Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 111
  1. #1
    offyourface is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Posts
    150
    Thanks
    103
    Thanked 127 Times in 71 Posts

    Default Rome Partners Takes My $16K And Gives It To Another Affiliate

    How many affiliates knew that ever since Rome has turned out a new brand (Diceland), that they are doing their tracking the same bullshit way as Referback and giving the first affiliate credit for the player, regardless of who made the sale on Diceland? I have always had a huge problem with doing things this way, why on earth do I want to send players to a program who pays everyone but me when I make a sale?

    And why exactly is Rome Partners keeping the way they are doing this tracking a secret? Did they send out an email informing each and every affiliate the way tracking is going to work once Diceland was rolled out? Did they update their website to reflect this? Surely they would agree that this is information affiliates are entitle to know.

    Here is the deal, we landed a big player at Diceland that deposited almost $50K. And now Rome is trying to tell us they are moving the player from our affiliate account over to another affiliates account because this affiliate has converted the player in the past at Rome, so we are **** out of luck. Actually they are not telling us, they have already did it. We did our job, sold the player with our review and we deserve credit, thats all there is to it. Here is the correspendence we received back from Rome Partners on this issue and I would like to get some other affiliates feedback as well as let other affiliates currently promoting them in on what the deal is now with their tracking.

    First of all, I'd like to start by saying that this has not been an easy issue for us to deal with.

    We've had a meeting today, between myself, Joshua, the CEO, the head of our Customer Service department, and our lead developer, so that we could receive input from every level of the company as to the correct course of action in this issue. We also investigated the matter further, in order to have a full and complete understanding of the history of this player.

    In order for you to understand this matter, I must first explain to you what we have been doing to increase player value since we have opened Diceland.

    Our sales department has been getting in touch with Rome players, that have either significantly slowed down their gameplay, or stopped playing altogether, and selling them on Diceland. We understand that sometimes players get sick of a brand, or believe they have bad luck at a brand. This is generally why operators create multiple brands in the first place.

    However, in doing this we were faced with a dilemma in regards to our affiliates.

    In the pursuit of fairness, and after discussing with and seeking advice from our affiliate friends in the industry, we decided that if a player that was playing at Rome, starts playing at Diceland, the original affiliate should receive commission for this player.

    In your case, the player did in fact visit Diceland through your site when our sales team contacted the player, and referred her to Diceland. It is entirely possible that after suggesting to the player that she try Diceland, she searched google, found your site, and clicked on your link.

    However, from an ethical perspective, this player belongs to the original affiliate.

    If we were to allow you to receive credit for this player, our other affiliate would have a legitimate grief with us for selling the player on Diceland in the first place.
    All of this was done with the original intent of increasing player value. Again, this can be proven if need be.

    I can understand your frustration at the matter, however, how would you feel if you had a high roller on Rome suddenly start playing at Diceland because one of our sales staff told them to try Diceland, and yet they were credited to another player. The fair option is that once a player has signed up at any of our brands, they belong to one affiliate.

    Try to look at it this way: In order for us to increase player value, which is a good thing for everyone, we try to cross-market to our various platforms. In order to remain fair to our affiliates, we've established that the original affiliate will continue to receive commission, no matter where that player plays. I am sure if the shoe was on the other foot, you would agree.

    This function should happen automatically, however, TopGame's affiliate software is too slow in developing new features for us, which is why we've taken it upon ourselves to develop our own aff software, which will perform this function automatically. From what I understand, this is how every other software operates.

    I sincerely hope you can understand our position here. We are only interested in doing the right thing for all of our affiliates, and do not benefit from this at all. Like I said before, the original affiliate is on a higher commission base than you are, and we actually pay 5% more on Net Gaming for this player.

    Look, I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding, I understand how frustrating it must be to be told this, however we are trying to conform to a policy that protects our affiliates and maintains their earnings across our brands, there is no benefit for us in denying you other than to protect that policy. We enjoy and hope to continue working with you, and will do the same for you if any of your players moves to Diceland.

