Thoughts about Ladbrokes Affiliate T&Cs

[universal4]

Well put Ray.

And this BS about the case-by-case basis is in itself "somewhat" predatory...

Look, this place has numerous products.

If they want affiliates to promote their products, they should pay a commission for that.

Either they create a set of terms that is fair to EVERYONE, or their terms are not considered fair. (I am not against a tiered structure that pays a little higher commission rate for generating more players, although I prefer the tiers tied in to revenue figures instead)

Rick
Universal4

[Grendel]

There's actually a way to deal with this that is both fair (i.e. clear, transparent, fixed) and managable. My background is in technology and 15+ years ago there was a huge amount of development going on - some for-profit, and some open source, of course - but there was enormous confusion as to how to license software (they were developers, not lawyers, after all).

One of the solutions that emerged was a standard set of known license terms (see, for example the standard GNU licenses - I don't have forum authority to post links, but google "GNU public license" and you'll see what I mean). This way, a developer just had to say "this software is offered pursuant to Gnu license XXX" and everyone knew exactly what that meant. Same thing happened (and is happening) in the copyright world (see, for example, the Creative Commons licenses - again, sorry, can't post the link but a quick google will do the trick) for images, software, literary works, etc.

So, if an organization like the GAU wanted to weigh in, it could develop two or three "standard" affiliate terms that were developed in conjunction with the operators. Then, operators would just have to indicate which terms/program they were using (obviously, rates could be negotiated individually), and everyone on both sides would know exactly what the deal was.

You'd need the buy-in of operators for it to work,obviously, but it would create a lot of transparency and trust, which presumably everyone would want.

Just a thought.

[Chalkie]

There's actually a way to deal with this that is both fair (i.e. clear, transparent, fixed) and managable. My background is in technology and 15+ years ago there was a huge amount of development going on - some for-profit, and some open source, of course - but there was enormous confusion as to how to license software (they were developers, not lawyers, after all).

One of the solutions that emerged was a standard set of known license terms (see, for example the standard GNU licenses - I don't have forum authority to post links, but google "GNU public license" and you'll see what I mean). This way, a developer just had to say "this software is offered pursuant to Gnu license XXX" and everyone knew exactly what that meant. Same thing happened (and is happening) in the copyright world (see, for example, the Creative Commons licenses - again, sorry, can't post the link but a quick google will do the trick) for images, software, literary works, etc.

So, if an organization like the GAU wanted to weigh in, it could develop two or three "standard" affiliate terms that were developed in conjunction with the operators. Then, operators would just have to indicate which terms/program they were using (obviously, rates could be negotiated individually), and everyone on both sides would know exactly what the deal was.

You'd need the buy-in of operators for it to work,obviously, but it would create a lot of transparency and trust, which presumably everyone would want.

Just a thought.

This is exactly what the GAU is aiming to do, get a selection of terms that suits both parties.

This will not be an easy thing to do, however, we are looking to find a way of doing so.

One thing that is clear is that most programs want to change the business model nowadays too, so i think with that in mind we may be able to come to a happy medium.

Would people settle for a lower percentage and or a shorter term than lifetime if they had an agreement that was watertight and protected the money that they expected?

[universal4]

Well, each operator is different, and I don't think there can ever be a canned set of terms to be used...

And tha main problem with this mentality of allowing the programs to lower the percentage is just BS too.

Many of the top groups that have already a great reputation in fairness and dealing with the affiliates have no NEED to do that, and those that have attempted to change their terms have either changed their mind after they experienced the backlash of the affiliates, or are currently experiencing serious drops in income because they did so.

Rick
Universal4

[Chalkie]

Well, each operator is different, and I don't think there can ever be a canned set of terms to be used...

And tha main problem with this mentality of allowing the programs to lower the percentage is just BS too.

Many of the top groups that have already a great reputation in fairness and dealing with the affiliates have no NEED to do that, and those that have attempted to change their terms have either changed their mind after they experienced the backlash of the affiliates, or are currently experiencing serious drops in income because they did so.

Rick
Universal4

Agreed Rick, a totally canned set no, however, certainly we could get a canned set of general rules in the terms. The bits that matter so to speak.

Its a minefield and one that is getting harder to circumvent and i dont suppose there is an easy answer for the whole.

Just bouncing ideas tbh, not advocating them.

[offyourface]

Would people settle for a lower percentage and or a shorter term than lifetime if they had an agreement that was watertight and protected the money that they expected?

I might consider doing this if there were tens of millions held in escrow and I could somewhat protect my efforts when growing my playerbase. But I am not really interested in giving my money away upfront only to get nothing at the end of the day if a program goes bust or whatever other reason it might be for them not paying affiliates.

Looking back at the Grand Prive mess, there is some big time theft going on, we are talking millions and millions. I know many people made a genuine effort to enter into negotiations with Grand Prive to no avail. I also know many webmasters blacklisted them which obviously hurt them, but at the end of the day there are still millions being stolen from affiliates every single month. But nobody really hit them where it hurts with something like a class action lawsuit to really get this thing moving. Is anyone prepared to take on the role of heading up a class action lawsuit when things like this happen? Having an air tight contract is one thing, but there has to be some solid protocals in place to hit thieving programs right in the mouth with the old ropeadope when they decide to bend us over.

Not to mention we are in a so called illegal industry, and I am not crazy about having my name in the courts so the DOJ can get a hard-on for the people on that list.

I don't know anything about contract law, but I would imagine things will get very technical and involved with so many different scenarios and variables.

[Chalkie]

I am not frightened to head a class action lawsuit, but without mass support in the way of finances it is unlikely to ever materialise.

Problem at the moment is that most programs terms hold a clause allowing the closure of any or all affiliate accounts without redress or the need to pay lifetime commissions.

Therefore, to win a case would be nigh on impossible in any jurisdiction, let alone some of the cowboy areas that these programs sometimes reside in.

Having strict terms that forbode this would enable a court case to be brought and won.

If anyone can show me a set of terms and conditions that do not allow the program to do as they please and when they please i would be very surprised.

This is why we need terms sorted if for no other reason.

[offyourface]

I am not frightened to head a class action lawsuit, but without mass support in the way of finances it is unlikely to ever materialise.

Problem at the moment is that most programs terms hold a clause allowing the closure of any or all affiliate accounts without redress or the need to pay lifetime commissions.

Therefore, to win a case would be nigh on impossible in any jurisdiction, let alone some of the cowboy areas that these programs sometimes reside in.

Having strict terms that forbode this would enable a court case to be brought and won.

If anyone can show me a set of terms and conditions that do not allow the program to do as they please and when they please i would be very surprised.

This is why we need terms sorted if for no other reason.

Well keep doing what your doing Paul, things will continue to evolve in our industry and hopefully one day we will have the support in place to handle things like a class action lawsuit. Getting solid on the terms is definitely important.

[universal4]

I think in the case of Grand Prive we HAVE hit them where it hurts, and I honestly believe (in my own humble opinion) that is the reason that eCogra is now getting involved.

I do not know if they were urged to do so by Grand Prive themselves, (to enlist their help to get the black listings to stop) or if it was at the request of some of the other operators, or if they chose to do so because they felt that the Microgaming brand itself was suffering due to the blacklistings etc..

The above is my opinion only.

Rick
Universal4

[joeyl]

We reserve the right to do what we want when we want regardless, does'nt mean it'll stand up in court.

Anyways, Ladbrokes is a brand, and have a reputation to uphold. This decision would'nt be made by those at the top, but by staffers.

If the GPWA or one of the other aff organisations could contact Ladbrokes plc and make the point on behalf of most affiliates who agree, this rule is arguably unethical, and why, i'd be much obliged.

If I can't advertise Ladbrokes without pain, something's gone wrong.

[arisoftnet]

I have asked a lawyer in the firm i work , and he said that when you have first registered you had agreed in some legal terms , from the moment you had agreed and accepted those legal terms then you have no case if that point about the commission was included in that terms.

[Chalkie]

Our aim is that the Ladbrokes brand is recognised and trusted wherever we do business and is synonymous with fairness and integrity.

Is from their corporate site!

Whilst i agree with what you say aristos, the terms do not really seem to fit with what they say there.

For this reason i have emailed them to ask if they wish to discuss how their affiliate program terms seem to be missed out when they aim for fairness and integrity.

Be interesting to see what they have to say in return, that is if there is a response. I chose 2 departments which appeared to fit the query, unfortunately 1 was bounced and the second an out of office reply due to bereavement leave. I finally managed to get an email to their PR dept, not the ideal dept but maybe they will at least respond.

[arisoftnet]

Well my oppinion is this....

If the amount they own to the member is not that big , then no reason to run into the courts , but WE all here can force them to pay the member by let them know that their brands will be removed and never been seen again until the pay what they own and this is the strongets point we have here at GPWA and that is called Community and brotherhood Power!

Personally i dont have them on my websites , but after this for sure i will never put them!

[Betpartners]

Hate to go against the general opinion on this.

I rate Ladbrokes very highly, i am a very small affiliate of theirs and have never ever had any issues of payments etc.

I trust Ladbrokes implicity probably more than 95% of programs i deal with.

That though probably has more to do with the fact that growing up in the UK Ladbrokes are seen as a houshold brand and a bookies that one can trust.

Are their terms predatory, yeah probably, but you know what almost every single program out there is predatory in some form or another and so why Ladbrokes is being picked on i dont know.

I will continue to use Ladbrokes and continue to do business with them, of all the sportsbooks out there they are one of the most trusted in my book.

Is that a sad reflection on the industry? i suppose is it.

With regards to the OP seems he was in the wrong, he may not have been and if he was not then i apologise but based on what CK-Schalk has also said and i trust him based on previous business with him then i am inclined to think that Ladbrokes done the right thing.

Finally i will state quite clearly i have in the past done a lot of deals in advertising with Ladbrokes and so maybe i am biased but regardless i trust them and unless something happens drastically i will continue to do so.

[Caruso]

Are their terms predatory, yeah probably, but you know what almost every single program out there is predatory in some form or another and so why Ladbrokes is being picked on i dont know.

Entirely agree. Same with Grand Prive - it was in the terms, and if that wasn't enough, they all do it anyway so what's to realistically complain about?

Personally think we should just leave them all alone.

Ladbrokes rocks.

[Betpartners]

Entirely agree. Same with Grand Prive - it was in the terms, and if that wasn't enough, they all do it anyway so what's to realistically complain about?

Personally think we should just leave them all alone.

Ladbrokes rocks.

True to form, selective quotations

But thanks for answering the question posed

Oops you never did

Ah well nothing ventured nothing gained

[thepokerkeep]

Wow. I think I have to agree with Caruso on this one. That's gotta be a first.

Are their terms predatory, yeah probably, but you know what almost every single program out there is predatory in some form or another and so why Ladbrokes is being picked on i dont know.

Your attitude is the reason these programs get away with these types of terms.
As long as it doesn't affect me, who cares! They all do it so it's ok. Blah blah blah...

It does not matter whether the op was wrong in this case. The terms are predatory and need to be changed. There are other terms in the contract to cover fraud.

[Caruso]

True to form, selective quotations

But thanks for answering the question posed

Oops you never did

Ah well nothing ventured nothing gained

I quoted a paragraph in full and commented. That's how the message board format works. Exactly what was "selective" in my quoting? Nothing, as well you know. You said they were "probably" (huh?) unfair, but since all terms were by and large such (not true), Ladbrokes shouldn't be treated any differently to anyone else. I commented on this. What is your problem with that, other than sheer discomfiture?

However, as evidenced by the "true to form" little broadside, you were just mud-slinging. So, whatever.

[TheGooner]

The outpouring of grief on this one - considering that the affiliate appears to be a known fraudster that has done this at multiple sites is surprising.

One player in two years?

And organised in a ring of accounts so that they can claim the 30-35% affiliate revshare from any losses in this account and use it to cover the standard 8-10% "juice" at European bookmakers.

--------------------------

Brief interlude : spelling it out - this is how it works :

Sportsbook betting is not like poker, or slots, but it is very similar to roulette in that the margins on any individual bet are small (8%-10%), and if there is an improper relationship between player and affiliate then a potential for scams exists.

1) Take two bets $10000 each way on a 1.91 price game (-110 US odds).

2) Place them at two bookmakers - where you are the affiliate at each site for just one account.

3) The payout :
- Bet one wins .... +$9100 profit.
- Bet two loses ... -$10000 loss

(of course this is why Joe punter doesn't do this)

But then add in the affilaite profit at the losing bet site ... say 30% of $10000 = $3000. Overall the player returns a $2100 profit for the bet - thanks to a $3000 payout from the "affiliate account".

That's a 10% yield (allow for some fees on money transfer) and very good money to be earned - and as a relatively common scam in some central European countries.

---------------------------------------------

The title - unprofessional behaviour - is very telling, as the REAL unprofessional behaviour is coming from the fradulent affiliate who is not in this business to deliver REAL customers !

This potential scamming of the thin lines at sportsbooks is why many online places have a minimum 5-10 players active rule for affiliates. Instead of supporting this fradulent affiliate you should be realising that he is demonstrating the very real reason why sportsbooks have to put quotas in place - in order to weed out the "fake affiliates".

How on earth does this termination of a fraudulent affiliate turn into an 8-page beef about Ladbrokes?

Ladbrokes are a pretty good organisation, and very good for players, far better than 99% of the Costa Rica, Antigua, Curacao registered sites that abound the internet.

GPWA is a great place to visit and share opinions - but sometimes the threads seem to go WAAAAYYY off track emotionally and don't seem to be based on the relevant facts (at least IMO).

[Betpartners]

I quoted a paragraph in full and commented. That's how the message board format works. Exactly what was "selective" in my quoting? Nothing, as well you know. You said they were "probably" (huh?) unfair, but since all terms were by and large such (not true), Ladbrokes shouldn't be treated any differently to anyone else. I commented on this. What is your problem with that, other than sheer discomfiture?

However, as evidenced by the "true to form" little broadside, you were just mud-slinging. So, whatever.

Your right my opening comment was uncalled for, i should know better.

Selective quoting may well be how a message board works, so what, dont see what you are trying to get across there, does not change the fact that it was a selective quote.

Selective in that it was taken out of context.

My comments were weighted with my bias as stated twice, once in business with them in the past and once growing up in the UK with them as a trusted household brand, as i wrote and as you well know.

Its on my own personal experience with Ladbrokes that i can make my comments and unlike the OP my experience with them has been positive.

You were unable to understand my meaning of "probably" and my opinion that most programs are predatory in some form, something you disagree with.

Thats fine, to me any program that has the line we reserve the right to close your account etc etc etc is predatory and that unless i am mistaken covers virtually every program.

When the day comes that terms and conditions are absolutely perfect i will be as happy as the next man but faced with the choices in front of us and all the little one liners that each terms contains then i will use my own judgement to choose which program to use.

Regardless, for me Ladbrokes is a trust worthy affiliate program and a thread started by someone who it appears has a groundless accusation that then develops in to an attack on them is hardly going to get me to jump on the bandwagon now is it.

Nothing in this thread will enduce me to stop using them.

At least we agree that Ladbrokes rock

Regards my "attitude" as so clearly articulated by "thepokerkeep" such a shame that when someone diagrees with someone that they start to say things that you are the reason programs do what they do etc.

All that does to me is undermine the point that someone is trying to get across.

Each to their own