Thoughts about Ladbrokes Affiliate T&Cs

[euroleaguepba]

We've the same problem. My account was also suspended. I have emailed them for the last few weeks now. They don't want to pay the outstanding commission.

[Caruso]

I'm not clear what the fraud is. Is Ladbrokes saying that an excessive percentage of players claimed to be fraudulent have signed up through this affiliate? I could conjecture about exactly what might be the nature of the accusation, but I'd rather here it from Ladbrokes.

The other problemn is that this was never mentioned to the affiliate:

Аfter a review on your affiliate account we have noticed that your performance during the last two years have been poor and that you have only referred one single active customer. This is also reflected in the way you promote Ladbrokes: our banners are not in good positions and this is also in breach with our T&C.

Your performance it is not enough to mantain an active affiliate status with us and we have decided to suspend your affiliate account with us.

There was no mention of fraud. Only now.

Why was he told the reason for the closure was "inadequate performance", only for this to change to "fraud" when he went public?

I've seen such stunts pulled on players, indefensible excuses in private followed by the big "F" in public, so it's not necessariliy a new phenomenon.

Can we have some clarification?


And finally:

12.4 If you do not deliver 1 new customer registration within a period of three months (billed months) we may terminate this Agreement immediately by delivery of written notice to you.

a) Does Ladbrokes consider this reasonable, and

b) If they terminate an account, will they also deny earnings from customers acquired before termination, alla Grand Privè?

[casino2k.com]

I'm not clear what the fraud is.

The fraud is their affiliate program and their behavior with small affiliates.

b) If they terminate an account, will they also deny earnings from customers acquired before termination, alla Grand Privè?

Of course they will act like Grand Privè, and this totally s*x.

Since ladbrokes is very popular in my country, I was considering putting them in my websites... After this sad story I will NEVER send a player to them and I'm warning all webmasters about their predatory terms.

PS: there is a similar issue with bwin, your comments are very appreciated.

[universal4]

I agree, if it is affiliate fraud than yes, the affiliate would be in the wrong.

BUT!!

If players use an ISP that hands out dynamic ip addresses such as dial up providers or AOL, that in itself is NOT proof that an affiliate is scamming

And none of the above listed situations justifies a quota....

Rick
Universal4

[Grendel]

A couple of points -

1. Ladbrokes' terms and conditions themselves require them to pay any commissions earned *up to the date of termination*. Clause 12.7 provides: 12.7 The parties shall have no further obligations or rights under this Agreement after the end of the Term, without prejudice to any obligations or rights which have accrued to either party at the time when the Agreement ends ..." There's no question that they can terminate the agreement upon notice, but UNTIL that notice has been provided, your rights to be paid for business provided continues to accrue, and you're owed those amounts after termination.

2. I don't want to spark a flurry of angry flames, but I confess that I don't understand why quotas are "predatory". If an operator doesn't want to deal with small affiliates, this hardly makes them evil. And even if you buy the argument that small affiliates create no incremental management cost (which I don't, by the way - just take a look at this thread, started by an affiliate that admits he sent one customer and hasn't updated his site in months, and which Lads now has to manage), so what? It's the operator's decision as to how it wants to market its services - whether we agree or not that nixing small affiliates in favor of large ones is the right business strategy to optimize deposits really isn't the point. The terms and conditions are posted and updates to the Ts&Cs are communicated, giving affiliates the chance to bow out if they don't want to participate after the changes go into effect.

Vilifying Ladbrokes for refusing to pay an accrued debt after termination is perfectly appropriate and was certainly a mistake on their part. But, calling quotas or Ts&Cs "predatory" isn't helpful or even accurate. Who are they "preying" on? The terms are there for anyone to read, and it's Ladbrokes' business to run as they see fit - perhaps I'm a lone voice here, but I don't see that the operators should be obligated to keep affiliates that don't perform...

[thepokerkeep]

You're right, you are the lone voice here. I doubt you'll find any affiliate on this forum who thinks quotas are not predatory.

[Grendel]

You're right, you are the lone voice here. I doubt you'll find any affiliate on this forum who thinks quotas are not predatory.

That's an odd response. Whether the entire forum thinks so or not doesn't really explain "why". Are you saying that operators DO in fact have an obligation to continue to work with affiliates that don't perform?

No one forces anyone into a given affiliate program, and the contracts are all front and center to be read. If I agree to an agreement that's been given to be in advance, I can hardly later cry foul.

[Caruso]

2. I don't want to spark a flurry of angry flames, but I confess that I don't understand why quotas are "predatory".

Then you don't understand them.

Casino ABC gets XYZ players from affiliate. However, at some point, and for a period which exceeds the one laid down in the terms, said affiliate sends no players.

On this basis, Casino ABC closes the affiliate account, and makes no further payments, including payments from those originally-acquired players, who are still active and earning the casino money.

The word "predatory" isn't well-chosen. The correct word is "unfair". Unfair terms are legally contestable, and if Ladbrokes pulled such a stroke, they would be answerable to Gibraltar law.