    I of course understand you may want to talk to Josh directly regarding this issue, and he has said that he is more than happy to speak with you about this over the phone if necessary.

    Best Regards,
    Gabriel Ehrlich


    This is what Gabriel said in that above email: I can understand your frustration at the matter, however, how would you feel if you had a high roller on Rome suddenly start playing at Diceland because one of our sales staff told them to try Diceland, and yet they were credited to another player. The fair option is that once a player has signed up at any of our brands, they belong to one affiliate.

    Well I don't really give a **** what their sales team attempted to do to get this player to convert over at Diceland. Obviously they didn't do a good enough job or the player would not have gone to our site to read our review. I mean they are answering their own question here. The player did not start playing at Diceland because their sales team told them to try Diceland, they are playing there because we sold them on the casino and got them to take the plundge. If the cross promotion attempt had been successful, they would have gone directly to Diceland and downloaded and began playing instead of going to our site to genuinely get sold on the casino.

    To even further my point he goes on to say say the following: In your case, the player did in fact visit Diceland through your site when our sales team contacted the player, and referred her to Diceland. It is entirely possible that after suggesting to the player that she try Diceland, she searched google, found your site, and clicked on your link. Or maybe the player had our site bookmarked. It really doesn't matter, he came to our website for information which he found which pushed him over the edge to convert.

    This way of tracking is great for the big affiliates who pushed the **** out of Rome initially and are going to get paid on all of our hard work when we convert them on their new brand.

    But lets get down to the nuts and bolts of the issue here. Is it common knowledge with affiliates that Rome does their tracking this way? No, as a matter of fact I would venture to say only the big affiliates know this is how things are done now because they are who benefit the most here. Does rome partners have this information anywhere on their site or their terms that once a player is tagged to an affiliate, that this player belongs to that first affiliates account for life across all brands? Again nothing, I can't find anything on this.

    Gabriel says from his understanding this is how every other software operates. Well no its not , there are maybe a handful of programs that do tracking this way. Most affiliate programs know this **** doesn't fly and most affiliates wont work programs that pay the first affiliate for every conversion no matter who makes the sale.

    So they are literally taking $16K out of our pocket and giving it to another affiliate who didn't lift a finger to bring this revenue in the door. This is the bottom line. You can take the sales team cross promotion garble out of the equation because they didn't convert anyone to the casino, we did. So then it boils down to is this way of tracking common knowledge for their affiliate or is it anywhere in their terms. The answer is no. As a matter of fact their terms say just the opposite in 3.2 which states that "You shall have no claims to commission or other compensation on business secured by or through persons or entities other than you".

    So please explain to me why you feel justified in doing this Josh? Is it because your sales team made a lousy phone call and still didn't get the job done, hence why they came to me? Or is it because when you rolled out this new brand that you alerted each and every affiliate, as well as updated your website to reflect the new way your going to do tracking. Which is it because neither holds water here, this is about as black and white as it gets.

    This is not right Josh and I can't just let you reach in my wallet and take $16K that I rightfully earned and just give it away to another affiliate. It's like me buying a new corvette in Orlando, and the sales manager telling my salesman they are not paying him the commission because I bought a corvette 3 years ago in Atlanta and are going to pay that salesman because he first sold me a corvette. I mean its absolutely ******* retarded and it is not going to fly.

    I am hoping by bringing this to the forums that other affiliates will chime in here and the guys over there at Rome Partners will see how out of line this move is and reattach this player to our account. Looking forward to a positive outcome. I am sure the big affiliate won't like it but its the right thing to do here.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to offyourface For This Useful Post:

    AK (28 October 2009), aksana (29 September 2009), Daera (1 September 2009)

  3. #2
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,883 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    Besides the cookie, my first thought is to question if they really did give it to 'another affiliate'.

