I don't think it's good practice for affiliates to have to ask to have the cross promotion feature activated, or for a company to offer it to one affiliate and not to others based on performance. That's not good at all.
Printable View
I don't think it's good practice for affiliates to have to ask to have the cross promotion feature activated, or for a company to offer it to one affiliate and not to others based on performance. That's not good at all.
ha haQuote:
Originally Posted by bettingbots.com
Not a good business decision in my book.
I think they used the other email template on you, ha ha , because I had this " We pay affiliates cross channel based on performance " no time frames or periods announced.
I don't think they have a performance quota now, because I remember asking for one.
You see this I have a BIG problem with. Bottom line, it is a click of a button to enable cross promotion.Quote:
Originally Posted by xecutable
They have had low exposure on only one of my sites, and are basing their decision to refuse me the ability to promote their other products, based on this coverage.
Their loss and very short sighted.
I have two very strong casino portals which rank first page for top keyword terms. Both sites have very strong backlink profiles.
Plus the site I wanted to promote their sportsbook on, gets a serious crap load of traffic.
Their loss. Not mine. :)
Edited to add. I have now had a response from my affiliate manager. Agreeing to remove me from the mailing list and also stating she thought the matter was closed based on my last response. Looks like upper management at PP have their heads well and truly stuck in the sand.
If and when PP decide they want me to promote them and work with them in the future. They can talk to my hand :)
I wonder what other reason they can have for not allowing cross-promotion, besides putting a hand in your pocket.
I am guessing it is to minimise the total amount they pay their affiliates.
As for example, a casino player could move onto their sports product and become a whale there. Yet the affiliate gets zip of all sports revenue generated by that player.
Or if they do come around asking you should tell them that you require new affiliate programs to pay 90% revenue share "for a trial period"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Webzcas
:D
HAHA.
I'd rather work with programs who work with you to launch a new site, rather than a program such as PP which tries to take advantage of people starting out.
Fortunately I am not starting out as an affiliate. But their attitude on this matter, is not good for any new or small affiliates.
You need to push ........ (4 sure PP ! :evillaug:)
Ofcourse I refused.Quote:
While it’s true that we don’t give out cross channel commissions as standard, we have a large number of affiliates that do receive cross channel commissions so this is possible and is something that I would be willing to add to your account from the off in return for a push onsite. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Let me know your thoughts.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Kind Regards<o:p></o:p>
Like I said. They can talk to the hand :D
I'd just like to add my thoughts on this. I am in 100% agreement with the cross-channel commissions issue. I don't like the idea that you have to "prove" yourself before you get rewarded for what you should be anyway. It's incredibly "unfair" on a smaller affiliate and I really don't understand the mentality behind it - I wouldn't be surprised if they are losing more money by not being promoted by affiliates like Webzcas than they are saving by not paying across all channels.
That being said, I do want to say something postive about their attitude to new affiliates. When I approached them as a brand new affiliate with no track history but wanted to try something new with them, they bent over backwards to try and help me out. The time they spent with me for a good few months with no traffic/revenue of any note was above and beyond what I experienced with many other operators. I don't work with them these days (primarily because of the reasons discussed in this thread) but we did end up doing around $250,000 worth of revenue with them before we parted ways. Not a huge amount, but at least some return on the efforts put in.
I guess what I'm saying is sometimes there are other considerations to take into account when choosing to work with a partner. I will always remain grateful for the time they spent me when getting started, even if things didn't quite work out. Sometimes, a bit of guidance, support and help is more valuable than better commissions. Probably not the case for the more seasoned affiliates in this thread, but something to consider for a newer aff IMHO.
They bent over backwards because they were screwing you out of revenue. Imagine how much that $250k would have been had they paid across multiple products!Quote:
Originally Posted by VIPCardClub
Well then they didn't deserve the casino player.Quote:
As for example, a casino player could move onto their sports product and become a whale there. Yet the affiliate gets zip of all sports revenue generated by that player.
Like many I would rather send the players, that could potentially move on to other products, to other brands that WILL pay me if/when players move over to other products....REGUARLESS OF VOLUME!!
Rick
Universal4
You are almost certainly right. But my point was, they did a lot for me before I sent them anything. Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting their policy on cross channel commissions. I was just sharing my experiences.Quote:
Originally Posted by baldidiot
I know that Paddy's have had that term for as long as I can remember. Plenty of programmes have one rule or another that affiliates would probably object to so I guess it's about weighing everything up in the balance.
For example, I know that having worked on the programmes for Mansion and bet365, there were frequently serious objections from affiliates to the 5-referred-players-before-you-could-get-a-payment rule.
But, as I say, this is bet365 we're talking about here so you weigh it all up. For example, here at Betfred everyone gets cross-product revenue automatically and immediately and you don't need 5 players before we'll pay you but, on balance, seeing as we're all being honest, I'd say that our payments structure was never competitive.
My take is that all programmes now need to work harder to compete and have to consider changing certain rules that they may have always held on to as 'protection'. For example, Betfred can try harder to be less risk-averse and pay a going rate!
True and not so much. While I can see why someone would implement the 5 players rule as a precaution, it doesn't really hurt your income in any way. Paddy's term is not a term of such nature. It's simply them putting their hand in your pocket.Quote:
Originally Posted by HodgeyBoy
However since it's negotiable I am guessing their strongest promoters do not have that problem.For the rest of us, it's a cheap trick to screw us over. It can't see 1 good reason, why I shouldn't be entitled to a percentage of the profit my players generate no matter which channel they use. Money is money, profit is profit, my % is my %.
I agree, xectable, the premier principle has got to be the money but a similar argument about principle was made to me at 365 and mansion; "Why should I not get paid for one or two players? - I sent them, they played, you owe me!"
Paddy's rule about cross-product earnings is a major issue for you and many other affiliates, it could even become an issue for Paddy's, themselves - there may even be some affiliates who don't even know about it. Others will be cool with it but object just as stongly to some other rule at some other programme.
Everything should be considered before signing up and then keep pushing for changes you think should be made
I see your point, a valid one indeed. You work for an affiliate program, you can tell me, how often do programs listen to what affiliates have to say?Quote:
Originally Posted by HodgeyBoy
Well I am very selective as to who I work with and I would have liked to work with Paddy Power as they are from a player perspective a very good brand and company.Quote:
My take is that all programmes now need to work harder to compete and have to consider changing certain rules that they may have always held on to as 'protection'.
But their affiliate program is all wrong.
Their action in not allowing me to promote their sports product, means they will not get exposure on my new football site I launched at the beginning of the month. I wanted them to work with me to help monetize it. As the traffic it is getting after three weeks live, is just amazing.
So as a result Paddy Power have now no chance of getting exposure on a site that is currently getting several thousand unique visitors a day, with the potential to continue to grow for a long time yet.
This is why I call them short sighted.
Affiliate programs need to remember that today's acorns are tomorrow's oak trees.