There Used To Be A Time..

[MichaelCorfman]

There was an experiment to form a union of affiliates a number of years ago, and we supported it both through publicity and by establishing a dedicated forum within the GPWA to support it. Those of you who are long-time members here will probably remember the Gambling Affiliate Union (GAU) from nearly a decade ago. You can find the relevant threads here by searching GAU.

In my opinion, the issue was that there was never enough consistency in views to form a union that could effectively negotiate with more than a very small number of programs, and those weren't the programs that were rogue, but those that had enough of a conscience to be relatively easy to influence. At the time I had hoped the GAU would have more influence, and that by putting the weight of the GPWA behind it, we could together make a significant difference. Unfortunately, my hopes were never realized.

There is a more recent thread about an affiliate union here: We Need an Affiliates Union.

We have always supported organizations we believe work for the benefit of affiliates. For example, we publish Affiliate Guard Dog ratings on the GPWA website for every sponsor program, and have operated a forum here for AGD to provide greater publicity for its efforts. And when the APCW was a separate organization, we also supported them as well.

There were some comments made in this thread implying the GPWA looked first to serve its own selfish economic interests rather than those of affiliates. I respectfully disagree with that perspective. There are a large number of affiliate programs where we have severed relationships because we felt the programs were acting inappropriately, and in many of these cases I viewed that we were turning away sponsorship revenue that programs would have been happy to continue to pay us. Some specific examples that immediately come to mind include Active Wins, Affiliate Edge, Betfair, Buffalo Partners, bwin, and Stan James. If you look through the archives of past sponsor programs you will find many, many more. And that does not count the dozens of programs that wanted to be sponsors that we refused because they did not meet the requirements of our Code of Conduct at the time they applied.

There are also large numbers of programs who made modifications to their terms and conditions based on arguments we presented to the programs.

I don't mean to say the GPWA is perfect, because it is not. But there are things we do right. For example, while we insist on a certain level of professional conduct when issues are raised with affiliate programs, we generally allow members here to openly express their concerns with affiliate programs, and that includes with sponsor affiliate programs. There was once another major forum that actively censored criticisms of sponsor affiliate programs and claimed to certify programs. The GPWA has never operated that way.

Michael

[MannyBetting]

A lot's changed in 10 years though, including many more predatory actions by operators. It may not have been a success then, but it may get a lot more support now.

[vardan]

First of all thank you very much, Michael, for providing information about other threads and attempts to organize affiliate union in the past. It was interesting to read old posts on this matter and I have dual impressions.

First, I realized that the idea was supported by many affiliates, which means the affiliates then and now need this kind of support. And second, even after at least 2 attempts we still don't have affiliate union.

I don't know what was the real reason for the break, but in the beginning almost everyone was impressed by the idea. Then started the conflict, trials to found a new union and now the 1st website doesn't exist and the second one redirects to another portal...

I hope the idea is not dead and in the future it will be discussed more. We need an union, maybe it wasn't the best time for such a conversation.

[Triple7]

I guess the usual suspects pop up when it's about organisations, etc

- i guess it's almost a full-time job to take the lead or be one of the organizers
- as soon as it costs money, many people fold
- conflict of interests. No matter how hard a program will screw affiliates or players, always some people will keep on working with them.

[vardan]

I guess the usual suspects pop up when it's about organisations, etc

- i guess it's almost a full-time job to take the lead or be one of the organizers
- as soon as it costs money, many people fold
- conflict of interests. No matter how hard a program will screw affiliates or players, always some people will keep on working with them.

Yes, I agree, the conflict of interests is the main reason. But someday the problem can knock on their doors too...

[Triple7]

Yes, I agree, the conflict of interests is the main reason. But someday the problem can knock on their doors too...

True. I consider it as a main risk. The rise of big super affiliates, regulating more and more markets and stock exchange listed companies dominating the gambling market is not in favour for anybody who is not a big super affiliate. People better protect their home when there's still something to steal. When there's nothing to steal anymore, an alarm makes less sense.

[-Shay-]

I was not a member of this forum but I was relatively "close by" when the GAU was being established and then seemingly grinded to a halt. My understanding is that the efforts were sabotaged and agendas were hijacked. And to be completely fair, this was probably an easy task as it generally would not take much to derail a group of competitors from cooperating towards a common good and set of goals. There was a clear need for such an organization but at the same time it seemed to me that there were groups who were "in power" so to speak and were quite concerned with steering the union in such a way that served to keep them in power.

[AussieDave]

For any affiliate union per se to be successful, its founder, would require a person with a proven track record of not caving in to pressure, or to be influenced by any programs they may or may not be working with. That goes for industry alliances and or friendships too. Basically, someone who wont sell out. A person who will fight for the rights of all affiliates, no matter what happens.