    Look at the stuff that Rome has been doing! Not to mention the topgame software MESS with unwinable jackpots.

    http://www.casinomeister.com/rogue/blunders/topgame.php

    How do we know this money didn't go straight to Rome! This kind of affiliate program messing around has gotten WAY to out of hand!!

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mojo For This Useful Post:

    giggles7p (28 August 2009), offyourface (27 August 2009)

  5. #3
    casinojack's Avatar
    casinojack is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    February 2009
    Location
    Under Anthony's bed.
    Posts
    1,428
    Blog Entries
    2
    Thanks
    775
    Thanked 454 Times in 301 Posts

    Default

    IS either is it a aff's. player for life or not imo...

    You can't have it both ways.
    "CasinoJack"


  6. The Following User Says Thank You to casinojack For This Useful Post:

    Chalkie (31 August 2009)

  7. #4
    smv80 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 23 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mojo View Post
    Besides the cookie, my first thought is to question if they really did give it to 'another affiliate'.

    Look at the stuff that Rome has been doing! Not to mention the topgame software MESS with unwinable jackpots.

    http://www.casinomeister.com/rogue/blunders/topgame.php

    How do we know this money didn't go straight to Rome! This kind of affiliate program messing around has gotten WAY to out of hand!!
    I am right in the middle of this situation and we dont know if another actually got this money. I asked Gabriel for the email address just so that I could varify that exact point, but he has yet to respond to it. It was already late in his time zone by the time I sent it though. I planned on sending an email to the affiliate, making sure that they got a $16k increase in their revenue. It is a female is all I know at this point.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to smv80 For This Useful Post:

    giggles7p (28 August 2009)

  9. #5
    offyourface is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Posts
    150
    Thanks
    103
    Thanked 127 Times in 71 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smv80 View Post
    I am right in the middle of this situation and we dont know if another actually got this money. I asked Gabriel for the email address just so that I could varify that exact point, but he has yet to respond to it. It was already late in his time zone by the time I sent it though. I planned on sending an email to the affiliate, making sure that they got a $16k increase in their revenue. It is a female is all I know at this point.
    Regardless whether this other affiliate received the money/player or not, taking the player out of your account is still wrong on so many different levels.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to offyourface For This Useful Post:

    giggles7p (28 August 2009)

  11. #6
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,883 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by offyourface View Post
    Regardless whether this other affiliate received the money/player or not, taking the player out of your account is still wrong on so many different levels.
    Agreed, but I think it matters where the money went.

    I have never heard of funds actually taken out of an affs account to give to another! There is multiple evildoings here and no one is going to buy it.

    Rome, you need to PAY this affiliate!

    It's one thing after another with TopGame. I wouldn't touch them.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mojo For This Useful Post:

    giggles7p (28 August 2009), offyourface (28 August 2009)

  13. #7
    universal4's Avatar
    universal4 is offline Forum Administrator
    Join Date
    July 2003
    Location
    Courage is being scared to death...and saddling up anyway. John Wayne
    Posts
    28,027
    Thanks
    2,226
    Thanked 7,923 Times in 4,996 Posts

    Default

    Well I don't really give a **** what their sales team attempted to do to get this player to convert over at Diceland. Obviously they didn't do a good enough job or the player would not have gone to our site to read our review. I mean they are answering their own question here. The player did not start playing at Diceland because their sales team told them to try Diceland, they are playing there because we sold them on the casino and got them to take the plundge. If the cross promotion attempt had been successful, they would have gone directly to Diceland and downloaded and began playing instead of going to our site to genuinely get sold on the casino.
    I agree with this.

    I had actually been considering dropping Rome based on many of the other complaints, but this one may accelrate that decision.

    Rick
    Universal4
    Gambling World Online Roulette Online Blackjack Live Online Games Sports Betting Horse Racing
    Casino Affiliate Programs
    Hosting and Domain Names
    Gambling Industry Association
    GPWA Moderation by Me and My Big Bad Security Self
    If an affiliate program is not small affiliate friendly (especially small US Affiliate), then they are NOT Affiliate Friendly!

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to universal4 For This Useful Post:

    AK (28 December 2009), giggles7p (28 August 2009), offyourface (28 August 2009)

  15. #8
    ck8795 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,005
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    That sucks offyourface and Im sure the other affiliate (if thy get paid) would feel the exact same way you do if the shoe was on the other foot.

    In poker I think first and last cookie is complicated as a number of things make up a players mind on joining and depositing but I think casinos it should ALWAYS be last cookie.

    I honestly think it takes alot more to get a casino player to signup and deposit than it does a poker player. Trust is such a huge factor and if you were able to sign the player through your link, than obv the player felt more comfortable playing based on YOUR reccomendations than that of another affiliate or their customer support.

    I really hope they reconsider.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to ck8795 For This Useful Post:

    offyourface (28 August 2009)

  17. #9
    sparky1 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    July 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    213
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 11 Times in 9 Posts

    Default Re

    As far as I am concerned that is just a load of bullcrap and they have no justification on any level to award that player to the affiliate who brought that player to Rome. It is a different csino therefore whichever affiliate draws in the player therefore deserves the commision.

    It is really that simple. I never liked Rome or Top Game and don't waste time promoting them. I personally think the software is garbge and I am stunned someone deposited $50K and to make it worse I've read enough to scare me away and this only confirms my instincts that Rome and Top Game are not worth my effort nor the risk.

    If that is the manner to which they deal with deciding things pull banners and post a warning on your site. Advise players fully what they are doing, maybe that might get them to smarten up.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sparky1 For This Useful Post:

    giggles7p (28 August 2009), offyourface (28 August 2009)

  19. #10
    bb1web's Avatar
    bb1web is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2003
    Posts
    1,481
    Thanks
    592
    Thanked 412 Times in 252 Posts

    Default

    Hi all,

    I think its important to point out that as long as their system is fair to all involved ... meaning that they don't change the rules midstream ... then it isn't actually cheating anybody.

    That said, it is also assuming that the affs know going into the deal that the 1st aff to sign up a player at one property ... has them at all the properties.

    IF the aff knows the deal .. then I fail to see any wrong doing of any kind.

    .....

    Now that also said, to be fair to a system which I personally like in that I think its to the affs advantage to have a player signed up at all properties if they get signed up at one ... because it takes out of the equation any siphoning by the casino of players from the one account where they must share the income .. to another where they can cut the aff out.


    ......

    My thinking on this is that I'd imagine over time the player ends up getting exposed to all the properties in the program's network ... and that after the player's initial joining of one property ... that more players are aqquired by the casino thru a means that doesn't have to share the income with an aff ... than that are.

    Meaning if the program has 10 casinos that of the remaining 9 casinos which the player hasn't signed up ... that OF THOSE WHERE THE PLAYER JOINS and PLAYS ... that most of those signups won't have an aff sharing the income. This not necessarily even due to any evil doings but rather that things are usually set up so that the player is exposed to all the properties in the network whether ther other properties are actively cross-marketed .. or not.

    Giving the aff credit across the board for the player sign up is a good thing for that reason. The thing we affs give up to get that ... is what this aff has experienced now which I admit makes such a system not look very attractive but if you think it out .. its not all that bad of a deal at all.


    ALL the above said ... is done so with the assumption that there does not exist shaving of players or income ... and with TopGame I wouldn't assume anything.
    Almost Here! How would you like to be able to get not just one sign up from your player, or even a couple, but every single casino they join from here on? I've a plan that can make that happen and it will likely also tell you every time the player is active within the casino.

