View Poll Results: Do you discuss reviews before publishing with AM's?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I feel that I have a moral obligation of that.

    0 0%
  • Yes, perhaps I'll get a better commission

    0 0%
  • No, it's my website, I publish what I want and how I want it.

    8 61.54%
  • No, it's not my job to do their homework.

    2 15.38%
  • Been there, done that. Completely waste of time.

    1 7.69%
  • Other answer, explain....

    2 15.38%
Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Triple7 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2015
    Posts
    2,731
    Thanks
    2,007
    Thanked 2,397 Times in 1,287 Posts

    Default Obligation to discuss a negative review with a casino before publishing it?

    Inspiration came from the thread about the POGG's Audit Seal.

    I also get angry calls or messages from affiliate managers from time to time. One of there points is usually that I should have discussed this with them before publishing it. Usually they do not come with facts that would change my review (if things are not correct, I change them immediately) but they come up with things like a moral obligation that I should have to discuss this with them before, crap like "you are so unfair, you harm us" or they try to fix things with a higher revenue share %.

    What do you think?

    My opinion is that it's not my job to do their homework or to have have hours of useless discussion with affiliate managers that do not want to accept that their product is too average, shady or dodgy. If things are unclear or if I doubt, I'll ask it for sure. If not, than not.

    I've done this before and my idea is that it's waste of time. As long as it's not published, many do not even react and reactions are usually like I wrote before...

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Triple7 For This Useful Post:

    Roulette Zeitung (4 June 2017), TradaCasino (16 November 2015)

  3. #2
    -Shay- is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2012
    Posts
    3,062
    Thanks
    12,204
    Thanked 3,162 Times in 1,695 Posts

    Default

    When a program asks for placement on our website, they have implied consent that they want us to review them. Reviewing them (for us) means providing an objective, impartial point of view. If we think something is garbage, I have no problem publishing it and I do not feel compelled to "run it by them" beforehand.

    If we publish something viewed as "negative", extra money will not make it go away. Fixing the issue, however, will...

    And as I've mentioned before, we do not sell positions or placements, otherwise, we are not free to express ourselves honestly and we can increase/decrease exposure as we deem appropriate.

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

    Roulette Zeitung (4 June 2017), TradaCasino (16 November 2015), Triple7 (14 November 2015)

  5. #3
    JackTenSuited is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2004
    Posts
    1,014
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 340 Times in 208 Posts

    Default

    No, this isn't North Korea. If they don't like getting a bad review they shouldn't run a bad operation.

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to JackTenSuited For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (14 November 2015), agsgroup (17 November 2015), F-L-C (16 November 2015), Triple7 (14 November 2015), wonderpunter (14 November 2015)

  7. #4
    gaffg's Avatar
    gaffg is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    224
    Blog Entries
    11
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 156 Times in 77 Posts

    Default

    Reviews will always exist and using restaurants as the analogy, if you had to wait to publish your reviews and discuss with the restaurant in advance, you would waste a lot of your time and have arguments over what not to publish. You would be behind the game if you have to wait for responses as most won't respond until they see the bad review which might be a result of bad food or service.

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

    -Shay- (14 November 2015), TradaCasino (16 November 2015)

  9. #5
    universal4's Avatar
    universal4 is offline Forum Administrator
    Join Date
    July 2003
    Location
    Courage is being scared to death...and saddling up anyway. John Wayne
    Posts
    27,355
    Thanks
    2,021
    Thanked 7,776 Times in 4,903 Posts

    Default

    There have been a number or recent cases filed in the United States where companies have attempted to quiet those posting negative reviews and in fact the FTC gas also recently taken action and has sued marketers who use contract tactics such as "gag clauses".
    https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pres...reats-lawsuits

    I can understand groups getting in contact with anyone who gives a negative review and investigating what can be done to improve, but I do agree there should not be an obligation to check with them in advance of publishing facts and opinions.

    Rick
    Universal4

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to universal4 For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (14 November 2015), mojo (14 November 2015)

  11. #6
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,883 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by universal4 View Post
    There have been a number or recent cases filed in the United States where companies have attempted to quiet those posting negative reviews and in fact the FTC gas also recently taken action and has sued marketers who use contract tactics such as "gag clauses".
    https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pres...reats-lawsuits

    I can understand groups getting in contact with anyone who gives a negative review and investigating what can be done to improve, but I do agree there should not be an obligation to check with them in advance of publishing facts and opinions.

    Rick
    Universal4
    I was just reading about that the other day. The Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2015 is currently pending in Congress. From what I have read it voids contracts that have 'anti-review' clauses.

    I found it interesting because what would happen should T/C's for casinos start including these review clauses?

  12. #7
    TheGooner's Avatar
    TheGooner is online now Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,233
    Thanks
    1,935
    Thanked 4,180 Times in 1,988 Posts

    Default

    I voted "OTHER" in the poll. If we think a program is inferior - we just say no and do not review.

    I only want to work with "best-in-class" and if we find major problems (or several minor problems) during our review process - then we just decline the option to work with the program.

  13. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to TheGooner For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (14 November 2015), Anthony (15 November 2015), TradaCasino (16 November 2015), universal4 (14 November 2015), wonderpunter (15 November 2015)

  14. #8
    universal4's Avatar
    universal4 is offline Forum Administrator
    Join Date
    July 2003
    Location
    Courage is being scared to death...and saddling up anyway. John Wayne
    Posts
    27,355
    Thanks
    2,021
    Thanked 7,776 Times in 4,903 Posts

    Default

    Thanks Paul, that is a really good point.

    I think in some cases the negative reviews come about after the fact, what I mean is if you have a page that possibly ranks and a group turns rogue later one might change the review to reflect that.

    Also some people write them up knowing that some visitors will still click through even after the risks are explained...(not the best policy, but it does exist).

    Mojo, I would think in your example, if in fact groups think it is smart to add that kind of term, there is really no way to enforce it except they would pull the (we reserve the right to cancel the relationship clause) in which case we would not really want to work with such a group anyway...

    Rick
    Universal4

  15. #9
    Triple7 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2015
    Posts
    2,731
    Thanks
    2,007
    Thanked 2,397 Times in 1,287 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JackTenSuited View Post
    No, this isn't North Korea. If they don't like getting a bad review they shouldn't run a bad operation.
    True. Before I was used to spend time in discussions with them. I didn't change reviews, but discussions about what was written. But it's useless, because they don't get the point or act like they do not get it!

  16. #10
    GambleThenWin's Avatar
    GambleThenWin is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2015
    Location
    Macedonia
    Posts
    35
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 10 Times in 7 Posts

    Default

    As mentioned above, being realistic about casino's services is beneficial to the casinos first, and then to us as well.
    If a casino player starts playing at a casino just because he read some really good reviews at an affiliate website, but then burns himself realizing he was deceived with the reviews while the casino is doing all it can to take his money in every dishonest way, that leaves bad impression for affiliate review in the casino player community.
    The player will either stop trusting affiliate sites where reviews can be found or at least he will try to find a good review site, which is beneficial for those of us that want to mention a negative thing or two about a casino.

    The best approach would be to publish reviews that are realistically inclined and which show that the operator is safe and valid in general mostly praising his strong points to encourage the reader to join it, but still mentioning a thing or two that are negative.

    Maybe it's good to discuss the negative points with the affiliate managers, but it depends.
    I certainly wouldn't bother to discuss the negative points with an affiliate manager of a casino that is openly being deceitful (I don't want to point fingers even though many casinos come to my mind).
    I voted for the "No, it's not my job to do their homework." option, but I would be open to a discussion with a manager if such occasion arises.
    Last edited by GambleThenWin; 15 November 2015 at 1:10 pm.

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

    TradaCasino (16 November 2015), universal4 (15 November 2015)

  18. #11
    Miles_FTA's Avatar
    Miles_FTA is offline No longer with Fast Track
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,490
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 540 Times in 405 Posts

    Default

    I think honesty is the best policy here You can only review what is put in front of you and if there are issue Major or Minor its your prerogative to add these to the review .. In Saying that if these issues are fixed and can be fixed then it should be fair too that the review be amended accordingly to be fair . I have seen many casino reviews that have a Negative points feel to them and this cant be a bad thing it point to where we are making mistakes or where we have clear issues and allows us to Fix these .. So as long as your not being over the top in your reviews then im all for it we cant be 100% all the time

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Miles_FTA For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (16 November 2015)

  20. #12
    TradaCasino's Avatar
    TradaCasino is offline Non-sponsor Affiliate Program
    Join Date
    November 2015
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 24 Times in 14 Posts

    Default

    Hi All!

    This is an interesting topic, and something I have come across myself a number of times in the industry.

    At TradaCasino, we were the first to avail of ThePOGG's new Audit service, and I have to say it was one of the most positive experiences I have had with an affiliate. As you know, this is a paid service which gives the operator an opportunity to read and comment on the review before it's published. This allows casinos like ours to clarify any mistakes or indeed to take on board suggestions for improvement and make changes before the review goes live.

    I don't think it's feasible to give casinos pre-approval on every review published, it would way too time consuming and I don't believe affiliates are under any obligation to do so. I think the fairest way to operate is to agree to make changes to a review if the casino reaches out directly and clarifies any mistakes or makes improvements based on the feedback.

    If a review points out any genuinely negative aspects of the casinos operations, I don't believe it's ethical for a casino to expect that feedback to be removed in any circumstance, or to be given the option to see that review in advance.

    In my opinion, it is up to the operator to be proactive when it comes to monitoring reviews, and to reach out once with their own feedback if needs be.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to TradaCasino For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (16 November 2015)

Posting Permissions

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