thank you for listening.