Reduced commissions at the new Littlewoods aff program (sportech)

**baldidiot** · 9 November 2011, 5:49 pm

Originally Posted by TheGooner

How about a target like - "needs to maintain 10,000 banner impressions per month on the affiliate site" - or "achieve 100 unique clicks per month"?

I agree that any term would need to be quantifiable, but I don't use many banners - I'm sure other affiliates are the same. Clicks would be better, but it would probably be easily faked.

The only term I know of that serves this kind of purpose requires affiliates to deliver specific number of total players (regardless of how long it takes them) before accrued commissions are paid out. Bet365 and BlueSq both use this term - it isn't very popular with affiliates, but at least the money is still being earned at a decent rate whilst you're waiting for that fifth player.

**pdjoe** · 9 November 2011, 6:01 pm

Best thing to do is not work with any programs that have quotas. If they changes the terms, cut your losses and move on.

**Louis - Income Access** · 10 November 2011, 9:58 am

Hi All,

Thanks for the input on the terms. We'll also get on the horn with Andy from AGD, who is a wiz for these types of situations, and see if he has any thoughts.

Best thing to do is not work with any programs that have quotas. If they changes the terms, cut your losses and move on.

Just to clarify, this is not a quota or terms change we are discussing. It's a tiered structure based on the number of players, which nobody seemed to mind at Uaffiliates. The only change is that they reduced the first tier from 20 to 12.5% when they launched the new program.

It's not fair to lump Sportech together with groups that engage in retroactive terms changes or minimum quotas to receive payment.

**baldidiot** · 10 November 2011, 10:10 am

Originally Posted by Louis - Income Access

Just to clarify, this is not a quota or terms change we are discussing. It's a tiered structure based on the number of players, which nobody seemed to mind at Uaffiliates. The only change is that they reduced the first tier from 20 to 12.5% when they launched the new program.

It's not fair to lump Sportech together with groups that engage in retroactive terms changes or minimum quotas to receive payment.

It's probably seen as a quota because the commission rate has been reduced to such a small amount. We're not talking about a drop from from 30% to 29% here, we're talking about 12.5% of net. It's just too low to be seen as anything other than a quota.

[Edit] By the way, I meant to say thanks for taking the time to engage in a discussion about it and contacting AGD etc...

**pokertramp** · 10 November 2011, 10:43 am

I am a small time affiliate even though I have been doing this for 10 years. I won't be promoting a room that penalizes me for not sending a new depositor every month, because that's not really realistic for me.

**FictionNet** · 10 November 2011, 11:55 am

I've been discussing this with Louis briefly via e-mail but I think a public comment is in order. I've thought about this and I'm really struggling to see how this can be a good idea for Littlewoods. Using myself as a perfect example, this kind of deal makes Littlewoods very unattractive. I haven't promoted Littlewoods Casino in something like ten years and so I have no player base at all. If I did, yes - I'd be tempted to push Littlewoods to ensure I get one active player and maintain a higher % revshare for existing players. But I don't have a player base so it makes sense for me NOT to promote Littlewoods in the first place and put myself in that position.

For new affiliates (new to Littlewoods), it makes sense not to start in the first place. I appreciate that individual deals can be arranged to improve the deal but in reality, this will only make Littlewoods fall into line with other casinos' offers. Anything less makes no sense from an affiliate's point of view.

**pdjoe** · 10 November 2011, 11:26 pm

Thats just it fiction,

They don't want new affiliates. They are trying to force older, established affiliates into giving them top placement or they will steal the lifetime earnings from the players you have sent in the past.

Ohhhhh wait.....I am wrong, they will just reduce it to nothing.

**Louis - Income Access** · 11 November 2011, 8:30 am

Rob, others,

We're definitely taking your feedback on board and hopefully we can find a solution in the very near future. Obviously this process of transition is extremely complicated for Sportech so please bear with us while we work out an amicable solution.

Thanks

**Alexm** · 8 December 2011, 8:20 am

12,5% nice commision

Louis when day vernons aff payment november revenue ?

