Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 165
  1. #41
    Jokerman99 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    384
    Thanks
    81
    Thanked 247 Times in 145 Posts

    Default

    What is GPWA's policy when sponsored programs do things such as this? Continuing to list them as a sponsor implies to affiliates that GPWA endorses the Stan James affiliate program. As tbo said above, I think a suspension should be implemented with immediate effect. There's absolutely no chance this was a coincidence with the WC coming. The only good thing is they've given me plenty of time to append "Scam" to Stan James in my title tags before the World Cup.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jokerman99 For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (3 May 2014), Asim (24 July 2014), Footymadstreams (3 May 2014)

  3. #42
    -Shay- is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2012
    Posts
    3,062
    Thanks
    12,211
    Thanked 3,133 Times in 1,686 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thebookiesoffers View Post
    to be fair to GPWA Anthony has been in touch and Michael will be investigating, can't knock them for that

    peronally, whenever a firm starts doing this though I like to see their sponsorship suspended until they have made a public explanation. Afterall no one publicly knows what happened the last time stan james did a round of this sort of thing

    theft is theft
    They should be suspended. The GPWA sponsor code of conduct is clear on expectations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jokerman99 View Post
    What is GPWA's policy when sponsored programs do things such as this? Continuing to list them as a sponsor implies to affiliates that GPWA endorses the Stan James affiliate program. As tbo said above, I think a suspension should be implemented with immediate effect. There's absolutely no chance this was a coincidence with the WC coming. The only good thing is they've given me plenty of time to append "Scam" to Stan James in my title tags before the World Cup.
    I totally agree that continuing to list them as sponsors implies endorsement, especially with the sponsor's code of conduct.

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

    Footymadstreams (3 May 2014)

  5. #43
    -Shay- is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2012
    Posts
    3,062
    Thanks
    12,211
    Thanked 3,133 Times in 1,686 Posts

    Default

    To be clear here - while this thread was started in April 2014, this is not a new problem with sponsor program Stan James. There's mention of Stan James stealing here (thank you Leopold for linking to this thread in one of your posts).

    Stan James also has issues from February 2013, where they shut down player accounts here. It took nearly four months & three pages worth of posts for Stan James to fully address the issue and see the error of their ways... for one of the posters in that thread.

    However, as they fixed one, there were another round of affiliate reports in June 2013 that stated Stan James closed/threatened to close or steal accounts due to inactivity. Michael posted about his possibly confidential findings on 16 August 2013. We go on to post #100, where Michael cites breach of confidentiality if he posts his findings in public. As of November 2013, the date of the last post, that situation is left unresolved. Stan James still remain as endorsed GPWA sponsors.

    I'm going to go on a rant about how the various Stan James situations have been - or more accurately have not been handled here. But not on this thread, as my thoughts apply to more than just this particular program. I have zero vested financial interest in the Stan James thread but I do have interest in how it is being (not) handled. I will post my thoughts later this weekend.

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

    pokerbanter (3 May 2014)

  7. #44
    Footymadstreams is offline New Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post

    Default

    Ive also had the same email and know of two others who also received it.

  8. #45
    R-Media is offline New Member
    Join Date
    July 2013
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Hi all,

    This is my first post here, I've come across this thread after receiving the same email on 1st May.

    I've had a Stan James affiliate account for over 3 years, with active customers every single month over the last 2 years. I have never sent them huge amounts of customers (and I now can't login to see the total), but for the majority of the time there has been a consistent stream of clicks on their banner ads. Over the last couple of months, this has decreased due a loss of organic traffic, but not to a standstill. To find my account penalised in this way and supposedly without reproach ("We appreciate that you may not agree with the decision. However it has been made at the highest level and is final.") is extremely concerning.

    I am yet to switch my reviews declaring this bookmaker untrustworthy, in the hope a resolution can be found, but given the sheer number of affiliates affected I am not hopeful.

    Thanks to the guys who are investigating on behalf of the other members, I await the response of Stan James with interest.

  9. #46
    -Shay- is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2012
    Posts
    3,062
    Thanks
    12,211
    Thanked 3,133 Times in 1,686 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by R-Media View Post

    I am yet to switch my reviews declaring this bookmaker untrustworthy, in the hope a resolution can be found, but given the sheer number of affiliates affected I am not hopeful.

    .
    They are $hitbags and did not give you the same courtesy. I'd strongly suggest switch them until they make right, then reconsider later. Or, switch the reviews to negative ones, change the links, and finally email them and tell them that the opinion was formed at the highest level and is final.

  10. #47
    RacingJim is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,871
    Thanks
    882
    Thanked 1,361 Times in 840 Posts

    Default

    This sucks so much. I haven't had my account closed (yet), but I think that all people who HAVE had their accounts closed should be looking at taking legal advice if this issue doesn't get sorted. It is probably going to take a bunch of people and GPWA to stand together on this and take some sort of legal action against one of these rogue companies, to make the industry stand up and take notice.

    The example I use is this: if you were running any other small business and someone didn't pay for work you'd done, you'd take it to legals, you wouldn't just walk away and go 'oh well'. So in that same way, this industry and this relationship should be no different. These companies hide behind the 'big company' brand name, but somewhere along the line, someone has taken a decision that is actually quite probably illegal, i.e. to not pay people according to a legal agreement.

    There is so much trust involved in this industry and unfortunately it's mostly one way, i.e. little affiliate guy trusting the big company. A worrying industry to make your living from - imagine if this was one of your big paying programs?

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to RacingJim For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (5 May 2014)

  12. #48
    -Shay- is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2012
    Posts
    3,062
    Thanks
    12,211
    Thanked 3,133 Times in 1,686 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RacingJim View Post
    This sucks so much. I haven't had my account closed (yet), but I think that all people who HAVE had their accounts closed should be looking at taking legal advice if this issue doesn't get sorted. It is probably going to take a bunch of people and GPWA to stand together on this and take some sort of legal action against one of these rogue companies, to make the industry stand up and take notice.

    The example I use is this: if you were running any other small business and someone didn't pay for work you'd done, you'd take it to legals, you wouldn't just walk away and go 'oh well'. So in that same way, this industry and this relationship should be no different. These companies hide behind the 'big company' brand name, but somewhere along the line, someone has taken a decision that is actually quite probably illegal, i.e. to not pay people according to a legal agreement.

    There is so much trust involved in this industry and unfortunately it's mostly one way, i.e. little affiliate guy trusting the big company. A worrying industry to make your living from - imagine if this was one of your big paying programs?
    I could not possibly agree more with your statements.

  13. #49
    Roulette Zeitung is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,446
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    6,015
    Thanked 6,683 Times in 2,949 Posts

    Default

    "take some sort of legal action against one of these rogue companies"

    Well roared, lion!

    But ...

    You should not forget, that

    -many affiliate program owners remain anonymous or dodge behind straw man, so called "regulators". Someone want sue them? It's civil law! Then (valid for a lot of countries) you 1st have to find out the real name and address of the top management. The summonable address!

    -many whois entries that are "public" (without domain privacy), are a joke, because most webhoster don't want to see any passport copy or something else. My family have had domains and webspace over 15 years in 8 different countries, with and without domain privacy and never we must verify our data. It's a matter of trust. That's reality! The problem is the privacy of real names and addresses!

    -if you want to sue someone with civil law, then you have to invest a lot of money. You know, what "place of jurisdiction" is? Moreover, the end is open, and many civil law cases ends with the decision: Court settlement!

    ---

    On the other side, these shady characters will never sue you if you publish unmasking reports about them, because they know exactly, what they are doing, and this time "place of jurisdiction" is in your favor!

    If you are smart and get robbed by criminals, then you can build a public pressure on some free of cost self-made places, so heavy, that ...

    "take some sort of legal action against one of these rogue companies"

    You see, it is not that simple. to walk the talk, and webmasters have to understand, that earnings from the gambling industry are not "normal "money like being an employee in a store or working as a truck driver or nurse.

    ---

    "The executioner is, I believe, very expert, and my neck is very slender."
    [Anne Boleyn]

    Leopold
    Last edited by Roulette Zeitung; 6 May 2014 at 6:24 am.

