Performance Question - How much is enough?

[Aegist]

Since November last year I have been in ongoing negotiations with my primary bookmaker affiliate (the one which has so far earned me the most money) because they changed the commission structure that I was on.

In recent discussion they described the beginning of 2010 as 'slow' for my account and so couldn't justify putting me back on my old commission structure. I didn't think my performance was by any means 'bad', but that got me wonder - what does the average affiliate think is a bad performance, a good performance, average etc?

This could be put in a multitude of ways, but for my own purposes, i am going to use my own affiliate situation with this bookmaker, and see what opinions other affiliates have of my performance:

For the SIX MONTH period of 1 January to 30 June 2010 the bookmaker affiliate account in question has had:

• 22 active betting accounts
• 2734 Total bets
• Total risk of $341,000
• Customer net total -$23,500

So, i am curious - is this sort of affiliate account just normal? Is it pretty good? is it really low end?

All feedback is really appreciated

[Aegist]

A little extra information, for this period, according to their reporting system, I was entitled to earnings of $1131.

I didn't actually receive any of it though, because when they swapped my account over to the new commission structure, my account was in the negative and they didn't think to reset it to zero with the new 'turnover based' structure.

So I received nothing for this whole period - or next to nothing. As of 21 july I was told that my account was $500 in profit - meaning that I had actually received about $500 for 9 months worth of continuous player turnover and profit (November til July - which actually involved player net losses of $30,400, and for which I was marked as earning affiliate commissions of $1623 (rather than the 30% net losses which i was on for the four years preceeding this swap over)).

Bizarrely, the money I have *actually* recieved since this commission structure swap over, has been zero. Nothing at all yet.

And btw, the bookmaker in question (which I am still in correspondence with so don't want to reveal their name yet - although many of you may already know) is a large well respected bookmaker...

[Nandakishore]

So I received nothing for this whole period - or next to nothing. As of 21 july I was told that my account was $500 in profit - meaning that I had actually received about $500 for 9 months worth of continuous player turnover and profit (November til July - which actually involved player net losses of $30,400, and for which I was marked as earning affiliate commissions of $1623 (rather than the 30% net losses which i was on for the four years preceeding this swap over)).

It means your commission was reduced from 30% to around 5% although your bookie earned $30,400 through your efforts. If I have understood the calculation correctly, I would call this bookie, whoever he is, a rogue.

[thepokerkeep]

I agree with Nandakishore, this looks like theft to me. I would love to hear how the bookie in question is justifying this. If you had a commission agreement with them and you brought them active players, they should pay you the agree upon commission - no question.

If they want to negotiate or change the agreement going forward, that should not have an impact on commissions already earned. And the new agreement / commission structure, should not include the players already referred by the affiliate... since that would make the new terms retroactive.

[thepokerkeep]

Just wanted to add that I did not vote in the poll since I don't think the affiliate's performance comes into play here.

[Aegist]

If they want to negotiate or change the agreement going forward, that should not have an impact on commissions already earned. And the new agreement / commission structure, should not include the players already referred by the affiliate... since that would make the new terms retroactive.

They changed the structure around the beginning of November, and advised me of the changes accordingly (didn't ask, just advised that the changes were taking place). At the time, I figured I would just let the changes happen and see how it turns out. After two months it was obvious that the earnings were significantly less than my monthly averages over the previous four years, so I requested to be put back on the previous structure.

I was told at the time that until i was able to bring in 30 new players every month, I would not be eligible for the Net Losses commission structure that I was on, and I would remain on the new turnover structure.

It was frustrating and disappointing, but it wasn't until I realised that not only was I earning about 10% of my previous earnings, but I was also still earning back a temporary negative from the old structure that i really got upset. Since a turnover based commission structure cannot go negative, this seemed particularly unfair to me to have me started out on it from a negative position.

I have recently attempted to escalate my complaints to a higher ranking affiliate manager, and although I have a new manager who is 'trying to help me' - he still says that:

Our commission requirements state that we require 30 new players per month over a 3 month period and a healthy active player base before we can move affiliates back to win loss.
It is these requirements that I have been debating with the senior management team here. In particular how they relate to your specific case given the large volume we have seen from you in the past.

To my mind, 30 new players every month seems unreasonable for an average affiliate. I don't own SportsBookReview or anything like that and I only get a few players each month. I would like to think that quality beats quantity, but it seems like I am being made to increase my quantity unjustifiably, despite my quality.


Shane

[thepokerkeep]

Shane,

If you don't get any action from the new AM and would like the GAU to get involved, just send me an email or pm with the relevant details. All correspondence will, of course, remain confidential.

My email is in my signature....

[Aegist]

Shane,

If you don't get any action from the new AM and would like the GAU to get involved, just send me an email or pm with the relevant details. All correspondence will, of course, remain confidential.

My email is in my signature....

Thanks thepokerkeep. I'll keep it in mind, and see how things progress over the coming weeks.

[thepokerkeep]

Our commission requirements state that we require 30 new players per month over a 3 month period and a healthy active player base before we can move affiliates back to win loss.

So they've not only changed your commission structure but they also imposed a quota - nice!

[Anthony]

Our commission requirements state that we require 30 new players per month over a 3 month period and a healthy active player base before we can move affiliates back to win loss.

Wow, what a terrible term. Not only 30 players per month over 3 months, but they have to be healthy active ones. Then they might consider paying something.

[LiveCasinoPartners]

To my mind, 30 new players every month seems unreasonable for an average affiliate. I don't own SportsBookReview or anything like that and I only get a few players each month. I would like to think that quality beats quantity, but it seems like I am being made to increase my quantity unjustifiably, despite my quality.

Hello Shane,
You should stop promoting this program. There has got to be another program offering the same or better services who are willing to be a good fit with your performance.

Also, I'd name them on this thread. Put a little pressure on them to reconsider these predatory terms. This will also help other affiliates who do not like these terms to avoid the program. This will also give the program a chance to respond.

Contact AffiliateGaurdDog or GAU. They could help or at least let them know that these terms are not considered affiliate friendly.

[TheGooner]

I'm sure we ALL KNOW who this company is ... they caused quite a stink a few months ago by bringing in a "hot/cold" regime for affiliates based on either rev-share or turnover ....

... but I'll not mention them outright here in deference to Aegist's interest to keep this quite.

The website is ugly, the functionality is weak, and they seem to be set-up to appeal to US players - despite the fact that they no longer accept them ... (I beleive the book owner is actually a US citizen).

They are NOT a good site for affiliates - but they are a great site for players with some very sharp odds - possbily the best on the intenet - (once you get over the weak website).

==================

OK. That's the background of the mystery site.
Now, do you / we / me as affilaites continue to list them?

It's a tough one to call.
Here is my thinking - based on a related field - finances.

Q.) What would you think of a financial advisor that ignores a great finance product - one that would suit many clients - and refuses to recommend it simply because they do not get a big commission?

A.) Yes - not a good look. Self-interest over-riding client interest perhaps?

So despite my lack of profits as an affiliate - I've kept them listed on our site as a player service as they do have some of the sharpest odds on the internet - and most European players should be using them as an option for the prices.

It's the same with Betfair. Poor for affiliates - great for players.

===============

Good luck getting a satisfactory resolution Aegist - let me know how it turns out mate!

[Aegist]

As usual Gooner, you know exactly what is going on.

I don't want to mention them by name yet, because I am still hopeful that they will simply put me back on the old commission structure, and I can get on with running a profitable business again (rather than a borderline one).

If they refuse to do the right thing, then absolutely, I will name them without any shame or regret and get talking to the unions and guard dog organisations already mentioned and see what we can do.

They are a very well known brand, and I am sure that they, like every other business out there, has a strong interest in protecting their brand image.

[matted]

Lots of things are wrong here... and I dont think I need to point them out.

I suspect quite a few sportsbooks would love those 22 actives and properly reward you for them. I would consider yourself a medium sized affiliate. The big dogs which this company wants to coddle are in a whole different league. It's akin to stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

Dump their sorry asses and move on with someone who will give you appropriate respect.

[Aegist]

Bizarrely, the money I have *actually* recieved since this commission structure swap over, has been zero. Nothing at all yet.

Money owed has actually been received now - this was the result of some confusion.

So the $890 'earned' on the new commission structure has been received. Which is still a long distance short of what would have been received on the old structure, from $605,000 worth of risk, with a net player losses of $36,000

[Aegist]

And satisfactory resolution has been acheived...

Thanks everyone for your feedback and thoughts - It probably made a big difference when management saw the general opinion about this sort of change, so I really appreciate your feedback, and the offers of union assistance. Hopefully I will be able to help you all out in some way one day too

So in summary, I am being put back on the original commission structure. The new commission structure did earn me a little bit of money over the past 10 months, but something like 1/7th of what the original % net losses structure would have.

So now I just have to hope all the new players I am bringing in for them don't have some stupid winning streaks

[Betpartners]

Glad you got sorted and The Gooner hit the nail on the head about poor for affiliates but good for players.

For my part i have basically dropped them for a variety of reasons, one being that there are other sports books out there that now can match the best prices on offer that are better affiliate friendly.

All i will say is that any sportsbook that wants to reach the pinncale of sports betting both for players and affiliates alike they need to offer a good service for both and not just one over the other.

[Aegist]

Glad you got sorted and The Gooner hit the nail on the head about poor for affiliates but good for players.

For my part i have basically dropped them for a variety of reasons, one being that there are other sports books out there that now can match the best prices on offer that are better affiliate friendly.

Well, they did just have a new affiliate manager start with them - he was the one who got me back on the oldo commission structure, and he says he is trying to bring fix everything up with their affiliate program after the changes implemented last year.

So, hopefully he can do just that...

[gamblingbutler]

Congrats on resolving this!

Couldn't agree more with Gooner. Although it is not very profitable from an affiliate's point of view - the bookmaker in question is one that you should always recommend your players. Small players just as much as highrollers. Therefore only one correct decision, although you could make more promoting another one instead.

Having said that - seems BBB is receiving only 1% commission right now

Guess we need to contact them now as well, to discuss this for the better

[TravG]

Yea thats a crazy sentance! What's considered "healthy"? It seems they wrote these terms so that they can determine if they will ever pay. I wish I knew this bookmaker so I would never be encouraged to promote them. I hope this all gets worked out but if it doesn't please post their name so others will not promote.