Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 101
  1. #41
    Triple7 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2015
    Posts
    2,702
    Thanks
    2,000
    Thanked 2,381 Times in 1,277 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Shay- View Post
    I would think that a set of "best practices" would be ideal here. Some of those best practices could be deal breakers (ie - tranparency in stats such as deposits, cashouts, all fees detailed, no quotas that provide grounds for account closure or theft of players, no retroactive changes applied to players brought in before the date of the agreed upon change, etc). While other terms such as policy of handling negative carryover or tiered revenue share could be "strongly suggested" but not deal breakers in and of themselves.

    Ideally speaking, none of us are promoting an outfit that isn't "cooperative". However, we all surely have at least one or two outfits that we should have dropped years ago if current posture is the sole indicator but there's a few heavy hitters in that affiliate account, so you keep promoting them based on that. I think such an alliance would crumble instantly if affiliates were told specifically who they could and could not promote. Instead, perhaps going the route of supporting an alliance with the following programs and wishing best of luck with the rest is the way to go rather than making it a "members only" type of club. That way, there's no micro-managing of one's business by the organization going on.
    I think you're touching here an essential point. It won't work if an organisation will decide who a member can promote and who not. But, if it has no consequences if a program scams players and/or affiliates, it will be just another seal.

    I guess there must be something like: recommended, not recommended and blacklist. Be on the last list, should have consequences. There's a difference in my eyes between having crappy terms, but pay everybody on time and a program that is not paying or acting with retro-actively things.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Triple7 For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (31 July 2017), Roulette Zeitung (4 August 2017)

  3. #42
    vardan's Avatar
    vardan is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2014
    Location
    Barcelona, Spain
    Posts
    425
    Thanks
    368
    Thanked 225 Times in 154 Posts

    Default

    So, what about restructuration? In my opinion, the GPWA should adopt several functions that are typical to trade unions. We want to do business in a stable field, nobody will create that stability for us, we must do that by ourselves.

    The affiliate programs continuously break the agreements, show not proper business ethics, deceives the affiliates or changes the terms and conditions to damage affiliates. Such situations are numerous and the problems created because of this are mostly unsolvable for a single affiliate.

    In such cases, as a result of GPWA “Council” discussions and decisions, a couple of dozens or hundreds of affiliates would make certain steps all together, for example, stop advertising the affiliate program on their websites.
    Just in a couple of days, the dishonest programs would see the consequences. Several such actions and other affiliate programs, before making this kind of unfair decisions, would think twice about its effectiveness and consequences.
    Of course, this is an idea, which, in case there are supporters, must be improved, certain rules should be set and some structural changes should be made in the GPWA.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to vardan For This Useful Post:

    Roulette Zeitung (4 August 2017)

  5. #43
    CCIndex's Avatar
    CCIndex is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    June 2015
    Posts
    98
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 42 Times in 26 Posts

    Default

    Yes that is true, that is why I mentioned crooks and thieves. The point is that the Affiliate Managers should inform the affiliate when they change the commission structure or when they delay affiliate payments. I know that sometimes the commission structure changes automatically, but they could add an automated email to inform the affiliate. Most of the platforms support this feature.

    Of course we won't put a affiliate program in the blacklist section before we try to clear things out with them first. We will also state the reason why.

    At least if one does some search before joining the program he/she might find some useful information. I think that it's wise to do some background check before adding new brands, at least from my experience.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CCIndex For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (31 July 2017), Roulette Zeitung (4 August 2017), Top Online Casinos (31 July 2017), Triple7 (31 July 2017)

  7. #44
    Top Online Casinos's Avatar
    Top Online Casinos is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    March 2015
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    189
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    148
    Thanked 209 Times in 107 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vardan View Post
    So, what about restructuration? In my opinion, the GPWA should adopt several functions that are typical to trade unions. We want to do business in a stable field, nobody will create that stability for us, we must do that by ourselves.

    The affiliate programs continuously break the agreements, show not proper business ethics, deceives the affiliates or changes the terms and conditions to damage affiliates. Such situations are numerous and the problems created because of this are mostly unsolvable for a single affiliate.

