PokerStars acquires three poker portals

[thepokerkeep]

Terry why not work on cpa then or a fixed media buy? You send your traffic you get paid and your done with the player. With poker I think it's crazy to work for rev - maybe 5 or 6 years ago, but now - not a chance.

But you missed the point. The issue affects affiliates whether they are on rev share or cpa. Stars has effectively screwed all affs within the last few months. AP/UB is in the process of stealing referred players we send them if the player already has an account on their network (at the other poker room). FullTilt's 60 day rule would affect cpa affiliates to the same degree as rev share affs.

The issue is aff programs retroactively changing their terms and it relates to casino affiliates as well. The trend is alarming and we need to find a way to stop these programs from breaching our contracts, period. The future of our industry is looking bleaker every day!

[ck8795]

The issue is aff programs retroactively changing their terms and it relates to casino affiliates as well. The trend is alarming and we need to find a way to stop these programs from breaching our contracts, period. The future of our industry is looking bleaker every day!

Well until people stop pissing around its not going to happen and by that I mean seriously reducing the exposure - I know lots have said they have but very few actually do it and will still take what advantage they have left then openly say I did my share to fix the problem. Removing them from a top 10 table isnt going to help - Im not just talking about the large affiliates - because there are a number of large ones that have pulled quickly - but the smaller ones seem to think they have no choice. Anyway just my take on it.

and I know your doing what you can terry and I understand what you mean. idk - I just think when it really comes down to it alot of people are only thinking of short term gain possibly

[thepokerkeep]

Well until people stop pissing around its not going to happen and by that I mean seriously reducing the exposure - I know lots have said they have but very few actually do it and will still take what advantage they have left then openly say I did my share to fix the problem. Removing them from a top 10 table isnt going to help - Im not just talking about the large affiliates - because there are a number of large ones that have pulled quickly - but the smaller ones seem to think they have no choice. Anyway just my take on it.

and I know your doing what you can terry and I understand what you mean. idk - I just think when it really comes down to it alot of people are only thinking of short term gain possibly

I agree. Without a concerted effort from the majority of affiliates (big and small), these programs will continue to take advantage of us.

I have taken action already and encourage others to do the same.

Stars is no longer featured at all on my Pokerkeep home page and I've completely removed them from my Mac site.

I will be removing AP and UB from my rakeback site this week. They were never featured on the Pokerkeep or my Mac site.

As for FullTilt - they will be moved to the bottom of my rakeback listings due to their retroactive decrease in RB commissions.

I removed Betsson from my sites months ago when they retroactively imposed quotas.

I am in the process of opening my first casino portal and I guarantee only the most affiliate friendly programs will be featured on it.

I am also building an affiliate focused site and it will only feature the 'cream of the crop' programs. My blacklist is going to be very long and educational !!

[CSN Reyes Media]

I do not agree with the others regarding affiliates. PokerStars has made a good move in my opinion. If you were them, what would you do?

Do not complain about if they move the requirements for affiliates, complete the requirements.
If it becomes to difficult then contact the company and try to fix the problem.

If you have been a good affiliate then they will listen.

That is what my company strives for, to comply with the companies, not the companies comply with me.

-CSN Reyes Media

[thepokerkeep]

I do not agree with the others regarding affiliates. PokerStars has made a good move in my opinion. If you were them, what would you do?

Do not complain about if they move the requirements for affiliates, complete the requirements.
If it becomes to difficult then contact the company and try to fix the problem.

If you have been a good affiliate then they will listen.

That is what my company strives for, to comply with the companies, not the companies comply with me.

-CSN Reyes Media

I don't think you will find many who agree with your opinion on this.
When a company enters into a contract with you, do you change the terms of the contract retroactively? If so, that would be a breach of contract.

That, sir, is what Pokerstars has done. Add Grand Prive, Betsson, FullTilt, Cereus, and many others to the list as well. You call it "moving the requirements". We call it "breach of contract". When a company fails to live up to the terms of an agreed upon contract, they are in breach, period.