    Gambling Affiliate Place
    Slot Machine Games
    Casinos Accepting USA Players
    Real Time Gaming Slots
    slots tip
    avoid non paying casinos

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to bb1web For This Useful Post:

    Chalkie (31 August 2009), offyourface (28 August 2009)

  21. #11
    sipka's Avatar
    sipka is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    July 2005
    Posts
    164
    Thanks
    408
    Thanked 78 Times in 55 Posts

    Default

    Just FYI Referback is using the exact same tactics, if affiliate1 landed the player to a property of theirs long ago, and you send player to casino B of theirs then affiliate1 will get the player, even so you sent the player to casino B.
    No chance for new affiliates here.
    (Moreover they use sessions for tracking (player closes browser after downloading, so session is closed, your aff tag won't be tagged to player upon signup), but that's another story...)

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sipka For This Useful Post:

    giggles7p (28 August 2009), offyourface (28 August 2009)

  23. #12
    universal4's Avatar
    universal4 is offline Forum Administrator
    Join Date
    July 2003
    Location
    Courage is being scared to death...and saddling up anyway. John Wayne
    Posts
    28,027
    Thanks
    2,226
    Thanked 7,923 Times in 4,996 Posts

    Default

    Whoa, I didn't realize they relied solely on sessions....

    Another strike.....

    /end derail......

    I have always thought that the affiliate that "makes the sale" is the onle that should get credit.

    In this particular case we know that Rome contacted them, and that may have been a fact, but the sale was made when the link was followed and the signup occurred.

    Had the cross promotion team "closed the sale" the download and signup would have taken place without affiliate involvement.

    Rick
    Universal4
    Gambling World Online Roulette Online Blackjack Live Online Games Sports Betting Horse Racing
    Casino Affiliate Programs
    Hosting and Domain Names
    Gambling Industry Association
    GPWA Moderation by Me and My Big Bad Security Self
    If an affiliate program is not small affiliate friendly (especially small US Affiliate), then they are NOT Affiliate Friendly!

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to universal4 For This Useful Post:

    giggles7p (28 August 2009), offyourface (28 August 2009)

  25. #13
    MichaelCorfman's Avatar
    MichaelCorfman is offline GPWA Executive Director
    Join Date
    June 2004
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,199
    Thanks
    860
    Thanked 5,389 Times in 1,741 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by universal4 View Post
    Had the cross promotion team "closed the sale" the download and signup would have taken place without affiliate involvement.
    That's not how I read this. My understanding is that the player was owned by another affiliate at Rome, and that Rome is saying the player belonged to the affiliate that owned the player at Rome.

    If those are the rules then that seems completely fair, and is something many affiliates have fought for in the past. The idea that an affiliate brought a player to a casino, and then the cross-promotional efforts of the casino did not credit the initial referred is definitely something the original affiliate would have every right to be angry about.

    I'm reading this as essentially a case of a duplicate account being opened, and the duplicate account being conceptually merged into the previously existing account.

    Given what Rome says, they are actually paying out more money than they would otherwise have done, so I don't think it is fair for affiliates to say they are acting against the interest of affiliates overall in doing this.

    However, I can certainly say that if I was the second affiliate, I would not be happy about the situation at all. But I would probably be accepting of the situation if I were able to personally confirm, or have some trusted third party personally confirm, that was what actually happened and that there really was another bona-fide affiliate receiving the affiliate earnings.

    Michael
    GPWA Executive Director, Casino City CEO, Friend to the Village Idiot

    Resources for Affiliates: iGamingDirectory.com, iGamingAffiliatePrograms.com, GamingMeets.com

  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MichaelCorfman For This Useful Post:

    Chalkie (31 August 2009), offyourface (28 August 2009)

  27. #14
    ck8795 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,005
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    That's not how I read this. My understanding is that the player was owned by another affiliate at Rome, and that Rome is saying the player belonged to the affiliate that owned the player at Rome.

    If those are the rules then that seems completely fair, and is something many affiliates have fought for in the past.
    It would be fair Michael if affiliates were told this from the getgo. I can say that of all the conversations I've had with Lani trying to get me to push Diceland not once did she ever mention that a player from Rome crossing over through my link would be tracked to the original affiliate/casino from Rome.

    I wasnt aware of this till I read offyourface's post and I suspect I'm not the only one. Mind you I havent started to promote that brand but they were quick enough to make sure I had a tracker ready just in case.

    If the affiliate department told all of the affiliates straight up that the program tracks all brands to the original referrer than you know that there is a possibility of players already being tagged to another affiliate or the casino before opting to promote the other brand.

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to ck8795 For This Useful Post:

    offyourface (28 August 2009)

  29. #15
    universal4's Avatar
    universal4 is offline Forum Administrator
    Join Date
    July 2003
    Location
    Courage is being scared to death...and saddling up anyway. John Wayne
    Posts
    28,027
    Thanks
    2,226
    Thanked 7,923 Times in 4,996 Posts

    Default

    I totally agree....and like someone said earlier....this hurts smaller and less established affiliates....and a year or 2 years down the road, it hurts newer affiliates yet to join the industry even more.

    This is another case of deciding whether we want to promote groups that are not structuring their programs to be fair to affiliates of all sizes....now and into the future.

    Rick
    Universal4
    Gambling World Online Roulette Online Blackjack Live Online Games Sports Betting Horse Racing
    Casino Affiliate Programs
    Hosting and Domain Names
    Gambling Industry Association
    GPWA Moderation by Me and My Big Bad Security Self
    If an affiliate program is not small affiliate friendly (especially small US Affiliate), then they are NOT Affiliate Friendly!

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to universal4 For This Useful Post:

    offyourface (28 August 2009)

  31. #16
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,883 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    I think it's a bit more complicated. It looks like a cross-promotion issue. When cross promoting exisiting affiliate players the casino must give the player in the new casino to the original casino's affiliate. In this case Rome has no proof that the player ONLY played because of their mail to them.

    Rome says:

    Our sales department has been getting in touch with Rome players, that have either significantly slowed down their gameplay, or stopped playing altogether, and selling them on Diceland. We understand that sometimes players get sick of a brand, or believe they have bad luck at a brand. This is generally why operators create multiple brands in the first place.

    However, in doing this we were faced with a dilemma in regards to our affiliates.

    In the pursuit of fairness, and after discussing with and seeking advice from our affiliate friends in the industry, we decided that if a player that was playing at Rome, starts playing at Diceland, the original affiliate should receive commission for this player.

    In your case, the player did in fact visit Diceland through your site when our sales team contacted the player, and referred her to Diceland. It is entirely possible that after suggesting to the player that she try Diceland, she searched google, found your site, and clicked on your link.

    However, from an ethical perspective, this player belongs to the original affiliate.

    If we were to allow you to receive credit for this player, our other affiliate would have a legitimate grief with us for selling the player on Diceland in the first place.
    All of this was done with the original intent of increasing player value. Again, this can be proven if need be.
    and..
    Try to look at it this way: In order for us to increase player value, which is a good thing for everyone, we try to cross-market to our various platforms. In order to remain fair to our affiliates, we've established that the original affiliate will continue to receive commission, no matter where that player plays. I am sure if the shoe was on the other foot, you would agree.
    It looks to me like cross promotion is the dilemma, if this is true.

    My question then becomes- Is this a cross promotion dilemma or does Rome operate the same way Referback does? There are no terms on this.

    If they wish to operate like Referback, Referback is clear in their terms on this from the get go and firmly in place. Here at Rome this is not established and to take a player away makes no sense and seems more than shady. Further, to remove a player because they ASSUME they are playing due to their cross promotion and remove that player is something that I'll buy along with that bridge. It's all complete BS.

    But I would probably be accepting of the situation if I were able to personally confirm, or have some trusted third party personally confirm, that was what actually happened and that there really was another bona-fide affiliate receiving the affiliate earnings.
    Agreed Michael. I would not let this settle on Rome's word. However, proving this is nearly impossible. A random affiliate could be generated easily and on the surface be proof enough and never really satisfy the situation.