  14. #50
    RacingJim is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,871
    Thanks
    882
    Thanked 1,361 Times in 840 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roulette Zeitung View Post
    "take some sort of legal action against one of these rogue companies"


    You see, it is not that simple. to walk the talk, and webmasters have to understand, that earnings from the gambling industry are not "normal "money like being an employee in a store or working as a truck driver or nurse.
    Nope, you are right it's definitely not normal, it's currently a bit of a wild west situation. To an extent, gambling will always be this way - but it's true of most affiliate marketing I think. At the moment it's a fairly new concept and the laws in each land would appear not to have caught up to offer affiliate marketers with the usual protections that apply in other employment areas.

  15. #51
    -Shay- is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2012
    Posts
    3,062
    Thanks
    12,211
    Thanked 3,133 Times in 1,686 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roulette Zeitung View Post
    "take some sort of legal action against one of these rogue companies"

    Well roared, lion!

    But ...

    You should not forget, that

    -many affiliate program owners remain anonymous or dodge behind straw man, so called "regulators". Someone want sue them? It's civil law! Then (valid for a lot of countries) you 1st have to find out the real name and address of the top management. The summonable address!

    -many whois entries that are "public" (without domain privacy), are a joke, because most webhoster don't want to see any passport copy or something else. My family have had domains and webspace over 15 years in 8 different countries, with and without domain privacy and never we must verify our data. It's a matter of trust. That's reality! The problem is the privacy of real names and addresses!

    -if you want to sue someone with civil law, then you have to invest a lot of money. You know, what "place of jurisdiction" is? Moreover, the end is open, and many civil law cases ends with the decision: Court settlement!

    ---

    On the other side, these shady characters will never sue you if you publish unmasking reports about them, because they know exactly, what they are doing, and this time "place of jurisdiction" is in your favor!

    If you are smart and get robbed by criminals, then you can build a public pressure on some free of cost self-made places, so heavy, that ...

    "take some sort of legal action against one of these rogue companies"

    You see, it is not that simple. to walk the talk, and webmasters have to understand, that earnings from the gambling industry are not "normal "money like being an employee in a store or working as a truck driver or nurse.

    ---

    "The executioner is, I believe, very expert, and my neck is very slender."
    [Anne Boleyn]

    Leopold
    My assumption is that GPWA has the proper contact information for their sponsors. My call is that they (GPWA) should either lead the charge or accommodate those affiliates who have been "stolen" from.

    Some may disagree with my "call" but if the GPWA puts members first AND has a code of conduct policy that is not just for show, they would suspend thieving programs and readily provide legal and correct contact information for programs at minimum to those who need it.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to -Shay- For This Useful Post:


  17. #52
    philrush is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Posts
    36
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    My accounts just gone too. Fortunately the program always performed **** poor for me, so not a lot for me to lose. Perhaps they should invest in a better marketing team rather than sacking affiliates who are "underperforming".

  18. #53
    Voids is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2012
    Posts
    626
    Thanks
    223
    Thanked 219 Times in 166 Posts

    Default

    I've never worked with them, I heard rumours of this a couple of years ago, but it looks like they are cutting for the world cup. Obviously it's a major sporting event but I've never experienced one as an affiliate, will it generate a big saving?

    I can't see how they can continue to sponsor the forum. Rogue is Rogue.

  19. #54
    philrush is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Posts
    36
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Voids View Post
    I've never worked with them, I heard rumours of this a couple of years ago, but it looks like they are cutting for the world cup. Obviously it's a major sporting event but I've never experienced one as an affiliate, will it generate a big saving?

    I can't see how they can continue to sponsor the forum. Rogue is Rogue.
    I can't really see what their logic is, I'm not sure of the costs of managing "underperforming" affiliates but I imagine its minimal. I guess they'll make some short term gains on all the players they steal, but in the long term no one in their right mind would promote this program. A more worthwhile strategy perhaps would be to work on getting greater conversions from affiliates, which will improve traffic volumes.

    I didn't notice much of a gain in the last world cup, but I imagine for affiliates who can capture world cup related traffic or have a large player base its a good earner.