[CSN Reyes Media]

That is why you must contact them and their legal department, but not the legal department first.

When signing up for these companies you must read that they can change their Terms of Service at any given time without notice.

Sure most companies never do, but this company has done so.

-VP CSN Reyes Media

[thepokerkeep]

That is why you must contact them and their legal department, but not the legal department first.

When signing up for these companies you must read that they can change their Terms of Service at any given time without notice.

Sure most companies never do, but this company has done so.

-VP CSN Reyes Media

---------
never mind - it's not worth the argument.

[CSN Reyes Media]

I am sorry thepokerkeep if I have brought this into a argument sort of state.
I only wanted to help the community of GPWA. There is nothing you can really do in what they have done. My company has tried to meet the requirements under different circumstances.

- VP CSN Reyes Media

[Shaun O'neill]

Kaus

As an operator i dont aree with you if the operator knows how to look after the players and offers great promos to retain your players then why take a CPA?

I currently dont offer CPA for poker players but at my previous job i did and our traffic for poker wa svery low so the affiliate sthat had a CPA lost out big time because only a low % with meet the requirments.

I think rev share rules.

Shaun

Terry why not work on cpa then or a fixed media buy? You send your traffic you get paid and your done with the player. With poker I think it's crazy to work for rev - maybe 5 or 6 years ago, but now - not a chance.

[SlotsAff]

I completely agree with Shaun here

[HenrikGr]

It is a double edged sword this.

It is strange to see that affiliates complaining about when an operator is increasing the release req. for a CPA for poker players, but would never consider working on revenue share since they know that the value is low.

We are all here to make money, both as an affiliate or as an operator. So if we see that a CPA deal is not working we have to do something right?

Of course that doesn't mean to break the T&C and impose it retroactively, but rather set a new date and from that date on all new players brought in would be under the new T&C, the you as an affiliate have the option to stop promoting or accept the new T&C.

Mainly as I see it, it is the retroactive changes that screw people over.

The as always, go with brands that you trust, that have been around for a long time, and that has AM that can be easily reached, so you can talk over any issues.

Just my two cents.

[thepokerkeep]

Mainly as I see it, it is the retroactive changes that screw people over.

The as always, go with brands that you trust, that have been around for a long time, and that has AM that can be easily reached, so you can talk over any issues.

Just my two cents.

Henrik,

You are correct, it is the retroactive terms changes that screw people over and that is what I'm complaining about in this thread.

The problem is, it is the big, trusted, long standing companies that are imposing these retroactive terms changes.

Pokerstars
FullTilt
Chipleader
Affiliate Lounge
etc, etc.

Who can we trust anymore?

I have always done rev share. The only cpa deal I have is with Pokerstars. I still think rev share is the most profitable (long term), but, not when our esteemed partners are so willing to renege on their agreements.

It may be time to take Kaus' advice and go with media buys.

[Ozpoker]

Have been on rev share with many poker sites only to see them

• sell out to others - result : all players lost, players not tracked to new aff.- one site has now down it twice
• fold - result : all players lost
• "consolidate" - result: players with existing acts on bigger site lost
• change terms - result: lose money
• switch to offering rakeback - result : higher value players lost to rakeback
• switch networks- result : duplicate accounts excluded, rakeback now available = me lose money and players

Rev. share is for mugs as far as poker is concerned - "life-time earnings" only exists in fairy tales and the AM's handbook.

On the other hand I would not take cpa on casino/sportsbooks - they are worthy of MGR

[joeyl]

That is why you must contact them and their legal department, but not the legal department first.

When signing up for these companies you must read that they can change their Terms of Service at any given time without notice.

Sure most companies never do, but this company has done so.

-VP CSN Reyes Media

The GPWA have changed thier rules too - just last night.

RULE CHANGE: If you post at the GPWA and start a sentence with the word sure, you must buy all non American members a chocolate biscuit.

Failure to do so Michael brings forth the guillotine.

I don't like the comply or die route personally.

cheers

[ck8795]

Kaus

As an operator i dont aree with you if the operator knows how to look after the players and offers great promos to retain your players then why take a CPA?