**Tony** · 8 December 2011, 1:57 pm

Thanks baldidiot for posting about this I'm a small affiliate trying to make a living I don't need to mess with this kind of programs and the only reason I didn't promote them is because I didn’t like the name it reminds me a clothing site xxhttp://www.littlewoods.com/xx

**Louis - Income Access** · 8 December 2011, 4:28 pm

Hi Alexm

Sportech T&Cs state that they pay affiliate commissions by approximately the 15th of each month:
http://www.sportechaffiliates.com/terms_and_conditions/

I believe payments will actually go out ahead of schedule this month but don't have the exact date yet.

We will send you an update tomorrow.

Cheers

**baldidiot** · 6 January 2012, 4:39 am

Quick question about how the new commission rates are applied (didn't want to start a new thread) - does it show at the 12.5% rate and then adjust at the end of the month or should the figures be adjusting throughout month?

Also how do you count a littlewoods player who joined under uffiliates and then signs up for the new software? Do they count as a new player or old player? And if they count as an old player, what 'registration date' would appear in the stats - the date the first registered with uffiliates or the date they signed up for the new software?

**iGamingWriter** · 6 January 2012, 6:15 am

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-GB</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m

athPr> <m

athFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m

athPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font

inor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} </style> <![endif]--> Louis - Firstly thanks for taking the time to participate in this thread. Many of the other affiliate programs i've tried to work with over the last year don't engage so freely or openly.

That said, Littlewoods was a brand i was considering promoting. It's a brand that the people who review for me have had extensive positive experience with and was on the table for me to look at in the near future. However i'm going to have to reconsider until such time as this structure drastically improves.

I have several real issues with this change in structure. Firstly you have stated that this action has been taken to root out affiliates that are abusing the system. This unilateral action penalises all of those not abusing the system at the same time as catching the offending affiliates. If i run a shop and i know that most of the shop lifters are girls in their teens, it does not make it fair for me to discriminate and raise all the prices for that demographic to make up for their offending peers. Instead i have to find a way of rooting out the shoplifters without penalising everyone else.

The system you're implementing treats everyone as guilty until such time as they come to you directly to arrange some kind of private deal and as has been pointed out already, to arrange such deals usually involves concessions on both sides - i.e. better placement. Currently - and i'm sure i'm not alone on this - i place casinos, not by the deal they are prepared to offer, but by the quality of service they are prepared to offer my readership. I have had dozens of programs contact me to try to 'buy' better advertising space and i have turned all of them down. This perhaps isn't the best business strategy in the short term, but i'm confident that through increased consumer trust it will pay dividends in the long run. That means that when it comes to negotiating private deals, i really have nothing to offer. I can tell you what your partners would need to do to receive better placement on my site, but increased commission rates won't buy you the placement. That being the case i only work with brands that offer reasonable commission structures in the first place as i don't have scope to arrange private deals to improve on those structures without breaching my site's consumer contract.

Alongside all of this - and i really feel this is very important and as yet uncovered in this thread - the reduction at the lowest end is not in fact 7.5% as it applies to affiliates. It's 7.5% as applies to overall revenue generated. As affiliates were never going to receive 100% of net revenue, this figure is misleadingly small. A more accurate figure for the affiliate is 37.5%. That is the reduction in their total earning that the low converting affiliate will see between the old program (20%) and the new program (12.5%).

I hope that you can find an alternative – perhaps through clear terms outlining the behaviour that is not acceptable rather than the blanket approach that hurts everyone.

The POGG

**Louis - Income Access** · 6 January 2012, 12:57 pm

thepogg

Glad to participate.

We appreciate this feedback and trust me in that it gets fed all the way to the tops at Sportech Gaming.

In regards to punishing the innocent along with the guilty, this is a valid commentary. However, we've yet to receive an alternative proposal that effectively deals with the problem, and believe me, we've gone to some key people like Affiliate Guard Dog for help. In the meantime, we need some solution in place. If you have any thoughts on an alternative solution, we're glad to hear them.

Fair point about the reduction in earnings as well. Your calculation is correct and we acknowledge that for a certain group of affiliates, this represents a sizeable drop in earnings. For this reason, we are setting up a lot of private deals at the moment.

If you want to chat further about this, we'll have IA staff at LAC that you can come chat with.

Thanks

**baldidiot** · 6 January 2012, 1:16 pm

Hey Louis - guessing you didn't see my question above thepogg. Hope I'm not being pushy be re-posting it

Quick question about how the new commission rates are applied (didn't want to start a new thread) - does it show at the 12.5% rate and then adjust at the end of the month or should the figures be adjusting throughout month?