    In such cases, as a result of GPWA “Council” discussions and decisions, a couple of dozens or hundreds of affiliates would make certain steps all together, for example, stop advertising the affiliate program on their websites.
    Just in a couple of days, the dishonest programs would see the consequences. Several such actions and other affiliate programs, before making this kind of unfair decisions, would think twice about its effectiveness and consequences.
    Of course, this is an idea, which, in case there are supporters, must be improved, certain rules should be set and some structural changes should be made in the GPWA.
    Unfortunately, GPWA takes 'sponsor fees' and so, will not stand up against any of their 'customers'. Customers are always right. Especially if they pay your bills and then some. So, we can forget about GPWA being any sort of lead here. If it was their initial intention to be there 'for the affiliates' to do so, they would have done so. How many years are they here? And how much good has come out of it?

    Sure, a great place to talk. But.. Even with for instance the hacking cases.. Nothing happens. No one here wants to burn their fingers. Or lose income.. So, it dies, and it is business as usual.

    So, in my honest and humble opinion, we can't count on the GPWA.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Top Online Casinos For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (31 July 2017), Roulette Zeitung (4 August 2017), Triple7 (31 July 2017), vardan (31 July 2017)

  9. #45
    -Shay- is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2012
    Posts
    3,060
    Thanks
    12,188
    Thanked 3,159 Times in 1,693 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vardan View Post
    So, what about restructuration? In my opinion, the GPWA should adopt several functions that are typical to trade unions. We want to do business in a stable field, nobody will create that stability for us, we must do that by ourselves.

    The affiliate programs continuously break the agreements, show not proper business ethics, deceives the affiliates or changes the terms and conditions to damage affiliates. Such situations are numerous and the problems created because of this are mostly unsolvable for a single affiliate.

    In such cases, as a result of GPWA “Council” discussions and decisions, a couple of dozens or hundreds of affiliates would make certain steps all together, for example, stop advertising the affiliate program on their websites.
    Just in a couple of days, the dishonest programs would see the consequences. Several such actions and other affiliate programs, before making this kind of unfair decisions, would think twice about its effectiveness and consequences.
    Of course, this is an idea, which, in case there are supporters, must be improved, certain rules should be set and some structural changes should be made in the GPWA.
    This would be under the assumption that GPWA truly had our best interests at heart first and foremost. It is my opinion that this is in perception only and that unless their revenue stream is directly impacted (like it was with Foxy Bingo's antics), then the organization will play the public relations game but sit on the fence behind the scenes. Again, my opinion only. As such, it is my belief that GPWA is incapable of truly acting in this capacity.

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to -Shay- For This Useful Post:

    Roulette Zeitung (4 August 2017), Triple7 (31 July 2017), vardan (31 July 2017)

  11. #46
    Moonlight Cat's Avatar
    Moonlight Cat is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2008
    Posts
    1,979
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    1,236
    Thanked 1,170 Times in 675 Posts

    Default

    Sorry frineds but my point of view: this is free market.

    Affiliate program don't setup this % RevShare or Min.Players quota. This is market.

    For example, several days ago i had conversation with one casino owner. He is also affiliate, but main part of his buisness now is casino. He uttered an very angry speech about affiliates. The same, as at this thread, only from another side.

    What he say: I pay money for license, i pay royality % for software, i pay % deposit, i pay % for cashout, i pay to my staff, i pay to affiliates e.t.c.

    Some times ago he try to contact with big affiliate croup - RakeTech. RakeTech say: OK. No problems. We will add reviews about your casino to our site.

    But our price is:


    Entrance Fee: 50,000 EUR. + RevShare Plan: 50% + CPA for each player + No.min quota. If you don't like this price - pormote your brand by yourself. We are big affiliate, we have are lot of casinos/sportsbook that would like to be our partners.

    Friends, market is market. Vae victis.

    The one and only what we may do - be stronger. Try to be are big affiliate this is all what we may do. Today is no problem to be are small affiliate (like me) or medium affiliate. But tomorrow only big affiliate sharks will survive.

    _________________

    GPWA don't have some big influence in affiliate world. Loook to our forum community. I think no more than 30-40 active members.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Moonlight Cat For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (31 July 2017), DaftDog (31 July 2017), Roulette Zeitung (4 August 2017)

  13. #47
    AussieDave's Avatar
    AussieDave is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2005
    Location
    from the land downunder
    Posts
    3,782
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    1,472
    Thanked 1,657 Times in 950 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Shay- View Post
    As affiliates, we are guilty of enabling programs to do such things to us. If we would just once band together and contest this treatment in a legal forum rather than taking payoffs or turning a blind eye then programs would get the clear message that they cannot practice business in such a way.
    I was just about to post the same thing, Shay

    I'd rather die on my feet, than be a slave on my knees to unethical aff programs!