[mojo]

But, calling quotas or Ts&Cs "predatory" isn't helpful or even accurate.

It's simple. Quotas are predatory. If a program has a 5 quota a month rule and I only bring 3, one of which is a high roller, well that's convenient. I worked hard to get those 3 players and I won't be paid for them? I don't think so. It opens the door for all kinds of aff abuse and player theft from less scrupulous programs. The message boards would be filled with affs screaming from the rooftops.

What if I am in an accident and cannot get to a computer for several months. All my players are gone? Why would an affiliate want to work under these circumstances. It is way to much of a risk that we cannot afford.

There has got to be a better way than quotas.

[Grendel]

I appreciate that this is a hot topic for many, but I'm genuinely trying to have an open conversation about this.

I do, in fact, understand how these programs work, and I am an attorney, so I also have a fairly good grasp of what is and is not enforcable from a contractual point of view.

My point is simply that quotas, themselves, are not inherently "unfair" - it is up to the operators to decide what affiliates they wish to engage with, and it's up to the affiliates to decide which programs they want to participate in.

What you are describing above is something different, and a great deal depends on the specific language of the affiliate agreement. However, generally speaking, if I have entered into an agreement with you to send customers to your site and I am entitled to a (perpetual) commission on their activity on the site, the argument is that that right has accrued prior to the termination of the agreement and (again, unless the agreement stipulates otherwise) the right would have vested and I would be entitled to continue to collect notwithstanding that the agreement itself is terminated. In other words, simply put, some obligations created by the agreement can outlive the term of the contract itself.

However, IF - and this is my point - the agreement is clear that my commission entitlement ends when the contract ends and these terms are in place *at the time I refer the customer*, then that's a risk I'm taking with my eyes open. Except in cases of consumer protection for example, generally speaking a court won't protect me just because I've entered into a contract that is a commercially bad deal.

Anyway - I'm new to the forum; didn't intend to tick anyone off. Cheers.

[Engineer]

Are you saying that operators DO in fact have an obligation to continue to work with affiliates that don't perform?

If an affiliate is earning residual income from players he delivered in the past, then yes, I think Ladbrokes (or whoever) is obligated to continue paying the affiliate the original agreed-upon percentage for as long as the players continue to make deposits.

[mojo]

Welcome to the forum Grendal. I'm not ticked off at all myself. I appreciate a good discussion and I always learn from it.

However, IF - and this is my point - the agreement is clear that my commission entitlement ends when the contract ends and these terms are in place *at the time I refer the customer*, then that's a risk I'm taking with my eyes open.

Agree with this. If a program already has it in place then that's that. But quotas are not clear to me. Month one I bring 10 players and get paid. Month two and three I bring none. Do I still get paid for my original 10 players? Is my account closed? I dont think these things are clear and can be abused at the whim of the program. I think this rule, even though in place, can be unfair. I wouldn't promote a program with quotas.

The hot point is if a program adds it later. Then watch out lol.

[Chalkie]

This is why we need to see some fairness in the way of terms.

Almost all terms are predatory as they state they can be changed anytime.

The question of whether the changing of the terms can be retro is pretty grey in most terms and also needs addressing.

We can all bang on about being offered lifetime, however, if the terms state different then thats the terms and the sales patter means nothing.

We are all business people and need to read the terms not the sales patter.

Quotas are fair if they represent a sliding scale, however, if they represent a way to duck out of paying completely then they are not. i.e. if you bring in 50 players then you may deserve more than a guy that brings in 1. Thats a promotional tool.

Bringing high rollers in to the equation begs the question of whether the quota should be based on rev and not quantity.

The bottom line is though, that if the program wants to play to the very word of the terms then either they have to expect a little flack or they need to get the terms fair.

[offyourface]

This is why we need to see some fairness in the way of terms.

Almost all terms are predatory as they state they can be changed anytime.

The question of whether the changing of the terms can be retro is pretty grey in most terms and also needs addressing.

We can all bang on about being offered lifetime, however, if the terms state different then thats the terms and the sales patter means nothing.

We are all business people and need to read the terms not the sales patter.

Quotas are fair if they represent a sliding scale, however, if they represent a way to duck out of paying completely then they are not. i.e. if you bring in 50 players then you may deserve more than a guy that brings in 1. Thats a promotional tool.

Bringing high rollers in to the equation begs the question of whether the quota should be based on rev and not quantity.

The bottom line is though, that if the program wants to play to the very word of the terms then either they have to expect a little flack or they need to get the terms fair.

Reading the terms is great and all, but they all do whatever they want anyways. Ladbrokes is a good example, after promoting ladbrokes on my live dealer pages for quite some time, I had to probe my affiliate manager to find out I was pissing in the wind and sending free referrals because they don't pay out on live dealer revenue. Yet they make no mention of this in their terms. They actually state quite the opposite in many ways.

