Too many winners

[Ruth_O]

Hi Dan,

Hope you're well, let's have a chat about this over email. Can you send me your latest email address, as I sent an email on 29/03 about setting up a new affiliate account for you, but I haven't heard anything back.

If you send me a quick email, I'll get straight back to you on what we can do to try and help your current situation.

Hope to hear from you soon,

Ruth
Ruth Oleksik
Performance Marketing Manager
d: +44(0) 1782 684824
m: +44(0) 7585 801964
t: +44(0) 8456 000 365
e: ruth.oleksik@bet365.com
bet365.com

[Voids]

It might be the "general opinion" of some affiliates but frankly it's incorrect. Rev-share with negative carryover is actually a payment system that produces the highest possible rewards for affiliates that generate profitable traffic. It provides a clear reward incentive for affiliates with zero subsidisation for affiliates not bringing in profits.

As a small affiliate I would love for all programs to be non-neg carry-over, but unfortunately they aren't. It's a tough term but only having a share of the good isn't great business from their point of view. I don't really like the term but I can understand an accept it. I had a rough time as I achieved a record profit followed by a record loss (on Bet365), however I have the volatility of smaller numbers.

In my opinion the clause is outweighed by the benefit of the brand, management, product & systems.

Hope you get out of the hole mate!

[DanHorvat]

Book coming up.

I'm struggling to see why you think an offer of 0.4% of turnover is a better return than a 30% profit share of 3-5% edge as that equates to somewhere between 1.0-1.6% of turnover in the long term.

The turnover deals are an important part of my strategy.

Other systems like CPA, turnover-share, and rev-share with no negative carryover, all carry potential risk for the program

And it's a risk they can handle since they have several million players, majority of them coming from affiliates, and affiliation being the cheapest and best way to advertise. Since they have a big bag of players they're unaffected by variety, whereas random samples of 1000 players would be very different from one another.

There are clear numbers on how much is each player worth to the operator on a yearly basis depending on the country and the product. What you're saying is that the operator should pay out 0 for referred winners. In that case the average player value rises significantly. That's called shaving as it's based on the presumption that a player who's a winner is worthless to the bookie - which is wrong.

There's a reason why GPWA is trying to remove neg carryover from this industry.

I am in a similar situation to you at Pinnacle - four negative months in a row - but when I do that maths my overall rewards are actually still running at about 5.5x what a 0.4% turnover deal would bring.

Making a revenue share deal with Pinny is a bad business choice.

Rev-share with negative carryover is actually a payment system that produces the highest possible rewards for affiliates that generate profitable traffic. It provides a clear reward incentive for affiliates with zero subsidisation for affiliates not bringing in profits.

I see, so a 30% revenue share with negative carryover pays more than 30% revenue share without negative carryover? Your reward here is personal, not financial.

I have a hunch you're a shareholder of Bet365. If so, don't mix pears and apples. And don't tell me I should be earning less.

minimise risk to the program of financial failure

Unibet won several Bookie of the Year awards with no negative carryover.

If what you're saying is correct, then I suggest promoting bookies with lower odds as - if what you're saying is correct - a bigger profit margin would increase the financial stability of the operator. Therefore you should avoid bookies such as Pinny at all costs since their margin is small and therefore the risk of financial failure is significant.

Perhaps you could consider a bookie such as Stan James who just closed a lot of affiliate accounts and increased the financial stability with that move.

If you make a rule, you got to stick with it. If your rule fails when applied to a slightly different scenario, then it's wrong.

Oh by the way, please tell B365 to stop issuing the 200 GBP bonus. I'm paying for it. They should at least send out an e-mail to the player, "This bonus was issued to you by courtesy of Dan Horvat, one of our many sheep". I'm sure you know the bonus is deducted from the revenue, creating a situation where all players who didn't lose at least 200 GBP are considered winners and B365 is therefore not paying anything to the affiliate.

But they will readily add that player up to that phenomenal number of players when presenting the company data to the shareholders. They'll also present the turnover, and they also got brand awareness for free. Gooner, are you saying brand awareness is worthless? If so, I'd like to introduce you to Red Bull and Coca Cola brands.

Are you saying people never navigate to bet365.com on their own after seeing the ad on dozens of affiliate sites? Are you saying people aren't more likely to sign up with a well-known brand whose ads are on dozens of affiliate sites? The hundreds of people I referred to Bet365 never talk to their friends?

And you're telling me I didn't do anything good for Bet365 and therefore I and similar affiliates shouldn't get paid. Only a shareholder can say such a thing.

The thing with neg carryover is that you often get brand awareness for free. They do pay for the losing players, but the rest is free, and the rest is actually more important to the company. It's a very good deal for the operator, I agree. I'm sure you're aware McDonald's is actually a real-estate business, hamburgers are just a product.

Affiliates are not paid "By-the-hour" or for time worked. If you want that surety of income then go and work for someone as a writer or as a SEO expert or site manager, instead of running your own site. Affiliate sites are by their nature commission sales based. You get a share of the profits. No profits - no payout - that's the deal.

This is arrogant, insulting to me and anyone who works for a living or makes things happen instead of settling as an affiliate parasite, uncalled for, and very wrong.

Disclaimer: The above post isn't about bashing Bet365, it's a statement against negative carryover deals in general, with Bet365 as just one of the examples. The same can apply to all other brands with a bonus and a negative carryover deal.

[TheGooner]

I have a hunch you're a shareholder of Bet365. If so, don't mix pears and apples. And don't tell me I should be earning less.

Your hunch is wrong. As far as I'm aware Bet365 is a private company not listed on any exchange.

This is arrogant, insulting to me and anyone who works for a living or makes things happen instead of settling as an affiliate parasite, uncalled for, and very wrong.

There was no insult intended or aimed at you. If you want less risk (aka fixed income, or monthly fee, or salary / hourly rate, or turnover share) then usually that payment will also be structured as as a smaller total reward.

Or are you insulted/angry about the idea of paying commissions on profits?
Selling and closing a deal has always been a valued role in retail. That's true all over the world of business.

You are surprised it's lucrative? You think it's arrogant? Why?

[justbookies]

Originally Posted by TheGoonerAffiliates are not paid "By-the-hour" or for time worked. If you want that surety of income then go and work for someone as a writer or as a <acronym title="Search Engine Optimization" style="border-width: 0px 0px 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); cursor: help;">SEO</acronym> expert or site manager, instead of running your own site. Affiliate sites are by their nature commission sales based. You get a share of the profits. No profits - no payout - that's the deal.


This is arrogant, insulting to me and anyone who works for a living or makes things happen instead of settling as an affiliate parasite, uncalled for, and very wrong.

Dan, I know we have had our disagreements on other things so please do not think I am having a go at you. I do not think Gooner has insulted you. When I read that statement by him I agreed wholeheartedly with his point. He is just talking about the nature of the business. I think maybe if you want certainty in terms of earnings then CPA is the only way to go, and avoid all other deals. That is not for me, but it sounds like it would be good for you.

However if you think we are all parasites, is this the business for you?

I don't like negative rollover either and I wish they would drop it but I do understand it - and they are such a good firm compared to the competition for all the reasons others have already stated in this thread. I have similar turnover figures with B365 to you and -26k should be cleared fairly quickly with a couple of normal months trade. I know it is hell when there is a negative and you think it will never shift. But your negative is minor considering your stated turnover levels. The maths works its way through in the end. I hope it clears asap.

It is to Bet365's credit that they have joined this thread and offered you an olive branch, despite such a small negative in terms of the turnover, yet you shirk it.

[DanHorvat]

Gooner, of the three potential jobs you mentioned for someone who wants to get paid, two were services I recently advertised in the Business Opportunities forum. If it was an accident...it's a funny one.

Opinions will differ, but if your aim is to have assets which produce cash flow, the only such opportunity in the gaming industry is a turnover deal. Revenue share doesn't fall under that category as it's highly volatile, but you may in general consider your business an asset if you combine all the RS deals into a portfolio of some sort and view it as a whole. In that light, think of a turnover deal as a way to stabilize the portfolio. You may not be using it, I'm using it when given the opportunity. I like the income to be predictable so I can reinvest.

Pinny is a bookie which attracts high rollers, professional players (these tend to win), arb players, and it has the lowest margins on the market. Therefore volume is big and revenue not so much, so a turnover deal would make more sense to me. On the other hand, a turnover deal with a recreational stake-limiting bookie would be silly.

While your site is legendary, much more often I see sites which fail within the first year and webmasters who decide to give up and pursue a day job at some point. RS is great when you're big but can ruin you while you're still small. These people give up because bills are predictable and RS is not - not even with a 1m turnover, as we see.

I still think neg carryover is a fantastic scam. People who designed this concept are clever. RS with neg carryover is definitely a masterpiece, so we should at least be clever enough to understand why.

By definition, affiliation is parasitic behavior. Gooner's original post about financial security is actually about finding a good host. Not that I have a problem with that, but it is what it is.

I hope this clears up my point of view

[DaftDog]

Maybe the word "revenue share" means something else to a lot of people than it does to me. To me it means a share of the revenue generated. If you don't generate any revenue then how can you expect a share? Do you really want charity? If you do then go stand in a queue at the Salvation Army.

I think one of the ills of today's society is the sense of automatic entitlement. Do we automatically expect businesses to just pay us, if we don't generate revenue, just because they have large number of customers and "lots of money"?

We're all in this business to make money. Show me another business model any where in the world that will pay out commission when no revenue was generated. Running a business as a gambling affiliate is no different to running a grocery store, they both need to generate revenue to be profitable.

[freebetking]

not to derail but isn't unibet a session cookie where if the player does not deposit in that session they are not tagged to the affiliate referrer?

Unibet won several Bookie of the Year awards with no negative carryover.

[DanHorvat]

Ixian, I won't repeat the points made above. I'll just add that it's called revenue share but you're not really sharing the revenue. Second, you're not generating revenue and can't affect it in any way, you're just showing random pedestrians the door to the store. And you're paying for any freebie they're getting (deposit bonuses, enhanced odds, whatever).

To answer your question - yes, I respect my business and I'll do whatever it takes to get paid for my contribution to the operator. You go stand in the queue at the Salvation Army and hope for a payout at the end of the month.

freebetking, I don't know. I do know they went a long way since 2009 so it wouldn't surprise me.

[TheGooner]

Gooner, of the three potential jobs you mentioned for someone who wants to get paid, two were services I recently advertised in the Business Opportunities forum. If it was an accident...it's a funny one.

Dan, I didn't see any adverts particularly so it wasn't about your skills - I mentioned three roles (writer, SEO, site management) that I know are regularly done in this industry for standard payments. Standard income to pay bills.

I see sites which fail within the first year and webmasters who decide to give up and pursue a day job at some point. RS is great when you're big but can ruin you while you're still small. These people give up because bills are predictable and RS is not.

We've all been there - but usually it's the other way around, Work on sites part-time with a day job when small and growing - and full-time when the site shows an ability to support.

The problem with eschewing revenue share when you are "small" is that an affiliate may never give yourself the chance to grow big. Revenue share (with negative carryover or not) is specifically structured as a higher risk/reward commission scheme. It IS valuable to an affiliate when you succeed - to the point where standard CPM advertising, CPA, and turnover share simply do not match up at all as reward schemes.

As you are growing volumes, it is revenue share (and a couple of whales) that gives the fledgling affiliate the access to the profit levels that allow consideration of full-time work.

I still think neg carryover is a fantastic scam. People who designed this concept are clever. RS with neg carryover is definitely a masterpiece, so we should at least be clever enough to understand why.

I just don't see the "scam" in revenue share - it allows programs to accept many more affiliates at a much lower entry level allowing smaller affiliates to try to grow - and it rewards those that generate profits very well.

If a program was paying for brand awareness, as a CPM then :
- 1/the payments would be much lower per customer (perhaps a CPM of $1 or $2, and only to unique views displayed in approved positions above the fold).
- 2/ I suspect the barriers for entry would be higher and small affiliates would not qualify to take part at all as they would lack volume and qualified demographics from targeted countries to earn the CPM at all.

Without revenue-share there would be a lot less full time affiliates.

[DanHorvat]

I just don't see the "scam" in revenue share

No, I said "negative carryover" is a scam, and "RS with neg carryover is a masterpiece". RS isn't a scam, though the calculation is a bit more complex than just "30% for life" and it's never really 30%, it includes the operator's operating costs. It's also rarely for life, too.

Of course revenue share is a fantastic way to make loads of money in the long-term, in fact it's the best one I've ever heard of. Each possible revenue model has its own benefits and downsides. Ideally, you'd make a healthy mix. In my opinion:

For high-volume bookies with a lot of action, turnover % deal is the best option. Piggyback on that volume.
For bookies with low retention and low player quality, choose CPA. Let them worry about players leaving too soon.
Use RS as a staple of your business, but without neg carryover if you can help it. (this is where you disagree)
Flat-fee deals are just bad for everyone, IMO.

If there was a CPM program, "for brand awareness", I'd never take it as the earnings would be laughable. I'm just saying it can't be fair in any way to be promoting someone for free, and RS with neg carryover can make that happen even on big sites with a lot of volume. As in my case. And I also made a statement that the operator is getting much more than just the sum of your referred players' losses. The operator knows it, and the affiliates should be aware of it as well.

Many affiliates are just blind to some of the things I said, and that's why I was talking so much. If one guy read this and will have a bit more power when negotiating on a conference, it was worth it.

Without revenue-share there would be a lot less full time affiliates.

Agreed, the industry wouldn't exist.

[Sherlock]

not to derail but isn't unibet a session cookie where if the player does not deposit in that session they are not tagged to the affiliate referrer?

that should be resolved for good
but the unibet cookie has a fixed term duration 4 sure

[Jokerman99]

No, I said "negative carryover" is a scam, and "RS with neg carryover is a masterpiece". RS isn't a scam, though the calculation is a bit more complex than just "30% for life" and it's never really 30%, it includes the operator's operating costs. It's also rarely for life, too.

Of course revenue share is a fantastic way to make loads of money in the long-term, in fact it's the best one I've ever heard of. Each possible revenue model has its own benefits and downsides. Ideally, you'd make a healthy mix. In my opinion:

For high-volume bookies with a lot of action, turnover % deal is the best option. Piggyback on that volume.
For bookies with low retention and low player quality, choose CPA. Let them worry about players leaving too soon.
Use RS as a staple of your business, but without neg carryover if you can help it. (this is where you disagree)
Flat-fee deals are just bad for everyone, IMO.

If there was a CPM program, "for brand awareness", I'd never take it as the earnings would be laughable. I'm just saying it can't be fair in any way to be promoting someone for free, and RS with neg carryover can make that happen even on big sites with a lot of volume. As in my case. And I also made a statement that the operator is getting much more than just the sum of your referred players' losses. The operator knows it, and the affiliates should be aware of it as well.

Many affiliates are just blind to some of the things I said, and that's why I was talking so much. If one guy read this and will have a bit more power when negotiating on a conference, it was worth it.


Agreed, the industry wouldn't exist.

Feel like I'm flogging a dead horse here but why do you feel negative revenue share is a scam?

If you get 30% and your players win 10k, you are -$3000. The book is in the hole for 10k. You don't physically pay them anything. Please tell me why carrying that 3k over is a scam.

To me it makes perfect sense, Bet365 like any book with neg carryover are running a business not a charity. Just because they are a large company and make alot of money doesn't mean they should start giving away money. We don't wire the book cash to cover our negative carryover, so it's risk free for us too. We just need to wait for them to lose the money back, which in most cases they eventually do.

Your arguments really make no sense to me at all.

[crowngate]

If you get 30% and your players win 10k, you are -$3000. The book is in the hole for 10k. You don't physically pay them anything. Please tell me why carrying that 3k over is a scam.

Your arguments really make no sense to me at all.

The bookie won't be 10k in the hole as they balance their books. Not an exact science as they have other expenses.

Don't be fooled to think when your players win the bookie loses.

I personally like working with bet365 and found them to have the most helpful affiliate team.

Perhaps them having negative roll over contributes to making their business one of the best in the industry?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Jokerman99]

The bookies don't always balance their books so to get down to that you would need to know every single bet that was placed and the bookie's exposure on each. They are 10k in the hole on your action.

[LukeC]

The bookie won't be 10k in the hole as they balance their books. Not an exact science as they have other expenses.

Don't be fooled to think when your players win the bookie loses.

I personally like working with bet365 and found them to have the most helpful affiliate team.

Perhaps them having negative roll over contributes to making their business one of the best in the industry?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Bookmakers don't balance their books, they price to what they believe are correct prices, add a margin and expect to win in the long term. I would wager a lot of money that there has never been a soccer match where a recreational-focused bookmaker has a profitable outcome on all events (WDW).

[ogpaper]

@Dan

Bet365 is a recreational bookmaker and you should advertise it as such. Try to send rec players only, i.e. someone that would wager up to 500GBP a month tops, and send the big players somewhere else.

Best advice has always been not to have all your eggs in one basket. You will have to manage your traffic and keep 2-3 bookies, at least, equally supplied with players, so when you go down deep with one, it won't affect you as much.

As far as going with turnover share instead of revenue - not that beneficial at all. It will save you from big negatives, but it won't earn you much money, either. Don't look at the Bet365 stats, since they don't appear to be an actual representation of what's going on. If you really had a million in turnover per month, you would make many times more than the 4,000 in turnover share, trust me on that. And that's if someone will give you 0.4%, most turnover shares are at 0.25%.

On a side note, I keep on hoping that we'd get some real reporting from Bet365. The worst affiliate reporting, bar none.

[universal4]

I would have to say they certainly can make some big improvements in reporting, but I still think there are a handful out there with far less data in reports....

Sheesh, even if they gave you more choices at once....if you want a campaign report, you can run one for the month, or you can run dailys 20 or 30 or 40 times depending on how many campaigns you have, but you can NOT see a daily breakdown of all campaigns at once.

Then of course for more details.....ummm unavailable....

Can't even see the difference between sports and other games....

Too bad really, can't see this getting fixed ever without re-doing the entire backend.

Rick
Universal4

[DanHorvat]

ogpaper, all your points are valid, especially the one about stats not being an actual representation. That's why I said above "if turnover means what it means" - I also suspect it does not.

I have to disagree on one point though:

As far as going with turnover share instead of revenue - not that beneficial at all.

My entire gaming business is financed with two turnover deals. Advertising, server costs, domains, SSL certificates, salaries, travel, subscriptions to various services and what not. That means my business is self-sustainable, it's financing itself. I can afford expensive infrastructure and I never need to downgrade it. I can walk away for six months and it would all still be there.

And I achieved this at least a year earlier than I would have if I waited for the volatile RS deals to stabilize.

The biggest problem of affiliation are unpredictable earnings. You earn a lot one month - what do you do? Can you afford to invest in an upgrade or a new project, will the next month be good as well? You can't know and you must play it safe. You must save before you invest. So all the greatness of RS earnings comes at a price of your hands being tied. I don't need to save, I can invest aggressively. I'm as free as a bird.

Bean counting isn't only about trying to get more beans. That would be the light version of finance.

[ogpaper]

You can structure your business however you chose.

At the end of the day, it's all risk/reward - the smaller the risk the smaller the reward.

You must save before you invest.

Actually, you have to earn before you can invest. If you are not earning, there is no money to invest. The less you earn, the less you will invest.