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to AussieDave For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (31 July 2017), MannyBetting (31 July 2017), Roulette Zeitung (4 August 2017)

  15. #48
    MannyBetting's Avatar
    MannyBetting is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    England
    Posts
    58
    Thanks
    66
    Thanked 109 Times in 44 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allfreechips View Post
    If and when i attend a major show i will bring 1000 shirts listing all the people and programs that screwed me over and hand them out all day
    Please print some in size XL, I will be glad to wear it!
    www.manny-betting.net the no BS betting blog

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MannyBetting For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (31 July 2017), Roulette Zeitung (4 August 2017), Triple7 (31 July 2017)

  17. #49
    vardan's Avatar
    vardan is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2014
    Location
    Barcelona, Spain
    Posts
    425
    Thanks
    368
    Thanked 225 Times in 154 Posts

    Default

    Sure, it must be a non-profit organization and a yearly budget of the union must be contributed by the members, let's say a symbolic sum for ongoing events and the maintenance of the organization.


    We don't know the official position of GPWA on this, so if they are not interested to use the real potential of the members, let's create a new, non-profit organization: Union of Gambling Webmasters/Affiliates.


    There are hundreds of webmasters and affiliates here who are really interested in the protection of their interests. I think many affiliates will be interested to join and support an organization, which is created to protect them. We have great potential and power which is not used to serve our interests.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to vardan For This Useful Post:

    DanHorvat (31 July 2017), Roulette Zeitung (4 August 2017)

  19. #50
    CCIndex's Avatar
    CCIndex is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    June 2015
    Posts
    98
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 42 Times in 26 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allfreechips View Post
    If and when i attend a major show i will bring 1000 shirts listing all the people and programs that screwed me over and hand them out all day
    That would be pretty cool haha!

  20. #51
    Triple7 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2015
    Posts
    2,702
    Thanks
    2,000
    Thanked 2,381 Times in 1,277 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vardan View Post


    There are hundreds of webmasters and affiliates here who are really interested in the protection of their interests. I think many affiliates will be interested to join and support an organization, which is created to protect them. We have great potential and power which is not used to serve our interests.
    I do totally agree with organizing, but here I am kind of sceptical. I don't know how many people really are willing to spend time and money in protection of their interests.

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Triple7 For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (31 July 2017), Roulette Zeitung (4 August 2017)

  22. #52
    vardan's Avatar
    vardan is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2014
    Location
    Barcelona, Spain
    Posts
    425
    Thanks
    368
    Thanked 225 Times in 154 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Triple7 View Post
    I do totally agree with organizing, but here I am kind of sceptical. I don't know how many people really are willing to spend time and money in protection of their interests.
    We affiliates are real players of the gambling industry, I would say one of the main and important parts, but sometimes or in general we don't want to recognize it at all. If we are not organized and don't protect our interests, I doubt affiliate programs will care about us.

    If we are strong, united and organized and can show that by acting, they will respect us more, if not, we can only post in the forums about our issues with aff programs, how many reffered players and commission they have taken from us and receive only a few consoling replies. All depends on us and we must not expect any kind of help from outside.

  23. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to vardan For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (31 July 2017), Roulette Zeitung (4 August 2017)

  24. #53
    wonderpunter's Avatar
    wonderpunter is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    August 2013
    Posts
    2,329
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    399
    Thanked 1,618 Times in 962 Posts

    Default

    The thing with FTD's (Quotas etc) is that they are casino dependent, my traffic remains the same no matter who i send to, They can go to Google and pay 60-180 euros per click but if the program doesn't convert and the keywords are good then they really need to look into their bonus structure, Terms, page layout and work out why the conversions are 0 .. I can send traffic to casino A and get 150 sign ups with a 40-50% FTD and high player value.. however if i sent the same traffic to Casino B then it can end up as a suspicious 0?

    I already know what works on my site and it's a case of choosing carefully, a casino that has a paltry 3k per monht withdraw fee cant expect experienced casino players to sign up by the bucketload and start dropping 5-30k per month...

