View Poll Results: Should UK Affiliates Be Regulated and Subject to the CAP Code?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 23.08%
  • Maybe

    1 7.69%
  • No

    8 61.54%
  • Not Sure

    1 7.69%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30
  1. #1
    Broadway_Simon is offline Non-sponsor Affiliate Program
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 32 Times in 17 Posts

    Question Should UK Affiliates Be Regulated and Subject to the CAP Code?

    Do affiliates think they should be subject to the same legislation as operators with regards to marketing. I refer to the CAP code which operators abide by;

    https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-rul...cast-code.html

    Or run the risk of facing a fine like BGO. BGO get a 300k fine but their affiliates (who were referenced in the case) receive no penalty.

    http://www.igamingbusiness.com/news/...ising-fine-bgo

    The onus is on the operator to ensure affiliates act responsibly. Should more onus be pushed on the affiliate?

  2. #2
    -Shay- is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2012
    Posts
    3,062
    Thanks
    12,204
    Thanked 3,162 Times in 1,695 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Broadway_Simon View Post
    Do affiliates think they should be subject to the same legislation as operators with regards to marketing. I refer to the CAP code which operators abide by;

    https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-rul...cast-code.html

    Or run the risk of facing a fine like BGO. BGO get a 300k fine but their affiliates (who were referenced in the case) receive no penalty.

    http://www.igamingbusiness.com/news/...ising-fine-bgo

    The onus is on the operator to ensure affiliates act responsibly. Should more onus be pushed on the affiliate?
    I would say that any type of email or sms marketing or any form of "paid advertising" (billboard, television ads, google ppc campaign) should be subject to regulations. I do not think that a "review portal" should be. If regulations are put on portals, then they would also need to apply to those casual players who drop a "refer a friend" link or code in their facebook posts. That is not to say that review portals should not have "standards" but I would not go so far as to say they should be "regulated".

    Also, until program terms and conditions are cleaned up, I do not think that the program should have the ability to pass a fine along to an affiliate. If a program has created a "misleading" or "deceptive" campaign and a review portal details said campaign then it is the designer that should be held to the fire. The portal was merely explaining the campaign. They did not create it. If the program has the ability to pass the fine along in an instance such as this, they will be given a free pass to find reason to push blame and responsibility onto affiliates.

  3. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to -Shay- For This Useful Post:

    allaboutthebets (31 May 2017), MannyBetting (29 May 2017), ocreditor (29 May 2017), PromoteCasino (27 May 2017), TheGamblersClub (2 June 2017)

  4. #3
    Triple7 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2015
    Posts
    2,723
    Thanks
    2,006
    Thanked 2,390 Times in 1,284 Posts

    Default

    In general, I am not a supporter of more bureaucracy. But, of course, if a casino receives a fine for misleading information, an affiliate that is misleading customers, should receive a fine too if they are providing misleading information.

  5. #4
    juegos is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    April 2017
    Posts
    23
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts

    Default

    I'd say the casinos are responsible for who they 'hire' as affiliates, not the bureaucrats - the casinos should monitor the affiliates.

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

    DaftDog (29 May 2017)

  7. #5
    -Shay- is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2012
    Posts
    3,062
    Thanks
    12,204
    Thanked 3,162 Times in 1,695 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Triple7 View Post
    In general, I am not a supporter of more bureaucracy. But, of course, if a casino receives a fine for misleading information, an affiliate that is misleading customers, should receive a fine too if they are providing misleading information.
    I would agree to this if it was a case of the affiliate "purposely" misleading customers. However, if a brand puts out a promo that is later deemed "misleading", I would not want a fine placed on me for simply describing that promo as the brand put it out.

  8. #6
    -Shay- is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2012
    Posts
    3,062
    Thanks
    12,204
    Thanked 3,162 Times in 1,695 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Shay- View Post
    I would agree to this if it was a case of the affiliate "purposely" misleading customers. However, if a brand puts out a promo that is later deemed "misleading", I would not want a fine placed on me for simply describing that promo as the brand put it out.
    For example, if the site has "15 free on signup + a 1500% welcome bonus" advertised on their website (in reality, the offer requires you to register your credit card in order to get the 15 & the 1500% is a series of five 300% deposit bonuses) & their affiliate newsletter has also pedaled that line to me (as an affiliate), I do not believe affiliates should be held accountable for not being able to count if they "echo" the brand's advertising.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to -Shay- For This Useful Post:

    ocreditor (29 May 2017)

  10. #7
    universal4's Avatar
    universal4 is online now Forum Administrator
    Join Date
    July 2003
    Location
    Courage is being scared to death...and saddling up anyway. John Wayne
    Posts
    27,197
    Thanks
    1,963
    Thanked 7,747 Times in 4,884 Posts

    Default

    I agree that I do not feel affiliate should be held responsible for misleading advertising if they are just presenting promotions as determined by the operator.

    And ANY promotion of 5 x 300% deposit bonuses being advertised and promoted as 1500% is FALSE and MISLEADING, and no operator should ever provide such advertising. If an operator claims 1500%, then the player should be getting 1500% of something but I have yet to have a single operator that does this show the math where anyone gets 1500% of anything.

    Rick
    Universal4

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to universal4 For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (27 May 2017), LukeC (29 May 2017), MrBinaryAff (29 May 2017), ocreditor (29 May 2017)

  12. #8
    Triple7 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2015
    Posts
    2,723
    Thanks
    2,006
    Thanked 2,390 Times in 1,284 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Shay- View Post
    I would agree to this if it was a case of the affiliate "purposely" misleading customers. However, if a brand puts out a promo that is later deemed "misleading", I would not want a fine placed on me for simply describing that promo as the brand put it out.
    Yes, I do agree that like if at a bus stop you publish a banner and later it's misleading, it should be more the responsibility of the operator. On the other hand, I think review sites claiming to be a worthful source and not just a banner farm or operator propaganda show have some responsibility to in providing the correct information.

    We all know too that 5 bonuses of 300% are not the same as a 1.500% bonus.

    Besides that, sometimes affiliate try to make things nicer as they are too. Especially when it's about bonuses, bonus terms and how games actually are working.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Triple7 For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (28 May 2017), ocreditor (29 May 2017)

  14. #9
    roccolondon is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    January 2017
    Posts
    15
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    I do not believe affiliates should have to be regulated, but If they mislead customers directly or indirectly it's all the same and they should be subject to lines from up the line of course.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #10
    Miles_Videoslots's Avatar
    Miles_Videoslots is offline Former Affiliate Manager
    Join Date
    January 2017
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    386
    Thanks
    145
    Thanked 481 Times in 214 Posts

    Default

    Regulation is good for everyone it keeps the waters clean if you like. I don't believe that it should be regulated as heavily but an affiliate that is abusing his partners or misleading his players intentionally however or by whatever means should face some sort of moderation?

    I do agree that affiliates should not be punished for feeding the public misleading advertisements after all these have been passed onto them by the operators marketing teams however in this industry nothing should be taken for granted and things should be checked if they are too good to be true they normally are .

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

    -Shay- (29 May 2017)

  17. #11
    Scampi's Avatar
    Scampi is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    August 2013
    Posts
    855
    Thanks
    371
    Thanked 314 Times in 181 Posts

    Default

    With the rise of streamers on Twitch and YouTube, I think regulation is needed there. Some casinos give the streamers free money with massively high wagering so that it can never be withdrawn but is made to look like real play. Others ask for deposits to be entered into prize draws which is against UK lottery laws.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Scampi For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (29 May 2017)

  19. #12
    ocreditor's Avatar
    ocreditor is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    April 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    5,324
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    5,490
    Thanked 3,575 Times in 2,197 Posts

    Default

    I think that affiliates shouldn't be regulated, too much bureaucracy at the end will lead to less affiliates and will damage the economy in general.
    Regulation is important but not everything need to be regulated some aspects should not be regulated but should be supervised in a way.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to ocreditor For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (29 May 2017)

  21. #13
    DanHorvat's Avatar
    DanHorvat is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2008
    Location
    Actual location may vary.
    Posts
    1,896
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thanks
    1,302
    Thanked 1,290 Times in 760 Posts

    Default

    It would be ridiculous to regulate UK affiliates while these same affiliates are getting shaved by UK operators, and UK banks won't open bank accounts for them.

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

    -Shay- (29 May 2017), agsgroup (29 May 2017), Miles_Videoslots (30 May 2017)

  23. #14
    HodgeyBoy's Avatar
    HodgeyBoy is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    September 2008
    Location
    Staffordshire, UK
    Posts
    1,303
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 104 Times in 44 Posts

    Default

    Don't think that specific regulation of affiliates is required but my job would be much easier if there was some sort of recognised accreditation that means that I know the person is who they say they are and that they don't have a background of unethical actions..... Kind of like the GPWA seal but with more behind it.

    I'm expecting there to be significant changes to wording in the T&C's of most UK-facing operators to make much more clearer and specific the expectation that affiliates will abide by the same legal constraints as the operator has to when advertising their services.

    Changing T&C's is always a headache and I know that it makes affiliates nervous but 300k fines at BGO and investigations at 888 and suddenly you have the attention of CEOs etc who will be/are already shining the spotlight on Marketing Departments and Affiliate Managers.
    Consultant Affiliate Manager
    anthony@tag-media.org
    https://www.tag.media/

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to HodgeyBoy For This Useful Post:

    Renee (30 May 2017)

  25. #15
    -Shay- is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2012
    Posts
    3,062
    Thanks
    12,204
    Thanked 3,162 Times in 1,695 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HodgeyBoy View Post
    Don't think that specific regulation of affiliates is required but my job would be much easier if there was some sort of recognised accreditation that means that I know the person is who they say they are and that they don't have a background of unethical actions..... Kind of like the GPWA seal but with more behind it.

    I'm expecting there to be significant changes to wording in the T&C's of most UK-facing operators to make much more clearer and specific the expectation that affiliates will abide by the same legal constraints as the operator has to when advertising their services.

    Changing T&C's is always a headache and I know that it makes affiliates nervous but 300k fines at BGO and investigations at 888 and suddenly you have the attention of CEOs etc who will be/are already shining the spotlight on Marketing Departments and Affiliate Managers.
    I was under the impression that bgo themselves misled the consumer under the law and did not address the "concerns" of UKGC. I also thought that it was a supporting detail that a few affiliates were also failing to adjust their advertising.

    It sounded like a clear case of bgo put out an ad that was created in a way UKGC did not like. The affiliates echoed the ad. To me, this should not be passed on to the affiliate, as it was bgo who created the ad from the sound of it.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to -Shay- For This Useful Post:

    Scampi (30 May 2017)

  27. #16
    HodgeyBoy's Avatar
    HodgeyBoy is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    September 2008
    Location
    Staffordshire, UK
    Posts
    1,303
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 104 Times in 44 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Shay- View Post
    I was under the impression that bgo themselves misled the consumer under the law and did not address the "concerns" of UKGC. I also thought that it was a supporting detail that a few affiliates were also failing to adjust their advertising.

    It sounded like a clear case of bgo put out an ad that was created in a way UKGC did not like. The affiliates echoed the ad. To me, this should not be passed on to the affiliate, as it was bgo who created the ad from the sound of it.
    Yes I agree with that assessment. Having read the report put out regarding BGO it did seem that they'd been warned about this in 2016 and had promised to take steps but did not do what was required. In that sense then, the affiliates certainly seem to have only been doing what they were told by BGO and using assets provided by BGO.

    However, the general direction of travel at the UKGC/ICO/ASA etc is towards strict compliance. The operators won't put their licenses at risk so CEOs are likely to be watching their Marketing Departments very closely.

    Most Programmes that I know of also have indemnity clauses in the affiliate terms. So if in the coming months an affiliate has been told to change their practices and does not and causes the operator to be fined then we may well see just who strong that oft-ignored clause will turn out to be.

    My take-away from the last 6 months of following compliance issues is that I'll be less likely to work with people I don't know or that I can't verify as being legit as it just won;t be worth the risk (you should see the grief I get when a member of the public complains about an SMS that they didn't realise that they opted in for!)

    The danger is that programmes will become risk averse and concentrate most of their budget towards existing large affiliates or agencies and, as a result, the diversity of the affiliate channel is diminished.
    Consultant Affiliate Manager
    anthony@tag-media.org
    https://www.tag.media/

  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HodgeyBoy For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (30 May 2017), Renee (30 May 2017)

  29. #17
    Synthetic's Avatar
    Synthetic is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2017
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    22
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Broadway_Simon View Post
    Do affiliates think they should be subject to the same legislation as operators with regards to marketing. I refer to the CAP code which operators abide by;
    Absolutely NO! I am not sure why you will have to be subject to the same regulations. After all it's enough fair to work under your company`s profile and pay your annual taxes for your business!

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

    DanHorvat (30 May 2017)

  31. #18
    loquax is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2008
    Location
    Llanelli
    Posts
    79
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 106 Times in 48 Posts

    Default

    The onus is on the operator to ensure affiliates act responsibly. Should more onus be pushed on the affiliate?
    I thought the onus was already being pushed on to affiliates judging by the various emails we've had over the last year or so. From making sure offers are up to date to adding disclaimers about reviews to making sure things like "terms apply" is added on social media posts etc.

    I think it's a good thing. As a UK affiliate you're automatically meant to follow the CAP code for advertising but I'd expect that to go from "you have an error on your site" to being fined or kicked off a program to be a fairly long journey - i.e. plenty of opportunity to fix it.

    The only thing that bugs me is when an operator gets a bit heavy with their requests - and yet other affiliate sites are less compliant. I'd like to see a bit of uniformity on that score. E.g. we got warned for using an image off an operator's site because it'd didn't say "Ts&Cs apply" and it wasn't in the social media post - yet if you searched for the brand on Twitter there were countless others doing the same thing for weeks.

    Others ask for deposits to be entered into prize draws which is against UK lottery laws.
    I would disagree with that. In the past a purchase necessary prize draw did require a "no fee entry route" but that changed a few years back. The deposit is for the deposit, the prize draw element is a reward. Paying the deposit to just enter the prize draw - where no skill element is required - is when it becomes a raffle/lottery (e.g. win a house style competitions) and that's when things become awkward.

    Jason

  32. The Following User Says Thank You to loquax For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (31 May 2017)

  33. #19
    MichaelCorfman's Avatar
    MichaelCorfman is online now GPWA Executive Director
    Join Date
    June 2004
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,114
    Thanks
    838
    Thanked 5,230 Times in 1,692 Posts

    Default

    Simon, thank you for asking this question. I've added a poll, and moved it to the polls section of the forum, and we will feature it as this week's question of the week.

    Thanks,

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

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

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to MichaelCorfman For This Useful Post:

    Cash Bonus (18 September 2018)

  35. #20
    Topboss is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2002
    Posts
    2,214
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    382
    Thanked 319 Times in 156 Posts

    Default

    In a perfect world I would say Affiliates should be responsible if they advertise incorrect information, however the unfortunate thing is that very often the Affiliate Programs / Casinos don't notify their Affiliates of any changes, nor provide them with updated Marketing materials, so the Affiliate could land up being held responsible for something that is out of their power.

    Secondly There is nothing in place to protect Affiliates against Unscrupulous Operators or even audits for Affiliate stats, so why should Affiliates be held responsible for the Casinos when the Casinos have nothing in place to protect the Affiliates.

    It works both ways, therefore I voted No

  36. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Topboss For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (1 June 2017), DanHorvat (1 June 2017), HodgeyBoy (1 June 2017), LukeC (2 June 2017), PromoteCasino (1 June 2017), TheGamblersClub (2 June 2017)

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •