Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,883 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default Vegas Affiliates Lawsuits?

    There is widespread buzz amongst affiliates of lawsuit threats and affiliate account closures by VA for reporting and publishing warnings about the harmful term changes that VA has implemented.

    Vegas Affiliates have now been rogued at AGD with good reason. VA has also been rogued by many affiliates.

    The reasons for the rogue status is because of retroactive (for lack of a better word) bundling and quotas that has seriously harmed our fellow affiliates. However it is justified by VA, this is not what affiliates signed up for.

    Could a representative from Vegas Affiliates shed some light on this for us? Thank you.

    Regards,
    Last edited by mojo; 3 November 2009 at 2:25 am.

  2. #2
    vegasaffiliates's Avatar
    vegasaffiliates is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    January 2007
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 28 Times in 24 Posts

    Default

    Paula,

    Vegas Affilaites did not implement a retroactive quota. The quota is in no way applicable for old affiliates who agreed to our old terms and conditions.

    This is a common term that most European affiliate programs have in their agreements and I do not see how we are singled out over this when it is a perfectly normal inclusion.

    The Bundling issue is not something that we are able to reverse, due to circumstances we had to implement this as we were being very negatively affected.

    We have had to make certain changes to remain competitive and this way are able to offer affiliates better terms in other areas.

    However, also bear in mind that this was not an agreed to term and condition and we therefore did not break any agreements whatsoever.

    Please understand that we discussed this many times with affiliates and we came to an understanding with many people in the business including the GPWA and APCW.

    I understand that it is not ideal but many affiliate programs have had to make changes over the past couple of years due to exceptional circumstances. We want to provide a good service to affiliates and do everything above board, whereas many programs even resort to skimming players off affiliate accounts!

    We suffer because we practice transparency.

    Please explain how this qualifies us as a rogue program?

    Rogue programs have witheld payments or implemented retroactive quotas and stolen affiliate's money.

    How can we be compared to these programs?

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

    mojo (3 November 2009), thepokerkeep (3 November 2009)

  4. #3
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,883 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    Hi Sebastian,

    We are having the same converstion at AGD. I appreciate your response.

    The bundling is something that you are required to reverse as an affiliate program. I am not sure that you realize that affiliates do not, generally, promote programs that bundle. By VA offering no bundling for years and affiliates promoting it heavily because of that, then removing it.. well I hope that helps you to realize why VA would then become rogue. Affiliates put in thousands of hours promoting you because you did not bundle. Then to change horses midstream is completely harmful to affiliates! Please consider that.


    Quote:
    This is a common term that most European affiliate programs have in their agreements and I do not see how we are singled out over this.
    As far as quotas go, not one affiliate that I know would use a program that has a quota term. I hope that I am helping here by letting you know that affiliates - new and old - will shy in a big way from programs that have a quota.

    All programs I promote do not have a quota that I am aware of and if they did, I would replace them instantly.

    It also helps to post here for new affiliates so they do not chose a program that implements a quota that may be difficult to meet.

    I hope that helps Sebastian.

  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mojo For This Useful Post:

    Engineer (3 November 2009), Jan (18 November 2009), thepokerkeep (3 November 2009)

  6. #4
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,883 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    I want to add Sebastian that if there is anything affiliates can do to help the situation that we are more than happy to work something out.

    Just say the word.

    Best Regards,

  7. #5
    Webzcas's Avatar
    Webzcas is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    1,394
    Thanks
    582
    Thanked 1,015 Times in 408 Posts

    Default

    Hi Sebastian,

    I have posted a similar thread in your forum on CasinoMeister. Now whilst I don't agree with the bundling applied retroactively - you can spin it whatever way you want - The fact is it has been applied retroactively. My main concern is this which Mojo posted:

    There is widespread buzz amongst affiliates of lawsuit threats and affiliate account closures by VA for reporting and publishing warnings about the harmful term changes that VA has implemented.
    I have highlighted the more important part of the paragraph. I and I am sure all my peers would like you to answer this please.

    Do you intend to sue affiliates that report on what Vegas Affiliates as a program have done?

    If so, on what grounds? As far as I am aware certainly in the UK where I am based, reporting the facts is not libel. Therefore based on the facts, as a webmaster it is my right to advise my visitors not to promote your properties. Rogue/Blacklist/Not Recommended - Call it what you want. The facts are you have introduced bundling retroactively. Mojo spelled out exactly why this is wrong and why affiliates are up in arms. But I am sure you don't need it spelled out to you, why so many affiliates are extremely upset with the course of action that Vegas Affiliates as a program have taken.

    Finally, what gives with the threats to close down affiliate accounts? If this isn't rogue like behaviour, then please explain to me what in your opinion does constitute rogue behaviour.

    By the way this alone:
    This is a common term that most European affiliate programs have in their agreements and I do not see how we are singled out over this when it is a perfectly normal inclusion.
    Regarding your introduction of quotas is reason enough why I will be ensuring new webmasters are informed to steer clear of your program should they visit my webmaster resource pages on Online Casino Reviewer. I can assure you that NONE of the programs I currently promote have such a stupid, negative and affiliate unfriendly term.
    Last edited by Webzcas; 3 November 2009 at 8:38 am.
    Exit stage left

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Webzcas For This Useful Post:

    bonustreak (3 November 2009), Engineer (3 November 2009), GamTrak (5 November 2009), giggles7p (3 November 2009), mojo (3 November 2009)

  9. #6
    pgaming's Avatar
    pgaming is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2005
    Posts
    2,854
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 215 Times in 164 Posts

    Default

    There is widespread buzz amongst affiliates of lawsuit threats and affiliate account closures by VA for reporting and publishing warnings about the harmful term changes that VA has implemented.
    VA should begin by suing themselves or at least begin bankruptcy proceedings. Affiliates IMO are in no position to hand out stimulus dollars under the cloak of retro terms.

    Poorly managed and over exertion leaves little room to prepare for the unexpected. I would prefer VA to go out of business after settling accounts. Personally, I would rather have nothing than rely on a program who may or may not change their T&C's at a moments notice.

    The affiliate did their part VA do yours.

    greek39

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

    bonustreak (3 November 2009), GamTrak (5 November 2009), giggles7p (3 November 2009), mojo (3 November 2009)

  11. #7
    pgaming's Avatar
    pgaming is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2005
    Posts
    2,854
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 215 Times in 164 Posts

    Default

    Highly unlikely VA is in any position to sue anything both financially and legally. I would welcome legal action perhaps then VA would do the right thing.

    Lawsuit from VA is very funny

    greek39

  12. #8
    TheCPA's Avatar
    TheCPA is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    December 1969
    Posts
    2,372
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 350 Times in 166 Posts

    Default

    OK first of all, let me just caution everyone here that getting all snarky or sarcastic isn't the way to go with this thread, IMO.

    Sebastian came to answer the questions, so let's try to have some controlled dialog instead of a roast!


    Moving forward, for anyone in this industry to even threaten lawsuits is simply ridiculous. We won't be suing them and they won't be suing us.
    None of us have the money to get involved in international lawsuits, so let's get all the way over this kind of silliness.

    Sebastian, we all completely understand that it is possible or probable that V.A. would be having problems with the old terms since Microgaming pulled out of the U.S.. Trust me, it really sucks for us too.

    We also fully understand that No Bundling and No Negative Carryovers is the BEST OF THE BEST any program can offer.

    YOU need to understand that we conciously spend more money and time to promote these programs more agressively than we do others.

    Hence, the anger with the retrocative Lumping of the casinos.

    THAT SAID NOW,....had you come to us here on this forum, {not with the Corfman's or any other portal owners INDIVIDUALLY}, and just said to us that you all needed to make changes, we could of had a serious discussion on it before making any changes. I'll bet we could have come up with a solution that would have worked for V.A., and that the affiliates could live with,... and also continue promoting VA Casinos.

    If lumping had to be, then perhaps you guys should have said look, for all exsiting affiliates, we have to lump, but we are going to bump your commission rates by 5% as an equalizer, but that would keep us SAFE TOO!.
    That way you are simply paying more on your profitable, net, net, and not giving anything up when the winners exceed the losses.

    Pretty simple solution IMO. That would spoken volumes for your program, and concern for your affiliate base.
    We'd still be taking a decrease, but most sensible affiliates could live with something like that.
    If it were a matter of survival for VA, then I know most affiliates would roll with it.

    In other words, it's just a fair compromise. You give a little, we give a little. That's all.

    Then all new affiliates would have to accept your new deal as written, so you still wind up making the needed changes going forward while treating your current affiliates fairly too.

    Those are my thoughts on the matter.
    Last edited by TheCPA; 4 November 2009 at 4:52 pm.

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TheCPA For This Useful Post:

    Chalkie (5 November 2009), Chips (4 November 2009), kwblue (5 November 2009)

  14. #9
    Anthony's Avatar
    Anthony is offline Affiliate Services
    Join Date
    June 2003
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    7,072
    Blog Entries
    67
    Thanks
    2,038
    Thanked 3,360 Times in 1,764 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mojo View Post
    There is widespread buzz amongst affiliates of lawsuit threats and affiliate account closures by VA for reporting and publishing warnings about the harmful term changes that VA has implemented.


    The treating of lawsuit is of the most concern to me. VA has no grounds for such action and threatening affiliates who speak up is unacceptable. We are all entitled to our opinion.
    I am here to help if you have any issues with an affiliate program.
    Become involved in GPWA to truly make the association your own:
    Apply for Private Membership | Apply for the GPWA Seal | Partner with a GPWA Sponsor | Volunteer as a Moderator


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

    Engineer (4 November 2009), GamTrak (5 November 2009)

  16. #10
    pgaming's Avatar
    pgaming is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2005
    Posts
    2,854
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 215 Times in 164 Posts

    Default

    Again, I really do not feel affiliates should be the stimulus package for VA. Take what you can get mentality for honest labor may set disastrous consequences down the road.

    If we do accept concessions we lose in the long run. If we refuse concessions we lose in short run. Either way we lose.

    However, VA stands to gain either way now that I find strange. What has VA done lately to make their business more viable? Nothing I assume, except muck around affiliate contractual agreements. Very innovative way of thinking, "need cash?, let's chew on the affiliate easy prey, easy money"

    If someone does not chew back very hard and soon we will be faced with more programs following suite.

    Just my opinion

    greek39
    Last edited by pgaming; 4 November 2009 at 11:31 pm. Reason: adding to post

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to pgaming For This Useful Post:

    GamTrak (5 November 2009)

  18. #11
    Webzcas's Avatar
    Webzcas is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    1,394
    Thanks
    582
    Thanked 1,015 Times in 408 Posts

    Default

    I have blacklisted Vegas Affiliates as a result of the bundling, threats of account closures and intimidation tactics against affiliates.

    http://www.onlinecasinoreviewer.com/...lacklisted.htm
    Exit stage left

  19. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Webzcas For This Useful Post:

    Engineer (5 November 2009), GamTrak (5 November 2009), mojo (5 November 2009), thepokerkeep (5 November 2009)

  20. #12
    pgaming's Avatar
    pgaming is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2005
    Posts
    2,854
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 215 Times in 164 Posts

    Default

    Doing the same with visual flash animation should be entertaining. Trying to lump GP, VA, and Affiliate Lounge into one 5 min video.

    Brands will be used for target practice, a few will be robbing banks, affiliates will be turned upside down and shook until some cash flies out. It will be funny, shocking, and the truth.

    Have it done next week.

    greek39

  21. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to pgaming For This Useful Post:

    Engineer (5 November 2009), GamTrak (5 November 2009), mojo (5 November 2009)

  22. #13
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,883 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webzcas View Post
    I have blacklisted Vegas Affiliates as a result of the bundling, threats of account closures and intimidation tactics against affiliates.

    http://www.onlinecasinoreviewer.com/...lacklisted.htm
    Added your link to my page here:

    http://gamblingmojo.com/mini_vegas_casinos/index.htm

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •