Paddy Power cookies & Banners

[LukeC]

Hi Rick, I haven't said that the decision isn't about money, nor have I said that it is: I've said I'm not in a position to comment on it because I was not in the company at the time that decision was made so I am not privvy to the reasons for that decision, and I don't see the benefit of speculating about why the cookie length is what it is - neither is changing the cookie length my decision. I haven't denied that it is an issue relevant to affiliates. Further to arranging for it to reviewed by those people within Paddy Power who have the ability to change this and passing on the comments posted here and sent to me, I'm not sure what you'd like me to do further?

[TheGooner]

It's clear that 90% of the posters to this thread do not work with Paddy Power - and so have no knowledge of what effect session length cookies might have on their returns at this program. That doesn't stop the usual clamour and noise - but that is just part of an active forum.

We've worked with Paddy Power since 2001 and have found that the click to registration ratio at that site is consistently in our top five programs, suggesting that the REAL impact for session cookies is close to zero - despite the theoretical disadvantage to affiliates.

I recommend Paddy Power to my readers as a safe, secure place to play, and when discussing European operations with fellow affiliates I also recommend Paddy Power affiliates as a reliable operator.

However, there is little doubt that 14-30 day cookies are normal in this sector, and it's clear that Paddy Power's "policy decision" is significantly outside the norm and is going to attract negative affiliate attention. It's also clear that some affiliates have chosen not to partner with PaddyPower because of this situation.

Luke, if your job is to drive up revenues from the affiliate channel, then it seems a pretty easy "win" for you to recommend to PaddyPower that they move to more standard terms (perhaps 21 day cookie - last affiliate click overwrites) as it would make it easier to attract affiliates ... and there will probably be a negligible affect on rev-shares.

[universal4]

Hi Rick, I haven't said that the decision isn't about money, nor have I said that it is:

True Luke, but when we ALL know it is about money, pretending it isn't does not translate to higher trust.

When issues like cookies and quotas are an important part of an affiliate's decision whether or not to promote a group, do not ask us to overlook the issue just because the point of contact we have with the group is aware of the concerns.

Rick
Universal4

[LukeC]

I have not asked anyone to overlook the cookie length and have been open about it so that you and other affiliates are able to make your own decision as to whether to promote us. To clarify, we don't have quotas.

[xecutable]

Any program that needs to makes up rules in order to give you cross-promotion is just simply in the racketeering business, it's just more sophisticated in today's world. What justifies the 0s next to casino poker and bingo if I have referred a player from a sports betting website? Do you not get his money? Why am I not entitled to my share?

Why are we even discussing cross-promotion when it's an industry standard and if not it should be.

I can understand theGooner's view point, but for those that tried to start to promote Paddy 1-2 years ago, we got your hand in our pockets.

This is not a rant or anything just stating the obvious and bringing more clarity to what the #1 problem is when it comes to this affiliate program.

[slotplayer]

Luke Cotton - that's a great name. I can see a tv series or a movie with a character having that name.

sorry for the derail.