    There is sooo many multi-layers of wrongness, I say Pay Both Affilaites. It is the responiblility of Rome for poor marketing and substandard tracking software. Either that or come to an agreement with both affiliates.
    Last edited by mojo; 28 August 2009 at 7:58 pm. Reason: adding

  32. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mojo For This Useful Post:

    offyourface (28 August 2009)

  33. #17
    slotplayer is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Posts
    1,040
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 323 Times in 252 Posts

    Default

    It would be fair Michael if affiliates were told this from the getgo. I can say that of all the conversations I've had with Lani trying to get me to push Diceland not once did she ever mention that a player from Rome crossing over through my link would be tracked to the original affiliate/casino from Rome.
    what is exactly preventing affiliates from asking these questions before promoting a program?

    I see too many affiliates refusing to take responsibility for lack of throughness.

  34. #18
    offyourface is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Posts
    150
    Thanks
    103
    Thanked 127 Times in 71 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slotplayer View Post
    what is exactly preventing affiliates from asking these questions before promoting a program?

    I see too many affiliates refusing to take responsibility for lack of throughness.
    The problem here is doing tracking this way (like Referback) is not industry standard. Most affiliate programs give credit to the affiliate who sold the player, so saying that the affiliate dropped the ball doesn't make sense at all.

    If Rome is going to do something different than industry standard, then my god I think they should make some attempt to keep us in the loop on this. I mean how hard can it be to spend 5 minutes and write a lousy page on how they structure their affiliate program with commissions.

  35. #19
    ck8795 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,005
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slotplayer View Post
    what is exactly preventing affiliates from asking these questions before promoting a program?

    I see too many affiliates refusing to take responsibility for lack of throughness.
    Its not that I dont take responsibility. I do ask and you wouldnt believe how many affiliate managers respond with " Um what. I don't follow. What do you mean"

    I ask how they track. I ask if bonus codes override cookies - the people running the show should be able to answer those questions without saying "Ill have to get back to you"

  36. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ck8795 For This Useful Post:

    Chalkie (31 August 2009), offyourface (28 August 2009), sipka (29 August 2009)

  37. #20
    smv80 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 23 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelCorfman View Post
    That's not how I read this. My understanding is that the player was owned by another affiliate at Rome, and that Rome is saying the player belonged to the affiliate that owned the player at Rome.

    If those are the rules then that seems completely fair, and is something many affiliates have fought for in the past. The idea that an affiliate brought a player to a casino, and then the cross-promotional efforts of the casino did not credit the initial referred is definitely something the original affiliate would have every right to be angry about.

    I'm reading this as essentially a case of a duplicate account being opened, and the duplicate account being conceptually merged into the previously existing account.

    Given what Rome says, they are actually paying out more money than they would otherwise have done, so I don't think it is fair for affiliates to say they are acting against the interest of affiliates overall in doing this.

    However, I can certainly say that if I was the second affiliate, I would not be happy about the situation at all. But I would probably be accepting of the situation if I were able to personally confirm, or have some trusted third party personally confirm, that was what actually happened and that there really was another bona-fide affiliate receiving the affiliate earnings.

    Michael
    Thanks to all that have gave their feedback in this situation. I would like to point out a few more things real fast along with an example of my thoughts on this type of tracking.

    First - This is not in their terms and conditions anywhere and Gabriel says clear as day right here below in our talks. Here is another part of mine and Gabriels emails from when I told him that it clearly states the opposite of what they are doing in their terms.

    FROM ME.

    I also want to point something else for you to look at before you make a decision. I see nowhere in your terms that states what you said. As a matter of fact, if you read section 3.2 it says this

    "This agreement does not grant you an exclusive right or priveledge to assist us in the provision of services arrising from your referrals, and we obviously plan to contract with and obtain the assistance of others at any time to perform services of the same or similar nature as yours."

    This tells me that you are warning affiliates that there is other affiliates and that there is no exclusive rights to them. Is this correct? If not, where does it say that the first affiliate has rights to a player at all your programs?


    I sure hope you guys get this right and I do not have to waste any more time on this by taking the matter further. I should be paid on this player when they play at Diceland and the other affiliate should be paid when they play at Rome.

    IN RESPONSE FROM GABRIEL -

    We've been doing it like this since we opened Diceland a few months ago, and this is how the software we've worked at before (Europartners, Microgaming) have worked. We've been doing it manually after several affiliates complained, were upset, and threatened, like you are now, to make a big deal out of it. We didn't change our terms though.



    This right here says that they clearly knew of the problem but decided to only do it manually for the big affiliates that complain. It also admits that they have never changed their terms to reflect this, nor did they tell any affiliates about it. This means that these are not the rules. The rules are what is in their terms and conditions until and unless they notify all affiliates of any changes. I cant believe they could not take 20 minutes to change their terms to whatever they were going to be and then send a simple email to let us know. Then there would not be a problem because I would have taken them down the same day. Bottom line, I followed terms and conditions and the terms make it seem like the tracking could never work this way. What do you gather from " "This agreement does not grant you an exclusive right or priveledge to assist us in the provision of services arrising from your referrals, and we obviously plan to contract with and obtain the assistance of others at any time to perform services of the same or similar nature as yours." That says that other affiliates will be doing the same thing and that we will be paid and not the original affiliate. End of story and I should be paid.


    SECOND - The sales team should not even be mentioned. They did not do anything as far as I am concerned. The player found my site in a search engine because she did not trust what the sales team told her. She needed more information about their casino from a more trusted online gambling site because the sales team did not give it to her or she did not trust them. If the sales team would have sold her then they would have either sent her an email with a link or told her the exact URL. Bottom line is that she clicked on my link after my hard work and I should get paid.

    Example - Why this way of tracking does not work for me? Here is one example of why. (not my exact situation but I made it pretty similar)

    So lets say you got affiliate A that promotes Casino 1.

    Affiliate A gets a player(Sue) to sign up at Casino 1 and they play for a month.

    6 months later Casino 1 releases another casino called 2(obviously).

    Well it is 6 months later and Sue searches for something and finds an affiliate B website.

    On Affiliate B website Sue find Casino 2, and after reading the review, Sue goes there and deposits. Lets also say just for the example that affiliate A does not even promote Casino 2 yet because they are behind and have not got to it yet. Lets even say for the example that Affiliate A quit promoting the brand all together including Casino 1. Should Affiliate A get paid a nice $16k boost in money in their account when they did not lift a finger?

    Why should affiliate A get paid for Sue? The affiliate did not do anything to earn Sue's business. Sue did not use Affiliate A website to get any info. The casinodid not earn the business by giving Sue the info the needed, so cross promotion is not a factor. The only reason Sue finally decided to click on the casino and play is because she read Affiliate B review or website. Thats it.

    This is why I would never work a casino that done their tracking this way. This leaves you to being wide open to working for nothing. It is not fair that an affiliate can sell a player like Sue in the example on a casino and not get paid for it. We are all writing reviews, news, forums, blogs, ETC so that we can get paid when we sell a player on a casino. That is why there should be no rights or whatever you want to call it is because every person that works should get paid for the work they bring in. I do not work for another affiliate to get $16k when I sold the player on my website. Their terms even say that no rights are owned by affiliates. The end right?

    Thanks again for all the opinions and all the help. Please keep your thoughts coming in so that Rome can see that this player should clearly be paid to me. My website she came from, nowhere in the terms that this is the way it works, cross promotion did not work. Gabriel emailed me and said he will not be able to respond until Sunday at the earliest.

  38. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to smv80 For This Useful Post:

    mojo (28 August 2009), sipka (29 August 2009)

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •