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

[AussieDave]

if they are too good to be true they normally are .

25% cashback advertized at VS. In truth isn't 25% at all. Instead it's 1% and capped.

[HodgeyBoy]

It works both ways, therefore I voted No

I agree that it works both ways which is why I voted Yes!

Ultimately, the industry response to this has to be more good operators working more closely with more of the good affiliates. It's in everybody's interests that customers are not mislead. I'd like to see more of what I've tried to spend over a decade doing with is making affiliates feel like marketing partners, bring them 'inside the tent', encourage trust and honesty - which certainly cuts both ways!

Sure, we're going to add new terms and tell you that you must NOT do x,y,z etc because we don't want to lose our license but, just like TopBoss says; Programmes have to treat affiliates properly, give them regular, up to date information and compliant creative. We also have to be much quicker to come down on/warn/suspend non-compliant affiliates because otherwise, why are the good guys gonna jump through hoops for you?

I don't want the affiliate channel to shrink just because operators get spooked and don't want the risk.

However, I'd be happy to see it shrink if more resource was spent on the good guys and the wheeler-dealers got frozen out.

[Miles_Videoslots]

25% cashback advertized at VS. In truth isn't 25% at all. Instead it's 1% and capped.

We give something back to players every week and that's what counts we don't just take and not reward players for their loyalty.

Added to that the fact we give away money in our Races almost 60 000 k on top of this of this

https://www.videoslots.com/races/monthly/

There are more than enough reasons to keep playing at Videoslots and players love playing their because we give them so much back in wager free incentives ..and you would have noticed that we also changed this form "Cashback" to the " Weekend Booster" so as to avoid confusion ..

https://www.videoslots.com/the-weekend-booster/

[ocreditor]

It should not be as "regulation" because it's adding too much bureaucracy where it's not needed but creating a cod where affiliates have the option to submit their site for review to get a seal (for example) by the authorities can be much better solution

[tehsik]

NO, you might ask why i voted NO.

Imagine I do the same promotion on 10 different sites: all are accurate and the affiliate program changes the offer ... what do i do ? Usually I ask the casino to give me replacements and here comes the issue.

1. (imagine they have around 50 affiliates asking for the same thing) Usually the program will take a lot of time to create that set of banners and in many cases they will not do it , why should i pay the fine ? there's no way this will happen.
2. A lot of promotions are on many sites have little information therefore sometimes as stated people will just put £1500 bonus and make a simple review or talk about some other features of the casino.
3. Not all affiliates are Active. ( Imagine One makes £1000/month or less and gets £20K Fine) , that will put Him out of the business because of what?


Remember this is a part time job for many affiliates , only 10-15% are considered full-time affiliates.

Also Remember Everything is Misleading about the Casino, just saying you could win £10.000 can be already seen like that and so on ...

I am working already on a system that will put me ahead many affiliates regarding Regulations... and if this will happen then I'll be right on track, still I don't believe its fair.

I've seen some replies from some big affiliates which makes me to believe this is like a removal of competition .... the small ones ..... its like its not enough for you haha ....

[-Shay-]

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

In fact, this nearly happened to us. There was an affiliate program (not too long ago) that we broke ties with in that we were not sending them any new business but we had a few players on the books, so the account remained open. Six months or so goes by and we begin getting some non-specific emails telling us that our listings are not compliant or something to that effect. We ignored those emails, as we were not doing new business with them and thus were not advertising them.

Then, out of the blue we get an email from both the AM and the owner of the network telling us that we need to stop sending sms messages advertising their brand and that our clone site of their brand is unacceptable and that if they are fined due to our campaign, they have all intentions of passing the fine along to us. My partner reached out to them at this point and explained we do not engage in sms marketing at all and implied that this had to have been some sort of sick joke. They conducted an "investigation" and determined that it was another affiliate who miscopied their own affiliate link and instead included ours. Funny thing is, I logged into their "award winning software" and saw no evidence that our links were used or clicked. Either the stats were manipulated and hence zero'd out or they themselves made a mistake in contacting us or something else happened - I am not really sure at this point.

What I do know is that we were not doing what we were accused of doing and I would not want to be subjected to the possibility of a fine for the actions of others.

Additionally, there are programs who will roll out changes last minute and expect that I drop everything to change the offer straight away (now, to be exact). That is not a realistic expectation. There should (in my opinion) be a bit of notice on anything that is changing that impacts how we position a brand.

Finally, until I have the ability to audit 100% of the traffic we're credited with, there is no way in hell I'd be OK with accepting a fine for affiliate activity.

[DanHorvat]

The Company reserves the right to suspend the Affiliate’s access to the Software and to suspend Commission payments in the event that the Affiliate fails to refer any new Players to the Customer in any six month period. Reinstatement will be at the discretion of the Company.

This kind of predatory terms should be regulated by UKGC. Any affiliate program stating such terms should not be allowed to operate in the UK nor anywhere in the EU.

[AussieDave]

This kind of predatory terms should be regulated by UKGC. Any affiliate program stating such terms should not be allowed to operate in the UK nor anywhere in the EU.

Since day-dot, affiliates, just like players, have been at the mercy of programs/gambling venues and, how they chooses to abide by their own T&C's, or not. Most, T&C's (in the industry) would be considered unlawful in the EU (and elsewhere), if they were ever brought to court. To date, any players who have challenged them, get a slient payout, and sign non-disclosure agreements. Casino etc., have very deep pockets. A single affiliate couldn't afford to take action. But a class action, that's a double option. One single class action, would make the rest rethink their current position.

[AussieDave]

there are programs who will roll out changes last minute and expect that I drop everything to change the offer straight away (now, to be exact). That is not a realistic expectation. There should (in my opinion) be a bit of notice on anything that is changing that impacts how we position a brand.

This practice is especially pronounced when, for example, a casino is leaving a market. A few have left the AU market recently. Both players and affiliates were given very little notice. In a number of cases, these notices, were only a few days.

[MannyBetting]

A single affiliate couldn't afford to take action.

They could, that is exactly what the small claims court is for. And while there is a limit to the amount you can claim for, it's reasonable to assume that smaller affiliates would be claiming for lesser amounts anyway. So there IS an option for everybody to take action alone.

Now imagine if a term changing thief such as, I dunno let's pick someone at random shall we Bet Victor, suddenly received court papers from hundreds or thousands of individual claims at once. Might make somebody think twice about how they conduct their business.....