Also how do you count a littlewoods player who joined under uffiliates and then signs up for the new software? Do they count as a new player or old player? And if they count as an old player, what 'registration date' would appear in the stats - the date the first registered with uffiliates or the date they signed up for the new software?

Also, don't suppose you have a contact at uffiliates for the old littlewoods program? I've been trying to get in touch regarding previous commissions for a while (basically a bunch of stats & commission just vanished) and never seem to get a reply from the uffiliates guys.

Cheers mate.

**iGamingWriter** · 6 January 2012, 3:33 pm

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-GB</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m

athPr> <m

athFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m

athPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font

inor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font

inor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} </style> <![endif]--> You're setting up lots of private deals yet this does not answer the point i made about private deals inevitably costing the affiliate more. Your private deals may bring the new program back in line with the old, but are you telling me that you're not asking for anything additional from the affiliate? If this is simply a case of 'as long as we're sure you're not abusing, you can have the previous benefits' that's one thing, but the word 'deal' suggests you are looking for something more.

I'd also be quick to point out that i think it's far from ethical to switch to such a system when you know it punishes all your hard working business partners alongside those that are abusing the system. When you know the only solution you’ve come up with so far is patently unfair, you keep looking.

I don't have a great deal of experience within the industry, certainly not with regard to writing terms and conditions, however it seems to me that this is one of those 'costs of doing business' scenarios. I understand that your clients have players breaking the rules, but it's your organization's responsibility - as you're the one getting paid for this - to find a way of stopping such dishonest affiliates. The method that's being applied here isn't taking responsibility, it's shifting the responsibility onto all of the honest and hardworking affiliates who have to shoulder this problem.

I also don't believe that it's impossible to identify accounts that are abusing your system - it may be a lot of man hours, but that's an entirely different issue and one that Littlewoods is capable of doing something about.

On top of all of this, it seems from what you've said that this is specifically an issue with poker affiliate. If that's the case surely targeting the poker affiliate program for these changes rather than all of them at least would minimise the negative effect?

If i was a more cynical man than i am, i would be inclined to think that the issue with a small number of program abusers is being used as a scapegoat for the introduction of rule that allow the companies involved to pay less for the customers they acquire - something that i'm sure would benefit them far more than getting rid of a few rakeback abusers.

I’m sorry if this all sounds very negative – I do understand that you are just doing your job - but I really feel that this sort of practice is absolutely indefensible.

If you would like to discuss this further I will be at LAC this year and I’d be happy to engage in discourse (and that goes for anyone else who just fancies a beer). I’m not sure how much assistance I can realistically be to you and would stress that unless the program has changed before then – as stated in my previous post – I will not be advertising Littlewoods, but if you can see something I can’t I’m certainly open to popping over to your stall.

ThePOGG

**Allan_IncomeAccess** · 11 January 2012, 11:34 am

Hi Everyone,

Louis is away on vacation, so I wanted to step in during his absence to answer some of the questions and concerns brought up. My name is Allan and I also manage the Sportech affiliate program here at Income Access.

Baldidiot:
We have pm’d you this information, along with a request for your email address so that we can forward your questions about Uffiliates to Sportech, and wanted to also publicly address your other questions in case other affiliates have similar inquiries - The registration date that shows up in the affiliate’s stats is the date that the player first registered with Littlewoods, regardless of the software. Therefore, if the player switched over to the new software, the registration date that will show in our system is still shown as their original registration date which was migrated from Uffiliates (as they are not a new player, but an existing player that has migrated over to a new software platform).

As for your inquiry as to the way that the new commission rates applied, the commission rates adjust during the month once the tier is met. For example, in the case of Littlewoods, once you have 1 new depositing player, the commission structure is adjusted to the 25% rev share.

Thepogg:
Please feel free to drop by our booth at LAC, and we’d be glad to discuss this further, as Louis said. We do understand your concerns, and again welcome any ideas you may have!

Have a great day everyone and let us know if you have any other question or queries.

Allan

Thread: Reduced commissions at the new Littlewoods aff program (sportech)

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

The Following User Says Thank You to pdjoe For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to Louis - Income Access For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to pokertramp For This Useful Post:

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

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Louis - Income Access For This Useful Post:

Posting Permissions