I currently dont offer CPA for poker players but at my previous job i did and our traffic for poker wa svery low so the affiliate sthat had a CPA lost out big time because only a low % with meet the requirments.

I think rev share rules.

Shaun

And thats why you discuss the terms in which the affiliate meets the CPA requirement OR you the affiliate wont promote rooms where the traffic is low. If I came to you and sent you traffic but you couldnt convert or maintain the player long enough I would stop promoting your site, its that simple. When there are other sites out there that will convert a player and do attract attention why would I stick around to promote a low traffic, low converting site.


Even with Bodog's 30 day rule, I would still take CPA in the poker room and risk losing players who signup during the last week but don't deposit. The CPA requirements balance out that 30 day rule so Im ok with it. I personally feel that sites that don't offer CPA's or remove CPA's do so because they know they will lose money. They know their conversion isnt as great as they claim in the lovely emails we receive and many will tell affiliates it's because their traffic is "low quality" when in turn it's the poker room as a whole.

Rev share was probably great for affiliates in poker prior to the UIGEA, but I dont think so now, and granted I don't do a lot in poker at all, my focus now is casino - but I would take it all day long. We don't know if a room will merge, if a room will close, or if your players will move onto rakeback. Why take the risk - get paid and move on.

But this is a thread in its own - so I wont derail any longer

[HenrikGr]

And thats why you discuss the terms in which the affiliate meets the CPA requirement OR you the affiliate wont promote rooms where the traffic is low. If I came to you and sent you traffic but you couldnt convert or maintain the player long enough I would stop promoting your site, its that simple. When there are other sites out there that will convert a player and do attract attention why would I stick around to promote a low traffic, low converting site.


Even with Bodog's 30 day rule, I would still take CPA in the poker room and risk losing players who signup during the last week but don't deposit. The CPA requirements balance out that 30 day rule so Im ok with it. I personally feel that sites that don't offer CPA's or remove CPA's do so because they know they will lose money. They know their conversion isnt as great as they claim in the lovely emails we receive and many will tell affiliates it's because their traffic is "low quality" when in turn it's the poker room as a whole.

Rev share was probably great for affiliates in poker prior to the UIGEA, but I dont think so now, and granted I don't do a lot in poker at all, my focus now is casino - but I would take it all day long. We don't know if a room will merge, if a room will close, or if your players will move onto rakeback. Why take the risk - get paid and move on.

It is always the same question and answer here - programs say it is bad traffic, affiliate say it is bad conversion. And the truth is probably in the middle.

Considering the competition out there there is very small things that differs one poker room from another. Especially on the same network, so it is usually the product or services around the actual poker product in itself that converts or keep the player. You can not compete with rakeback if you want CPA players, since it will take forever to recover that CPA

If a player becomes a high raker, then the demand of rakeback will come, and if the operator says no, they loose the player. We know since we dont offer rakeback, so hence we dont have big high rakers, but rather a solid base of players.

There is a reason why even the bigger rooms choose to add more and more restrictions on CPA since a player maybe has their poker wallet in 3-4 different rooms, so it takes much longer time to recover a CPA. It is not a matter of conversion or retention, but rather that players wanders.

To be fair, operators want to pay CPA if we know we can get the money back on it and then some, but for those players most affiliates want rev share. Operators want rev share on riskier- low income players but then affiliates want CPA.

[universal4]

Do not complain about if they move the requirements for affiliates, complete the requirements.

This is short-sighted and shows that you do NOT know what it is like to be a small affiliate and shows that you do NOT care for small affiliates.

If terms and conditions are not small affiliate friendly, they they are NOT affiliate friendly...period!

And don't miss the point Terry made, the changes he talks about have been made RETROACTIVELY!

Rick
Universal4

[universal4]

Failure to do so Michael brings forth the guillotine.

Sure, you may want to see this, but then there would be no quickening....

Where do I send the chocolate?

Rick
UNiversal4

[HBKKH]

P stars making moves

[Spearmaster]

P stars making moves

Elaborate please.