I agree some affiliates will continue to work with programs, even when they themselves are shafted. But, I believe we need to keep in mind that people's living expenses are a pivoting factor/influence, in these type of scenarios.

Does 'Joe or Mary Affiliate' kick program123 to the street, and in doing so can't feed their family? I would certainly hope not.

Are our T&C's written by affiliates? No, not usually. Instead, it's some legal boffin, instructed by bean-counters, to simple do a job.

This quote comes to mind: The pen is mighter than the sword - Edward Bulwer-Lytton

Blacklisting works to some extent, and is some instances, it's the only last resort available. It's possible that I'm an optimist. Cause I believe that not everyone is a bad seed, even if their actions seem that way. So with that in mind, maybe on a whole, change needs to come through educating the bean-counters (our affiliate program law makers) combined with positive reinforcement.

The internet has presented many of us with an alternative to not work in the usual manner. Remember there's no Yin without Yang. As such, the face to face (physical) contacts we'd usually have in a bricks and motar job, are not present. This in itself present obsticles.

Side stepping for a moment. A survey was conducted within the USA military with regard to those who operated drone bombing missions. The results basically confirmed, it was easier to kill at a distance, that it was to kill in face to face combat.

Using that rational, and transposing it to affiliate programs and their T&C's etc. I dare say, it's easier to enforce, change, alter T&C's which are not affiliate-friendly, when, affiliates are merely numbers on a screen, to a CEO, bean-counter or whoever else makes these decisions which affect the rightful income of their affiliate partners.

If there's no risk of personal confrontation over such decisions, then it's a lot easier to enforce.

I'm not saying that's right. I'm merely pointing out basic human behaviour traits, common in most people. That is, most people will avoid personal (face 2 face) conflicts. How we work as affiliates, where we are located throughout the world, means we can't always challenge these decisions in a face 2 face meeting. Hence, guilt is removed from programs, and they basically do as they like.

[Triple7]

Exactly. I don't think it will succeed if the leader is having time for it just Friday after 5 o'clock and/or has other interests. Of course sabotage is a real risk, the past did prove that seeing the post of Shay.

They won't drop them and I understand that somehow too. But, must say, it's very tricky if John & Mary's income is depending on just 1 dodgy affiliate program. It's bad risk management. What if they cease operations, close their affiliate account, close a market, lose their license, etc ? Perhaps I'm not very much a gambler, but it's too tricky in my eyes to depend on just 1 or 2 brands. Also, I think an organization is powerless if dodgy behaviour has no consequences. I believe that programs shave, do not respects deals, etc because they can and because it has no consequences.

Besides that, I think an organization should not spend too many resources in programs that are knowing and willing dodgy. I mean, if the organization concluded a program is "to be avoided" and John & Mary choose to work with it, why all other organization members should pay for their very risky choice?

In my opinion focus should be solid programs become rogue, introducing quotas, taking legal action, keep fees realistic, putting pressure on them and keep them solid. Fighting brands that are willing and knowing dodgy is waste of time and money in my opinion.

[DanHorvat]

It is probably common that a certain affiliate can't drop a certain program as the financial consequences would be too great to justify the move. People got kids. And wives. And lifestyles to maintain.

In that situation, the affiliate should be allowed some extra time (to build up the income with other brands) before dropping the program. Say, 6 months. And you get to trigger this clause once in 2 years, subject to approval by the union.

After all, you want to keep good people. Let's not forget that they too are in trouble once a program goes rogue, and asking them to cut their income stream even when they can't afford to is...wrong.

It's important not to judge the situation too harshly, and also important not to take a serious thing lightly.

Whoever acts like an asshole and gets himself expelled won't be able to be legally protected, won't have a strengthened negotiating position, perhaps exclusive deals, and will be a solo affiliate again. Just saying, people will stay members and will drop a program if the benefit outweighs the cost. It is the union's job to make it so.

E.g. if you want a deal with any member of the union you got to remove the activity quota from the T&Cs even if you keep having it for non-union affiliates.

It has to be a tight-knit group that acts as one, otherwise it's pointless as the negotiating leverage vanishes into thin air if this group can't drop a program as the last resort.

Finances wouldn't be a problem, the group could even afford lawyer(s), I guess.

[AussieDave]

if the organization concluded a program is "to be avoided" and John & Mary choose to work with it, why all other organization members should pay for their very risky choice?

John and Mary are both adults operating their own affiliate businesses.
How they decided to operate, who they decided to promote or not, is solely their choice.

Hard lines drawn in the sand don't work. You can't rule affiliates with an iron fist. It is both counterproductive and alienates people.

Reiterating a previous statement of mine, "change needs to come through educating the bean-counters (our affiliate program law makers) combined with positive reinforcement." I'll go on to add, that also includes educating newbie affiliates.

No greenhorn (newbie) steps into this market and is instantly aware of who is a rogue and who is not (same goes for players too).

Where do most new affiliates find this information?
They learn it from affiliate forums like the GPWA/AGD etc, and peers (those who have been around a few years).

I think an organization should not spend too many resources in programs that are knowing and willing dodgy.
<sentences removed>
Fighting brands that are willing and knowing dodgy is waste of time and money in my opinion.

I agree with you on that point, for sure

Aside from my casino affiliate stuff, I've had other businesses too.
One thing I learned early on, the job gets done a lot easier if you lead by example and encouragement. Forcing people to do stuff, doesn't wash well. Employees will do it, but they probably wont like you. Self employed affiliates (wont be forced), they'll give ya the bird, instead!

[TheGooner]

Finances wouldn't be a problem, the group could even afford lawyer(s), I guess.

Actually I think that this is the biggest hurdle.

Getting a properly organised, accountable and self financed affiliate group / union appears to be a massive task.
I would expect getting financial affiliate contributors to pay annual dues or fees to be like pulling hens teeth.

Similarly, I expect that those that would be best suited to have roles within the organisation are too busy to dedicate time to a non-profit.

Finally, I think that self-employed affiliates / entrepreneurs and unions / organisations / co-ops don't mix.
One group is self driven, and likes to explore new ideas without red tape or restriction, the other group wants to set rules, regulations and boundaries.

-------

Whatever this group is going to be - if it ever gets traction and starts - will FAIL as soon as it tries to wave a big stick and mandate to it's members how they should behave, who they should work with, and forcing business termination. That's union thinking and does not work well with skilled self-employed people.

I'm not interested in a group that denounces "rogue companies" all over the place due to having negative carryover, or weak stats, or any of 100 other complaints that MAY be valid but are not examples of rogue.

IF the group works with a carrot instead of the stick, by negotiating good terms for members (like no quotas - no retroactive 10% punitive rates), and provides VALUE to it's members, then they have a chance of attracting and retaining financial members. At this stage it's acting like a trade association and probably has a future.

I'd pay $/E100 a year to have a good group negotiating with quality organisations for fair terms and working through any issues for me in advance so that I have a short list of good candidate programs. Wouldn't you?

[AussieDave]

I expect that those that would be best suited to have roles within the organisation are too busy to dedicate time to a non-profit.

I suppose that really would depend on what a person values as important. Your a long standing affiliate (old timer). I'm sure you've seen and experienced the good, bad and the ugly in this business. EG: Over the last few years I've seen an increase in the number of once trusted programs, turning face, reneging on life time revenue promises, and forcing retroactively changed T&C's with quota's, for example.

I'd hope whoever would be "suited" to taking on a role in an affiliate organisation (as such), would also hold the foresight and mindset, if nothing changes - nothing changes. No one can with 100% guaranteed certainty future proof their income/business. But, I'd also live in hope whoever was "suited" to this/these roles, were smart enough to realise eventually the tide could, and most likely will, turn on them too.

Just a few thoughts, my 2 cents

[DanHorvat]

John and Mary are both adults operating their own affiliate businesses.
How they decided to operate, who they decided to promote or not, is solely their choice.

What's you're saying is lassez faire - do whatever you want. Promote rogue programs if you want, you're an adult, it's your choice.

I beg to differ.

Responsible and informed individuals won't make the mistake John and Mary made. Maybe they did it out of ignorance or they don't care where the money is coming from as long as it's coming. Either way, they're free to keep doing what they're doing, they're adults and they choose who they do business with.

However, if they decide to become part of an alliance that takes these matters a bit more seriously, then they can no longer operate that way as they gave their word they will not be promoting rogue programs.

If affiliates depend on a program being honest, that means affiliates are not a factor. Pay them or don't pay them, up to you, dear affiliate program. The only thing that can turn the tide is putting some responsibility on affiliates about how and with who they do business with.

Educating affiliates would go a long way. We industry veterans know all the wrinkles and can educate newcomers. And educate affiliate programs.

Forcing people to do stuff, doesn't wash well. Employees will do it, but they probably wont like you. Self employed affiliates (wont be forced), they'll give ya the bird, instead!

Fine, they can be solo affiliates then. Back to muddy waters.

It's all about what pays more. If it's more beneficial to stay in the union and give program XY the bird, then that's what an affiliate will do. Like I said above, it's up to the union to make the desired action more beneficial.

In my opinion focus should be solid programs become rogue, introducing quotas, taking legal action, keep fees realistic, putting pressure on them and keep them solid. Fighting brands that are willing and knowing dodgy is waste of time and money in my opinion.

Agree 100%.

[DanHorvat]

non-profit

I don't see it like that. And I may be the first one here who doesn't.

If you have a democracy and elections every year, one-member-one-vote and all that tree-hugging stuff, that's a recipe for failure. As we've seen before, and as I've seen before with some non-profits I was a member of, clan wars start really quickly in this setting, and with a bunch of independent and opiniated people it gets even worse and failure becomes the only possible outcome. It would be a self-debilitating group that's busy fighting on its own forum and can't project strength to the actual battleground.

I see the union as an active income-generating tight-knit commercial organization that is making money for its members. And asks one thing in return - when a certain program must be dropped, it must be dropped by all.

Something else is a problem - how to reach an affiliate to inform him he must drop a program, get him to actually open the email and react to it? This would take some skill.

I'm not interested in a group that denounces "rogue companies" all over the place due to having negative carryover, or weak stats, or any of 100 other complaints that MAY be valid but are not examples of rogue.

Agreed. One example would be Bet365 as they have neg carryover - and that must be noted as a poor term - but they're still among the top programs. Or, a program that isn't rogue but is having some technical issues they're trying to resolve. Also, blindly looking at T&Cs to figure out who's rogue and who's not won't work. Some company may have an awful term but they never act on it. Another may have perfect terms, and then they close the program and re-open a new one under a new name, stealing all the players.

It takes some common sense and a lot of experience to separate wheat from chaff. And you need to attend a lot of conferences and meet the people behind affiliate programs in person - which isn't something all affiliates can do. Isn't it easier to sit at home and have someone fly over to Malta to negotiate the deal with the man on your behalf, bringing you security that you won't get screwed plus an improved deal?

And the affiliate program would be happy to talk - as they get 100 or 1000 affiliates on board in one go. Very efficient.

IF the group works with a carrot instead of the stick, by negotiating good terms for members (like no quotas - no retroactive 10% punitive rates), and provides VALUE to it's members, then they have a chance of attracting and retaining financial members. At this stage it's acting like a trade association and probably has a future.

Yes, I see this as a way to go too. Perhaps union is a misnomer. We don't demand higher wages and a dental plan.

[vardan]

Everyone is free in their choice, nobody is forced to join the union and obey the constitution(or another term, I couldn't found better one). And the constitution must be as clear as possible; just a few points, f.e.:

1. Accept the consitution
2. Participate in votings
3. Execute the decisions

The purpose of the union is to defend the interests of the affiliates, and it is possible only if the union is protected by the unity of members.

I think it can't be a business organization. Does the union have to became an affiliate, too or make sponsorship deals with the programs? In this case it can't be free and can easily be manipulated.

To keep the union independent every member must pay a membership fee, let's say 100EUR as Thegooner has mentioned. The organization will have an elected head/president and stuff, and they will be paid monthly salary.

Now, why the person who likes the freedom and doesn't have a "boss" would like to join the union? Because the union is created to protect their business and make it more secure for the future, isn't it?

If we can found the union, in the beginning it will be very difficult and we will probably have to make strict decisions. But in a short period of time the situation will be regulated and more stable.

There are many details which must be talked over, I think the most important one is to decide whether we want the union/organization, which will protect our interests or not? Let's wait until Septiember and make a poll, we'll see our position more clearer.

We can't make mistakes, otherwise I guess the idea will be lost in GPWA's archive for another decade.

[AussieDave]

It's all about what pays more. If it's more beneficial to stay in the union and give program XY the bird, then that's what an affiliate will do. Like I said above, it's up to the union to make the desired action more beneficial.

au contraire the members are the "union". Never loose sight of that fact, in policies and structures.

Given the "union" would need a fairly heafty membership base to acheive the desired "what pays more" ideology, your going to be turning away more members than signing them up, if your going to enforce rules like this.

Affiliates earning BIG bucks wont "give program XY the bird". You might have a "union" with good policies etc, but it will be lonely place.

[DanHorvat]

So if an average-quality program of a huge mainstream brand goes rogue and starts culling small affiliates by closing their accounts - what do you suggest union should do?

[universal4]

I see the union as an active income-generating tight-knit commercial organization that is making money for its members. And asks one thing in return - when a certain program must be dropped, it must be dropped by all.

Bold added by me

I think that is the problem and was one of the points that Gooner made and a few others pointed at.

Even if voted on and passed by a vast majority of the members, there will always be some affiliates that can't follow a recommendation to drop particular program or group since that particular group might be their main earner.

If part of the continuing membership in the union/organization is based on that term, I think members would leave based on that and at some point some of the larger affiliates would be lost and it would affect the value and strength of the organization.

Rick
Universal4

[justbookies]

Finally, I think that self-employed affiliates / entrepreneurs and unions / organisations / co-ops don't mix.
One group is self driven, and likes to explore new ideas without red tape or restriction, the other group wants to set rules, regulations and boundaries.

Spot on. A union for entrepreneurs, and inevitably run by bureaucrats.