Skybet changes terms to steal from affiliates

[thebookiesoffers]

we ain't going to get Matt or anyone else from Sky commenting here, and this aint going to change any time soon.

I pointed out that this isn't going to help growth and I hope Matt doesn't mind me posting his quote but "I appreciate your points about growth but the decision was taken based on a lot of long term analysis"

So basically they have looked at how many long term players they have and how much they are paying out and worked out they can save X amount.

They also claim this is to incentive, is it bollocks. If you only have a small amount of traffic how can them telling you your going on 5% magically increase your traffic and sign up, each month. It is purely about cutting as many affiliates as possible to make the books look as good as possible.

Personally im not sure what to do now. I have quite a large amount of registered players so i'd be shooting myself in the foot if I walked away and let them have all those players, I also realise Im exposing myself even further if I let them keep the sign up level they had before this. Think I'll end up putting them on my network at the beginning of the month and remove them as soon as I get 6 depositors. suppose the rules will change about that next as well.

[crowngate]

After reading all the posts, it is quite obviously theft.

This new quota will cost me money. I do not have a huge player base with them so it is a no brainer to stop promoting them. But I do have active players that are generating revenue.

They looked at ways of saving money, realised they were paying out a lot to affiliates. Went to the head of affiliates and asked Matt Price to come up with a plan to cut costs. No one else would have come up the plan of 6+ depositors a month.

Matt should be ashamed of himself, probably got a nice sweetener from them to save money. Name is now Mud though.

[damage83]

So considering everything guys what would be the best plan of action? Obviously no one is going to promote them now, you would be fools if you did. We cant accept the new terms because we would be on board and if we tell them to close our accounts then again that is of our own will so the only thing to do would be to just sit back and wait? Surely someone has to take this legal so it would be wise to all take the same correct course of action.

[thebookiesoffers]

After reading all the posts, it is quite obviously theft.

This new quota will cost me money. I do not have a huge player base with them so it is a no brainer to stop promoting them. But I do have active players that are generating revenue.

They looked at ways of saving money, realised they were paying out a lot to affiliates. Went to the head of affiliates and asked Matt Price to come up with a plan to cut costs. No one else would have come up the plan of 6+ depositors a month.

Matt should be ashamed of himself, probably got a nice sweetener from them to save money. Name is now Mud though.

to be fair i'd be surprised if matt came up with this, more likely told this is how it will be deal with it

[Triple7]

So considering everything guys what would be the best plan of action? Obviously no one is going to promote them now, you would be fools if you did. We cant accept the new terms because we would be on board and if we tell them to close our accounts then again that is of our own will so the only thing to do would be to just sit back and wait? Surely someone has to take this legal so it would be wise to all take the same correct course of action.

The best thing is to take any legal action. And thinking a bit I agree with Dan. Depending on your situation, it might not be a good idea to close your account now and give them your players for free.

If you're not having a database with good revenue generating players, than perhaps it's the most easy way to take your loss, blacklist them and promote other programs.

[crowngate]

to be fair i'd be surprised if matt came up with this, more likely told this is how it will be deal with it

I have no doubt he's been told to save money, no affiliate manager would choose to do this. But you have to take responsibility if your job title is head of affiliates.

Tough choice having to get a new job or continue in a rogue one.

It's not an excuse to say someone told you to steal.

[colin3005]

anyone got a copy of the t&c's prior to the 2014 changes?
I haven't had time yet and might not for a week or two, but intend going through the contract at some stage properly

[KasinoKing]

anyone got a copy of the t&c's prior to the 2014 changes?
I haven't had time yet and might not for a week or two, but intend going through the contract at some stage properly

https://archive.org/ ... does not work - Sky have blocked this somehow...
Hopefully someone has a copy of the terms...?

If anyone is considering organising a joint action against them, I am prepared to donate a large amount of £ to the cause (over £1,000), as long as there is a good chance of winning.

KK

[Anthony]

GPWA & Sky should take note... THIS is how things should be done with programs who try to walk on their affiliate partners or players.

Skybet is not a GPWA sponsor program, there is no relationship to terminate. Casino City has removed all skybet links and marked the sites as rouge.

Once again...removal of Skybet and the termination of your affiliate account is NOT the answer in this particular case.

That's what they want, to steal your players. That's why both T&C and Matt Price are saying "you can close your account if you don't like the new terms". That's what they want, 0% commission for the players you have referred so far. That's the plan that steals millions.

So no one do anything drastic like demanding your account to be closed, you're doing them a favor. Keep a banner somewhere so they can't close your account because you're not promoting them.

I'm hoping some of the contributors to this thread (people who said they'd chip in) will meet me in Berlin. I will likely also be in London briefly prior to the conference.

Each affiliate needs to do what is best for their business. I will continue to express to Skybet, what a mistake this is for them, but I remember fighting Bwin and I am not optimistic their will be a resolution in Berlin. I would like to meet up in Berlin, I'll send you a PM.

[DanHorvat]

Fun fact: SkyBet is also available through this URL: www.skybetsucks.com

Talk about self-awareness.

[Casinorep]

I won't talk to Matt Price at the conference. I have no reason to waste time on a discussion in which he will be defending the T&C of his employer.

What I am interested in, however, is a stand up guy who would do the right thing and talk outside the conference floor.

Can you please stop beating around the bush and be a little more upfront?

[DanHorvat]

The above applied to Matt only.

The rest of us who are getting involved are meeting up in Berlin (if someone wants to see me in London let me know) to discuss the best course of action over a couple of beers.

[Deano99]

Dan I won't be in Berlin, but I'm still happy to chip in as promised. I'll be in London for LAC in Feb '16. Will be my first conference, hope to meet some of you guys then


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JackTenSuited]

So, it looks like they are expanding through Europe soon http://www.skybet.com/cms/careers.shtm
How stupid must they be to kill of their affiliate program when they need it most?

[justbookies]

Personally im not sure what to do now. I have quite a large amount of registered players so i'd be shooting myself in the foot if I walked away and let them have all those players, I also realise Im exposing myself even further if I let them keep the sign up level they had before this. Think I'll end up putting them on my network at the beginning of the month and remove them as soon as I get 6 depositors.

thebookiesoffers sums my quandry up exactly. I think quite a lot of affiliates are in exactly this position, and as a result will not post on this thread because they know their concerns pale compared with affiliates who would be on 5% every month. Also, they know they still need to deal with SkyBet and are wary of criticising them publicly. Looking over this calendar year we have sent them 55 FTDs best month and 6 FTDs worst month. So we could send maybe an average of 30FTDs a month and still have a month or three that pays at 5%.

With regards legal action, some excellent points have been made in this thread. Personally I think the way terms and conditions are changed at will is not legal under contract law. I had a lawyer tell me the "we can change terms to what we like at any time" clause would be laughed out of court and was unenforcible. I guess nobody will know for sure until a case gets to court. I will contribute £1000 to the legal action people are talking about here once it reaches court - I'll pay it to your lawyers the first day it reaches a UK court room.

The easiest firms to take to court are the UK regulated firms like SkyBet and Stan James. They are licensed in the UK and they are "bona fide" companies, not like the BetUS or Sportsbook situations at all, where you are dealing with criminals hiding under a rock. It is a precedent that needs to be set to stop this type of theft by other regulated firms in future. There are a lot more likely candidates in this business than SkyBet to turn rogue in future. A firm like Winner will rip everyone off in time, but of course not until the smaller affiliates have helped grow their business first.

[Triple7]

At the risk of putting myself in the firing line - these are all fair points and the areas should have been updated yesterday. I've made adjustments to account for this in our welcome letter, terms and conditions page and commissions page. I will also drop an email to affiliates who were approved in the last two days to outline the changes and make sure they are aware (on Monday). There will also be a follow up to yesterday's email before the start of November. The new terms are also clearly highlighted in our message center for the full month. I have no wish to hide the terms from anyone.

They are not updated yet.

If I sign up now, it seems i've got right of receiving 25% lifetime revenue share, no matter how many NDP's I will bring. Perhaps a good idea to sign up, to be able to join and chip in for the court case.

[thebookiesoffers]

thebookiesoffers sums my quandry up exactly. I think quite a lot of affiliates are in exactly this position, and as a result will not post on this thread because they know their concerns pale compared with affiliates who would be on 5% every month. Also, they know they still need to deal with SkyBet and are wary of criticising them publicly. Looking over this calendar year we have sent them 55 FTDs best month and 6 FTDs worst month. So we could send maybe an average of 30FTDs a month and still have a month or three that pays at 5%.

With regards legal action, some excellent points have been made in this thread. Personally I think the way terms and conditions are changed at will is not legal under contract law. I had a lawyer tell me the "we can change terms to what we like at any time" clause would be laughed out of court and was unenforcible. I guess nobody will know for sure until a case gets to court. I will contribute £1000 to the legal action people are talking about here once it reaches court - I'll pay it to your lawyers the first day it reaches a UK court room.

The easiest firms to take to court are the UK regulated firms like SkyBet and Stan James. They are licensed in the UK and they are "bona fide" companies, not like the BetUS or Sportsbook situations at all, where you are dealing with criminals hiding under a rock. It is a precedent that needs to be set to stop this type of theft by other regulated firms in future. There are a lot more likely candidates in this business than SkyBet to turn rogue in future. A firm like Winner will rip everyone off in time, but of course not until the smaller affiliates have helped grow their business first.

i'll chuck a grand in as well if it gets to court

[colin3005]

Thats the problem isn't it and what makes it completely unfair.
You could set a campaign up, say on facebook or wherever, pay good money for the promotion, send them 100 FTD for 6 months in a row, then have a couple of months when you don't run the campaign and go straight down to 5%.
Completely unfair on the affiliates, if something like this had to be introduced a much fairer way would be if you hit the target for say 6 months then you had a month when you didn't, you would get a 1st warning, second consecutive month last warning, third month down to 5% until you increased back up to 6 FTD again. Not that I think that would be exactly fair, but it would be a fairer way than this. Also, how come all new affiliates get 6 months at 25% yet us long term affiliates who have been pushing them for years get one month. Thats just saying 'haha we have your customers, now be off cos we don't need you any more'. I can see it from sky's point of view, they don't want to pay out 25% of their earnings to people for the next 20 years, especially if someone isn't promoting them, but firstly, don't offer it if you don't want to do it, and secondly, bring a fair way in for weeding those out who are getting money and not pushing the brand.

I am personally convinced any court action will win, its an unfair contract term, if they can just change the terms willy nilly and backdate it to apply to any accounts that were maybe signed up 5 years ago, they could put a new term in saying 'from 1st November, all customers you refer will incur a £10 per month charge that you must pay us, per customer' then invoice for £120 a year for every customer and there would be nothing anyone could do. But of course they can't because there is no way that would hold up in court, just as this won't. We have a contract with skybet, they can't breach that contract without having any liability, and i would be shocked if a judge didn't agree. They do say the rates can be changed, but that would apply to new customers from the date of change, not customers who were signed up on previous deals.

Personally I'm thinking I will do whats been mentioned above short term, start of the month push direct, then if/when i get 6 FTD change it over to a CPA deal, no point signing up too many customers just to get shafted like we are now.

[-Shay-]

Thats the problem isn't it and what makes it completely unfair.
You could set a campaign up, say on facebook or wherever, pay good money for the promotion, send them 100 FTD for 6 months in a row, then have a couple of months when you don't run the campaign and go straight down to 5%.
Completely unfair on the affiliates, if something like this had to be introduced a much fairer way would be if you hit the target for say 6 months then you had a month when you didn't, you would get a 1st warning, second consecutive month last warning, third month down to 5% until you increased back up to 6 FTD again. Not that I think that would be exactly fair, but it would be a fairer way than this. Also, how come all new affiliates get 6 months at 25% yet us long term affiliates who have been pushing them for years get one month. Thats just saying 'haha we have your customers, now be off cos we don't need you any more'. I can see it from sky's point of view, they don't want to pay out 25% of their earnings to people for the next 20 years, especially if someone isn't promoting them, but firstly, don't offer it if you don't want to do it, and secondly, bring a fair way in for weeding those out who are getting money and not pushing the brand.

I am personally convinced any court action will win, its an unfair contract term, if they can just change the terms willy nilly and backdate it to apply to any accounts that were maybe signed up 5 years ago, they could put a new term in saying 'from 1st November, all customers you refer will incur a £10 per month charge that you must pay us, per customer' then invoice for £120 a year for every customer and there would be nothing anyone could do. But of course they can't because there is no way that would hold up in court, just as this won't. We have a contract with skybet, they can't breach that contract without having any liability, and i would be shocked if a judge didn't agree. They do say the rates can be changed, but that would apply to new customers from the date of change, not customers who were signed up on previous deals.

Personally I'm thinking I will do whats been mentioned above short term, start of the month push direct, then if/when i get 6 FTD change it over to a CPA deal, no point signing up too many customers just to get shafted like we are now.

Fair, ethical business practice would be "Guys, going forward on all new business - we're doing x (insert whatever here) and we're offering an incentive of y (insert whatever here) for those partners that bring z first time depositing players. The players you brought previously (under the old terms) will remain exactly the same."

If one needs to cut costs, I understand having to look at payouts to affiliates on new business - but not retroactive changes. Obviously, there's no interest in conducting fair, ethical business on Sky's end.

[jono78]

Quotas are bad for everyone in the end and so are "warnings". If Skybet get away with screwing affiliates their's nothing stopping anyone else doing the same. Whats stopping them going to the bigger affiliates after this who are too heavily invested to stop promoting them and saying we want 10 or 50 ftd's or you go down to 5% or if you don't bring in atleast 70% of your monthly average ftd's your on 5%. It may be an attack of the small affiliates right now but it could just be the 1st step in eliminating affiliates revenue or forcing you to push them hard every month till they eventually close you down anyway.