Stan James - Closed my account

[12Xpert]

Sorry, don't agree Leopold.

The affiliates that have been removed from Stan James' programme are, it would appear, mostly good quality affiliates, judging by the names (and websites) of those who have reported being affected. As I've already explained, nearly 63 of my 82 months between July 2007 and April 2014 saw positive net revenue. Overall, the profit over turnover to Stan James from my referred players as reported by Income Access was +5.62%, and for longer term players it was +9.9%. Bookmakers like long term player who lose money.

There is nothing in these figures that would suggest the negative revenue months were disproportionately more negative than the positive months. Indeed we shouldn't expect to see such a bias overall. For a mature affiliate referring high levels of turnover to a mature bookmaker with a well-managed profit margin, monthly revenues should be roughly normally distributed, and the positive months will outweigh the negative months. OK, some affiliates might send slightly more sophisticated punters to the bookmaker given the nature of their website, but in my experience (and I've been monitoring people who claim to be professional betting forecasters for 13 years) there are very few punters who are genuinely capable of doing anything other than random guessing over the long term.

An affiliate team who accuse its affiliates of sending them "winners" clearly has zero understanding of probability and chance/luck. Or more probably, they actually have every understanding of it, and use this convenient excuse as a method of saving some money in the longer term by closing down those accused affiliates.

If Stan James can't cope with negative months either change the terms and get rid of the no negative rollover, or invoke the terms that already exist as you have kindly reproduced. But they haven't done that, have they. Without notice, they've just closed the affiliates down. There can be only one reason why a bookmaker would do that: to save money. And there can be only one reason why a bookmaker would want to do that: because it's not profitable overall. And to repeat, it's not the affiliate programme that is making Stan James unprofitable (at least the UK Ltd company isn't), it's ineptitude and unethical practice.

[-Shay-]

Here's the summary, the company is mismanaged and is not very profitable. Thus, to save costs - they cut their marketing budget, which does not make sense to begin with. Even less sensible is that they cut the budget of the marketing in which they do not control (by closing affiliate accounts for BS reasons), as affiliates have their own voice.

Because they save themselves money (on paper in the short term), they sleep better at night.

[Roulette Zeitung]

Hello 12Xpert,

there is no doubt: Closing webmaster accounts who generated profit, that's sheer suicide for every program.

But you can only speak for yourself, and I bet, that after all calculations would be made public, the results from some webmasters will reflect the no-negative-carryover problem from my last post.

But everyone if free to choose his programs. What I don't understand is, why webmasters obviously don't read the terms before clicking on the join now button.

You can't be surprised, if you are well informed.

What do you expect from programs with terms like this muzzle?

10. CONFIDENTIALITY

You undertake that You will not at any time (including for the avoidance of doubt after the termination of this Agreement) use, divulge or communicate to any person, except to Your professional representatives or advisers or as may be required by law or any legal or regulatory authority, any confidential information concerning the business or affairs of Us which may have or may in future come to Your knowledge and You shall use Your best endeavours to prevent the publication or disclosure of any confidential information concerning such matters.You undertake that You will not at any time (including for the avoidance of doubt after the termination of this Agreement) use, divulge or communicate to any person, except to Your professional representatives or advisers or as may be required by law or any legal or regulatory authority, any confidential information concerning the business or affairs of Us which may have or may in future come to Your knowledge and You shall use Your best endeavours to prevent the publication or disclosure of any confidential information concerning such matters.

And what "confidential" is ... Stan James will decide (for you).

Nobody can force a webmaster to work with Stan James. You have the freedom of decision.

Taking one hour to read the terms is better than falling blind by dollar signs in the eyes into the pitfall ... sooner or later.

You all have undersign the terms, and you all have accept the terms. Now you are in danger to violate rules in posting "confidential" material here in this forum.

Under the view of law you have no chance. You can't sue Stan James, because you accepted the terms. If you generated a big loss for Stan James, then you can't be surprised, because no-negative-carryover in my eyes is as stupid as quotas, and with simple math you can find out why ... if you take the time on a sunny afternoon.

All I can say in that regard is: "The mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse."

Leopold

[12Xpert]

Of course I was well aware of the no negative rollover when I first joined the programme all those years ago. What I can't have known was that Stan James UK Ltd was going to become unprofitable. But what I do know is that I have generated big profits for Stan James and that information about their annual accounts is in the public domain so it would seem pretty stupid to sue over republication of those figures. But of course they are not going to do that, given they've just finished with a lengthy and presumably costly legal battle with the FA over fixtures copyright and that too is all in the public domain.

[thebookiesoffers]

Right, enough is enough, I will ask

Can I have an official GPWA response to this please, I was told I'd get kept well in the loop, had one email with a load of half hearted crap from Stan James, the main one just for public consumption, being I made a loss between Jan 1st 2013 to whenever they shut my account, but I had been doing this since 2007, then have heard nothing back and saw complete silence from GPWA ever since

so, over to you.......

[mojo]

I've been out of the loop for awhile but this thread caught my attention.

Goodness knows GPWA does a lot. Much appreciated. The wheels turn slowly here and this is only hurting affiliates. Especially noticeable when I see long time respected affiliates and GPWA private members ask nicely only to be answered with silence.

Enough behind the scenes at a snails pace. Let's get this done. Love gpwa!

[casinovegas]

I've still had no reply as to how I can access invoices etc from Michael when asked as emailing them (number 14 now) gets no reply.