  25. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to wonderpunter For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (31 July 2017), Roulette Zeitung (4 August 2017), Triple7 (31 July 2017)

  26. #54
    GCG
    GCG is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    February 2009
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    1,248
    Thanks
    291
    Thanked 758 Times in 417 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Shay- View Post
    This would be under the assumption that GPWA truly had our best interests at heart first and foremost. It is my opinion that this is in perception only and that unless their revenue stream is directly impacted (like it was with Foxy Bingo's antics), then the organization will play the public relations game but sit on the fence behind the scenes. Again, my opinion only. As such, it is my belief that GPWA is incapable of truly acting in this capacity.
    Shay you are 100% correct.

    The GPWA is certainly capable of getting the news out to a certain degree but one can not expect them to act like a police squad simply because they get it both ways and they do not have the manpower to chase down every unethical program.

    I have said it more than once : YOU must convince the UK gambling commission or any other legal body that there must be rules implemented for webmasters / affiliates if Ecogra could get an upgrade and would be monitored by the UKGC than that would the first step as only certified programs will get the seal and recognition.

    Next step would be : only certified programs are allowed at conferences, basically eliminating their unethical competition.

    This also would be a win win for the UKGC as these certified programs probably care more about their players and obey the rules.

    Things will not improve if you let it ride like it is today : more and more programs steal what is yours and even payment processors are joining the markets you operate in.

    Simply because there are no rules and if there are no implications.

    In the next 5 years most small affiliates have no chance to get any business at all.

    The choice is yours.
    Last edited by GCG; 31 July 2017 at 1:55 pm.

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

    -Shay- (31 July 2017)

  28. #55
    DanHorvat's Avatar
    DanHorvat is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2008
    Location
    Actual location may vary.
    Posts
    1,893
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thanks
    1,302
    Thanked 1,286 Times in 757 Posts

    Default

    If you'd just rate programs then you already got AGD for that. They're doing a great job at dissecting T&Cs.

    The whole point of this is to actively involve members and give them a certain degree of responsibility, empower them. E.g. some things can be tolerated like Shay said, some we don't care about, while some are deal breakers. If a member is actively promoting a program that's blacklisted by the union, then he/she automatically excluded him/herself from the union.

    That's the whole point. You earn your membership by actively refusing to promote rogue programs. Period. That's what this is about - grouping such people together.

    You can't be a member and have all members refuse to promote a certain program while you'll be a smartass and get all the signups with that program - and still be a member.

    On the other hand, members get a strengthened negotiating position and the liberty to use The Document.

    But this is very, very complex. For example, can a webmaster who promotes only the good programs but sends out spam be a member? What if a good money-making program goes rogue, should all members stop promoting the program and commit a financial suicide?

    So many complex things so it's best to come up with very simple rules for a start. Such as, this will be a group of people that only promote programs that fulfill the most important criteria of the union.

    Just my 5c.

  29. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DanHorvat For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (31 July 2017), Triple7 (31 July 2017), vardan (31 July 2017)

  30. #56
    GCG
    GCG is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    February 2009
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    1,248
    Thanks
    291
    Thanked 758 Times in 417 Posts

    Default

    The you have just eliminated most if not all big affiliates.

    Besides that if you promote a "rogue" program on a limited basis just to get you monthly payment than you have a problem.

    All a waste of time.

    You need to find a legal body that will dictate the rules for both players and affiliates (programs).

    Look I got 3 replies from the FCA.org.uk about paysafe and their conflict of interest acting as a gambling affiliate in which they explain it is not their task and refer to the Gambling Commission for which I replied that they responded the same.

    You have to get the wheels turning and the momentum going so therefore do the same just contact the legal bodies and be polite as they probably do not know that the other is doing / can do about this.

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to GCG For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (31 July 2017)

  32. #57
    Pokerface's Avatar
    Pokerface is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    August 2016
    Posts
    1,000
    Thanks
    62
    Thanked 447 Times in 291 Posts

    Default

    Your comments are VERY WELL expressed and I have often thought the same. Everyone is trying to do their best with the time we have available. We can work hard and promote the brands but if the USPís are not appealing to players or the casinos have issues etc. then we really canít help. As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you canít make them drink.

    I have the best success working ďwithĒ the affiliate managers and working together to come to a good agreement and program. If there is a good relationship then I am going to go the extra mile for them and I feel they will for me too.