    Phil

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to philrush For This Useful Post:

    Voids (7 May 2014), Zuga (7 May 2014)

  21. #55
    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
    29,674
    Thanks
    2,784
    Thanked 8,278 Times in 5,243 Posts

    Default

    Let's see....maybe newsletters to affiliates that don't convert are more expensive....nope one newsletter to all no change in cost.

    Hmmmmm well there is that little bit of additional hard drive space the extra records in the database takes up....

    Then there is that payment that goes out to.....nope, if they did not earn anything, no payments go to them so I guess that $0 could possibly add $0 to the cost....

    Well there IS that ego thing, if an affiliate program has 10,000 affiliates but only 500 earn every month the affiliate management team might not feel as good about the percentage that s not performing the way they wish they would, so instead of trying to offer incentives or personaly help to any affiliates that would like to try and get the numbers up they get rid of them in hopes they will forget about their links and send depositers after their accounts are turned off.

    SOME affiliate programs recognize that although they might have a bunch of affiliates that are not performing TODAY, they understand things could change over night and the non-perfomring small affiliate today could be tomorrow's star.

    Rick
    Universal4

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

    -Shay- (7 May 2014), Zuga (7 May 2014)

  23. #56
    philrush is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Posts
    36
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Totally agree Rick, it's really difficult for small affiliates to get off the ground and any players they get should be appreciated, even experienced affiliates are at the whim of traffic fluctuations and cannot always keep the players coming in, so this kind of attitude is from certain affiliate programs really stinks. Plus stanjames converts poorly so I think the real issue lies with the program not the affiliates.

  24. #57
    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
    29,674
    Thanks
    2,784
    Thanked 8,278 Times in 5,243 Posts

    Default

    A few of us here have lobbied very heavily for the rights of small affiliates since the beginning.

    Sorry, but that means ALL quotas suck and it is only a matter of time before the quota mentality get's you at one place or another, no matter what the quota is, it should not exist, or I encourage small and new affiliates to just skip any programs with any kind of quota until later, after they start getting a player base at other places, or at least until they get a little better handle on their traffic flows.

    I never got involved with Stan James, and I don't recall if it was their general feeling of "elitest" I felt they had from the beginning or not, but I am certainly glad I never put them up anywhere.

    Rick
    Universal4

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

    -Shay- (7 May 2014)

  26. #58
    DanHorvat's Avatar
    DanHorvat is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2008
    Location
    Actual location may vary.
    Posts
    1,917
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thanks
    1,310
    Thanked 1,294 Times in 762 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WATP View Post
    I was directing towards the point of 'we all need to stand up' and see if we can all do something about this nonsense
    I haven't been promoting Stan James actively but they were always listed on my sites, with a normal URL as I'm not affiliated. I had a clash with them a couple of years back and never bothered with them afterwards.

    Since I'm expecting a huge traffic surge during the World Cup, today I wil remove any mention of Stan James from all my sites. And it will stay that way indefinitely.

    Whoever is informed of this situation and is still keeping SJ on the site in hope that his account won't be closed and that he will still be making money is a fool and a traitor in my book.
    Backlink building and bespoke white hat SEO service available. PM for details.

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to DanHorvat For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (8 May 2014)

  28. #59
    Jokerman99 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    384
    Thanks
    81
    Thanked 247 Times in 145 Posts

    Default

    Just add a scam warning to any page where they are mentioned and redirect the traffic to a more reputable site. It still saddens me to see them listed as a sponsor here, especially given the terms that Shay has linked to several times which Stan James are clearly guilty of breaking.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to Jokerman99 For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (8 May 2014)

  30. #60
    jono78 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    April 2013
    Location
    london
    Posts
    201
    Thanks
    83
    Thanked 181 Times in 115 Posts

    Default

    Same happened to me. I'm a small affiliate and it won't really affect my income. My concern is could others follow suit because there are a few that would hit my pocket much harder. I quickly deleted them and any pages associated with them. Although i am considering putting their pages back up advising users not to use them and directing them to more respectable bookmakers.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... 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
  •