Interestingly enough I still don't see them being forthcoming with affiliates in their terms about us not earning from live dealer revenue. Funny how they want to hold their terms up with double fists when it suits them. Maybe things have changed and they are now paying affiliates accordingly when our player generate revenue from live dealer games, but I doubt it.

[thepokerkeep]

Whether the terms are "legal" is questionable at best. To my knowledge, no one has ever tested any affiliate contract in a court of law.

Ladbrokes is Licensed and regulated in Gibraltar and since I'm not a lawyer and am unfamiliar with Gibraltar contract law, I'll leave the legal discussions to others.

However, I will say that the gambling affiliate industry is, for the most part, unregulated and based more on trust than law.

When a program applies quotas, whether up front or retro-actively, they remove the trust factor. In the case of Ladbrokes, they claim the right to close an affiliate account regardless of past performance if an affiliate fails to meet the quota.

That to me is absolutely predatory!

Scenario:
I work with Ladbrokes for a year and send them 500 players. Then, Ladbrokes stops accepting "new" players from the country I geo-target. I fail to meet their quota as a direct result of their new policy so Ladbrokes closes my account. They are still earning revenue from my past referrals but I no longer receive a dime from the players I sent them. Predatory? I say yes.

The above scenario could happen. Look at Microgaming and American players. If any MG casinos had that quota in place their would have been many very unhappy affiliates when MG stopped accepting new players from the US.

Are quotas illegal? I don't know or care.
Are quotas unethical? Absolutely, especially when they permit the theft of hard earned affiliate income.

[Webzcas]

Ladbrokes is Licensed and regulated in Gibraltar and since I'm not a lawyer and am unfamiliar with Gibraltar contract law, I'll leave the legal discussions to others.

The affiliate program isn't as far as I am aware as it is a part of Ladbrokes eGaming which is based in Rayners Lane and is part of Ladbrokes PLC. Certainly all the marketing and affiliate program staff are based out of and work out of Rayners Lane in Harrow, London.

Ladbrokes International based in Gibraltar is responsible for hosting Ladbrokes Poker, Casino, Sportsbook and also provides the customer service for these products. ( I worked in Gibraltar for Ladbrokes for 5 years )

These terms unfortunately are nothing new with the big UK High Street Bookies. They surely do suck, but Ladbrokes are not the only ones who have them. Bet365 for instance have pretty much the same t & c.

I promote both and I am not a large or a small affiliate. Yet I don't put that much in terms of players to either for example. If you have a good relationship with your affiliate manager at the programs that have these terms in place, they can be overlooked and ignored in some cases. So from my point of view, if I stopped meeting the new player quota, I would not be too worried about having my affiliate account shut down.

Yet it would be good if Ladbrokes could revisit their terms and conditions to make them fairer to both them and us ( affiliates )

[thepokerkeep]

I did a little more research...

Ladbrokes T&C's contain 7194 words - that's more words than most books I've read
how many affiliates actually read them from start to finish? What's the phrase I'm looking for? "Baffle them with bullshit" may be appropriate.


The quota is buried under this heading: 12. Term and Events of Default
12.4 If you do not deliver 1 new customer registration within a period of three months (billed months) we may terminate this Agreement immediately by delivery of written notice to you.

Which is over half way (3500 words) into the contract.

Then there is this catch all condition that we all have to agree to:
12.6 Without prejudice to clause 12.3, we reserve the right to terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason immediately by delivery of written notice to you.

Then there's this gem:
14. Changes to this Agreement

This Agreement has not been varied or otherwise amended as at 20th March.

What year??

And the best for last. On their FAQ page:
How do I keep my affiliate account active?
If you are a Bronze affiliate, you must drive one new active customer in a three-month period. Silver affiliates must drive five new active customers in a three-month period. Gold affiliates must drive 10 new active customers in a three-month period.

So they go after big, medium and small affiliates but fail to even mention that in their terms.

[universal4]

When a program has terms like that, they CLEARLY do NOT want small affiliates.

There is no marketing spin they could possibly add to that that says otherwise....and I am extremely fed up hearing the "well we never use that term against anyone"....

Attention all operators:

If you got terms that are by nature predatory, and you have no plans on using the term...REMOVE IT!!

If it's in the terms it can be used against us, and WILL keep affiliates from joining your program.

Rick
Universal4

[RayUK]

Lots of programmes have tiered commission rates - the more players you send the higher your commission that month. But a fair band for the bronze category for Ladbrokes mentioned above would be 0-4 players in a month rather than 1-4.

I have nothing against tiered commission rates, that is a totally reasonable way of incentivizing the affiliate, but for a new affiliate to not be able to start with them - or even a seasoned affiliate with higher traffic risking a bad month cutting off their revenue from the programme, just strikes me as being too risky for the affiliate.

[Engineer]

One other thing to note about Ladbrokes: Last I knew, if your referral signed up at the casino, for example, you would receive commissions on the casino only. If the player lost money outside of the casino, the aff would receive £0.00 from the non-casino losses.

This can be changed on a case by case basis so that you earn on all of the various channels, but the default is that you only earn on one channel per customer.