    We are all busy but when I have a question or need help it is at that moment and those that canít reply for a week or more then the moment has passed and I am off working on other programs. After a few days I have usually forgotten the question! LOL

    Fortunately most of the programs I have dealt with have been good. There are a couple that may not have liked the fact that they canít get number position and stopped corresponding but thatís alright, they probably were not worth working with to begin with.

  33. The Following User Says Thank You to Pokerface For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (31 July 2017)

  34. #58
    Triple7 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2015
    Posts
    2,702
    Thanks
    2,000
    Thanked 2,381 Times in 1,277 Posts

    Default

    The involvement of legal bodies also means a lot more bureaucracy and costs for affiliates. Also, I doubt if they will interfere in relationships between affiliates and license holders. Leave alone they are wanting to protect the interests of smaller affiliates. Or they come up with something like licenses for affiliates. Be sure it will be a big hassle, especially if you will need to have licenses in almost every country...

    If an organization has enough power, they can do something against good performing programs going rogue. If not, then it's useless. An organization can just do something if all members are willing to take action. Any action is not possible if members keep on promoting rogue programs. Having a powerful organization behind you is a good protection perhaps, just like a reasonable and legal binding affiliate contract is.

    But it is complex. Especially when it's about small, regulated market where usually just a few parties are active. For example Belgium. Just a few casinos, of which Betway, Pokerstars, Unibet, Ladbrokes and BWin could be considered rogue (AGD), 2 have no affiliate program and the other 2 are Gaming 1 (lot of player complaints) and Live Partners.

  35. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Triple7 For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (31 July 2017), Roulette Zeitung (4 August 2017)

  36. #59
    DanHorvat's Avatar
    DanHorvat is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2008
    Location
    Actual location may vary.
    Posts
    1,893
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thanks
    1,302
    Thanked 1,286 Times in 757 Posts

    Default

    I'd just point out that there's more to life than just UK gambling market. That's just one jurisdiction, and UKGC is a body that's not doing their job in the UK and have no power over other markets. There are affiliates and programs all over the world. Therefore it's perhaps even more important to try to set up some universal standards.

  37. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DanHorvat For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (31 July 2017)

  38. #60
    vardan's Avatar
    vardan is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2014
    Location
    Barcelona, Spain
    Posts
    425
    Thanks
    368
    Thanked 225 Times in 154 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanHorvat View Post
    If you'd just rate programs then you already got AGD for that. They're doing a great job at dissecting T&Cs.

    The whole point of this is to actively involve members and give them a certain degree of responsibility, empower them. E.g. some things can be tolerated like Shay said, some we don't care about, while some are deal breakers. If a member is actively promoting a program that's blacklisted by the union, then he/she automatically excluded him/herself from the union.

    That's the whole point. You earn your membership by actively refusing to promote rogue programs. Period. That's what this is about - grouping such people together.

    You can't be a member and have all members refuse to promote a certain program while you'll be a smartass and get all the signups with that program - and still be a member.

    On the other hand, members get a strengthened negotiating position and the liberty to use The Document.

    But this is very, very complex. For example, can a webmaster who promotes only the good programs but sends out spam be a member? What if a good money-making program goes rogue, should all members stop promoting the program and commit a financial suicide?

    So many complex things so it's best to come up with very simple rules for a start. Such as, this will be a group of people that only promote programs that fulfill the most important criteria of the union.

    Just my 5c.
    It is not only for rating, as you have mentioned, there is AGD and other good portals. I mean really powerful union with constitution and authoritative management.

    I think that affiliates who promote rogue programs don't need a union to protect them, they already know what they are doing. Although some of them would want to join after they see some good improvements.

    Nothing is easy in beginning and yes, if the good money-making program goes rogue, the members must stop the promotion, because it will be a sign for other programs not to go rogue. For a long run it will be the right decision.

    The main benefit will be for small and medium affiliates, and they are the majority, because they will know that joining and keeping the union's rules will protect them from a lot of problems.

    I don't know how it is in the U.S., but in Europe trade unions are very powerful, they can paralize whole indusrties to reach their goals. And the members of those unions are not big companies or syndicates, they are the workers, who know that the union will protect them if there are some issues related to the salary, working time or something else.

    P.S. Not suicide, just surgical intervention.

  39. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to vardan For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (31 July 2017), Roulette Zeitung (4 August 2017)

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 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
  •