[MichaelCorfman]

I'm spending time working on the Stan James issues today. In that context I have taken the following actions:

1. I have placed a warning message at the top of the Stan James affiliate program page, which is located here:

www.gpwa.org/affiliate-program/stan-james-affiliates.

The warning reads as follows:

Warning: A significant number of GPWA affiliate webmasters have stated that their Stan James affiliate accounts have been closed even though they were actively promoting the brand at the time of account closure. For the present time, while this situation is being investigated, we recommend affiliates working with Stan James, or considering working with Stan James, review the recent discussions found here: Stan James Forum.

2. I have placed a similar warning at the top of the main Stan James forum page, which is located here:

www.gpwa.org/forum/stan-james-affiliates.html

3. I have moved this thread into the Stan James forum area so it will be visible to webmasters researching Stan James. The thread was originally placed in the Unethical Reports forum, and this thread currently remains visible in that forum with a redirect to its new location.

My intention has been to follow-up with Stan James when several webmasters came forward requesting to be included in an investigation. However, there was only one additional webmaster who has sent me a pm asking to be included, and in that webmasters case there was a request at the time I was initially contacted to delay for a time.

I would repeat that I would like to include additional webmasters in the investigation since I believe larger numbers are more effective, and more likely to have an impact. However, at the present time I am going to press forward with the two webmasters who have specifically come forward and requested that we investigate their particular situations.

Michael

[casinovegas]

Still no word on this.............

[Jokerman99]

They'll probably open the program again next month once they've reaped the benefits of fleecing their affiliates during the busiest time for sports betting in the whole year. SJ will never get a player from me ever again period.

[-Shay-]

I'm spending time working on the Stan James issues today. In that context I have taken the following actions:

1. I have placed a warning message at the top of the Stan James affiliate program page, which is located here:

www.gpwa.org/affiliate-program/stan-james-affiliates.

The warning reads as follows:



2. I have placed a similar warning at the top of the main Stan James forum page, which is located here:

www.gpwa.org/forum/stan-james-affiliates.html

3. I have moved this thread into the Stan James forum area so it will be visible to webmasters researching Stan James. The thread was originally placed in the Unethical Reports forum, and this thread currently remains visible in that forum with a redirect to its new location.

My intention has been to follow-up with Stan James when several webmasters came forward requesting to be included in an investigation. However, there was only one additional webmaster who has sent me a pm asking to be included, and in that webmasters case there was a request at the time I was initially contacted to delay for a time.

I would repeat that I would like to include additional webmasters in the investigation since I believe larger numbers are more effective, and more likely to have an impact. However, at the present time I am going to press forward with the two webmasters who have specifically come forward and requested that we investigate their particular situations.

Michael

Any result from this investigation which was started over a month ago? I do not have a horse in this race but it is still something that needs to be addressed in the name of integrity of the industry.

[MichaelCorfman]

I made my last post a little before the BAC conference. At the time I was hoping to be able to meet with a representative of Stan James at the conference. However, there was no one from their affiliate program in attendance.

There has been a third web master who has asked to be included after my last post, and I did receive a reply to my query from Stan James acknowledging that they understood I would be forwarding requests for additional information for the affiliates that had requested that I investigate the situation.

It normally takes me a week or two to catch up and resume tasks like this after attending a conference, but this time it has been harder than usual, and I am only now getting to the point where I can do that again. Tomorrow I am leaving for the CBG affiliate weekend, and will be back from that next Tuesday, so my current expectation is that I will be able to devote the time next week to move forward with the three webmasters whose accounts I am investigating.

Michael

[thebookiesoffers]

i raised the issue 3 months ago and had nothing in return apart from the initial couple of emails, 3 months, sigh

[alin04]

I know one thing for sure. I will never be a Stan James affiliate.

[JackTenSuited]

I know one thing for sure. I will never be a Stan James affiliate.

Yep, I signed up a while ago, then happened to see this thread, never going to bother promoting them.

[TheWaiter]

Sounds shocking, there must be another reason behind the ban, have you managed to get in touch with them? What's the latest?

[Jokerman99]

Sounds shocking, there must be another reason behind the ban, have you managed to get in touch with them? What's the latest?

There is no reason other than pure greed.

You would think some of these companies would look at the success of companies such as Bet365 who are hugely dependent on affiliates for their new business and post amazing results year after year. The likes of SJ could learn a thing or two.

[Asim]

There is no reason other than pure greed.

You would think some of these companies would look at the success of companies such as Bet365 who are hugely dependent on affiliates for their new business and post amazing results year after year. The likes of SJ could learn a thing or two.

Spot on! Stan James are pure thives and should be banned everywere.

Im also dont like that everytime I go to the frontPage of GPWA.org, I can see some new tweets from this rogue affiliteprogram.
May I ask GPWA why Stan James affiliates are not removed from the twitter feeds??
No point in giving them free advitising imo.. Some new affiliate may sign up at them because of their daily tweets!

[thebookiesoffers]

Sounds shocking, there must be another reason behind the ban, have you managed to get in touch with them? What's the latest?

the latest is I brought it to the attention of GPWA 3 months ago and have basically had no news back, they got my permission to have all the stats and then nothing, in 3 months, nothing. yet although they (stan james) have closed god knows how many affiliate accounts GPWA STILL allow them to advertise and potentially steal off a load more affiliates, the very same GPWA that promotes themselves on being here to protect affiliates from such practices

[joeyl]

This firm look like they'd rather be removed from the gpwa and get the 4k fees back I guess.

I think the warning serves more purpose than removing them to the shitpit for now.