Sportsbook makes "unprecedented decision" for select affiliates before Super Bowl

[The Buzz]

Interesting note today from Steve Ruddock's excellent daily substack newsletter, Straight to the Point, in which he writes about an "undisclosed regulated sportsbook" that has taken an unprecedented step ahead of Super Bowl LVIII.

According to an email acquired by Straight to the Point, a prominent player in the regulated US sports betting industry has informed certain affiliate partners that it will suspend new affiliate registrations from February 1 to 11 in anticipation of the Super Bowl.

From Straight to the Point:

According to the email, “A vast majority of the customers who come in at this time are bonus hunters, not interested in being a returning customer to our book… [that] will not reap an ROI to the business.”

This message was sent to select affiliates, as the operator said it plans to turn off “the majority” of its network for the stated period.

I’ve been discussing the possibility of increasing regulation on affiliates, but regulators may also want to look at how the industry interacts with affiliates.

This is not the environment we were promised when everyone was trumpeting the above-board behavior and transparent oversight of the legal betting industry. We need more of that cleansing light.

Read more here: https://straighttothepoint.substack....or-termination

[universal4]

Wanna guess the statement is poorly worded and the actual suspensions of registrations will not actually be suspended, but that they will just not "credit" such registrations to the affiliate.

And there is no mention whether this is ALL affiliates, or just those they put on a specific list.

And will this "undisclosed sportsbook" stop all television and other network ads during the same time frame? Or will we continue to see their ads everywhere cutting the affiliate out?

Rick
Universal4

[cusl]

I wonder which sportsbook this is..

[dannyx]

How about making it so now that Monday and Thursday registrations will not be recorded in partners' accounts?

Or until 3 pm registrations are not counted because players registering in the morning are not at work so they will shell out bonuses.

The possibilities are endless.

[bpmee]

Would be easy to challenge if such provision is not in the contract. Moreover, I imagine affected affiliates will contact gaming regulators to see if anything can be done.

Hopefully the regulators will realize that keeping "legal" affiliates happy means fewer customers for the "illegal" sites. If regulators were more open-minded about affiliate marketing, they could curb business going to the "illegal" sites fairly quickly.

I'm curious which sportsbook this is, too. I suspect it will only apply to CPA affiliates. Those on RS should be OK.

[newcustomeroffer]

No different to what happens around the Grand National here in the UK, plenty of short-term changes to offers, CPA deals reduce/are removed etc. Although to be fair it's never handled particularly well even though it's an annual occurrence.

'A vast majority of the customers who come in at this time are bonus hunters, not interested in being a returning customer to our book....'

Interesting the language which is used, I'd separate bonus hunters/bonus abuse/fraud from one-off/less regular/big event only bettors. There is a distinction in my view, and the latter - who may bet on the Super Bowl this year for the first time - may go on to become more regular punters over time. Perhaps even a canny sportsbook could do an outstanding job of welcoming, engaging, developing and retaining these new players rather than dismissing them as garbage because of the time of year that signed up. Never know, they might be worthwhile and profitable to have on board in the longer term.

[Mattbar]

No different to what happens around the Grand National here in the UK

In recent years some have started doing this for Cheltenham too and it is hard to argue that Cheltenham is in any way like the Grand National, it is one of the most valuable events of the year. We even had a couple of programs do this for the World Cup in 2022.

Even with the GN if you take the accounts you send for it and you look at that base over 12+ months it is always positive. One problem is programs only seem to care about the next quarter and they don't want to see reduced profits even if that means they would make more over a year. One way to do that is just to screw affiliates, as seems to be the case here.

[baldidiot]

Even with the GN if you take the accounts you send for it and you look at that base over 12+ months it is always positive. One problem is programs only seem to care about the next quarter and they don't want to see reduced profits even if that means they would make more over a year. One way to do that is just to screw affiliates, as seems to be the case here.

I don't think it's just about value. One program once told me that they can't handle the volume of traffic, or keep up with the sign ups and associated support queries, so they limited sign ups to better serve their existing customers.

Whether you want to believe that or not is another matter...

[chaumi]

Yeah Cheltenham is a different game entirely from the big race at Aintree. Apart maybe (and in a limited way) from the GC and debatably the Champion Hurdle, you'd expect Cheltenham punters are much more likely to be 'proper' racing fans, not just seeking an online deal for a one off bet.

Good point about the volumes, and the increased management costs associated with that. May well hold some weight.