Why do you advertise more than 3 operators?

[Zalagania]

With most casino affiliate websites I visit, I see the same page layout; two dozen horizontal casino ads for different casino operators.

I've always wondered what the idea behind this is. I operate in a EE regulated market and only advertise two casinos actively.

I diversficiation and that casinos sometimes disappear, but is it really that common? Or is that the main reason?

Wouldn't it be better to dump the majority of users into a single, trustworthy, operator and gain their trust/ability to negotiate higher rev share?

[ddm]

putting a lot of eggs in 1 basket is dangerous. e.g if 1 merchant folds, you lose all your players.
Spread the risk around a few trustworthy merchants FTW imo.

it just takes a couple of big fines to KO a lot of merchants.
Other things that can happen is someone else can buy them out and screw you.

[drifter8]

My 2 cents :

- do you buy only one thing to eat or two in your fridge?

- if you bet all on 1 or 2 cards in long run, you most definitely will lose all the exposure ( just an example, people who have promoted mostly William Hill, Paddy Power, Mr green and other bookies, who just stole players or cut commission to 5 % . This was a catastrophy).

- you always need to have some more 5-6 bookies to balance your income or spendings.

- Another example , if you rememer the case with Efbet in Bulgaria. They lied to theier affiliate for over one year, not detecting correctly new players with deposits. A lot of affiliate lost massive income, and afterwards they just added the players, but not their playing history by the time of the big cheat.

- If you want to play the game fair for you as affiliate, you should chose at least 10 bookies.

I hope, I was helpful.

[drifter8]

Just for the atention of Zalagani , the thread wiht the big cheat of Efbet and Income Access :

https://www.gpwa.org/forum/efbet-inc...ighlight=efbet

[casionmark]

You need to give your users enough choice. Most will have accounts at multiple sites so there needs to be enough choice to optimise chance of conversion.

I reckon c.20 is enough, though ive seen sites with many more. Of course depends on your traffic / keywords too.

[mickyfu]

Seems there are many of reasons to promote many casinos like stability, keywords and so on ... I have a question. Why would you possibly only want to promote one or two. What possible benefits can you get out of doing this?

[Cash Bonus]

It's definitely better to promote a number of operators (say 6 or 7), not just a couple. You never know what could happen with their affiliate programs. Anything’s possible. That way, you'll still have the other operators to fall back on when you need them.

[Zalagania]

Seems there are many of reasons to promote many casinos like stability, keywords and so on ... I have a question. Why would you possibly only want to promote one or two. What possible benefits can you get out of doing this?

Although leveraging big accounts doesn't work as well as with traditional affiliate sites, I assume if you're on top of google for most keywords, you can still negotiate higher rev share.

As I wrote this I realized that you don't need to be promoting only 1 or 2 operators for the above to be true. Ultimately, it's the traffic that buys leverage. Appreciate you giving me a question that changed my perspective

[casinobosscanada]

It is best to work with affiliate programs that have several casinos in their offer. It allows your players to have enough choice, and it's right for you as well.

[Rowdie]

After 12 years in business I got screwed by number of operators. From the early days only bet365 remained as a flagship of ethics. I would promote only them, but they have negative carry over and if one lucky bastard hits 100k, I am screwed

[mathematician]

re "one lucky bastard hits 100k, I am screwed"

worse actually happened to me.
Punter hit a full house yankee with lowest horse odds of 16/1 £300k ish the punter won.

So my 365 account has close to a zero chance of ever being in a positive position ever again.

But I can't really whinge as that was the deal as to negative carry over.

Like you rowdie 365 were one I have higher than usual esteem for. A crying shame that the one I liked best is the one close to guaranteed never to pay again.

Such stuff however must be a commonly perceived risk with 365. One lucky big punter win can stop cash flow for a long long time. The risk of it must dissipate promotional efforts of them to a degree.

Without that risk I am sure many would concentrate on them to higher levels.

Always potential for some day future change however. eg ponder the idea of some affiliate insurance policy with 365 affiliates than permited
a losses reset under exceptional circumstances such a huge punter wins.

365 if they ever devised such a policy would be best to make all aware of it as the key benefit to them of having the policy would be to reap promotional effort across all affiliates who would feel themselves in a much more protected scenario with 365.

The general principle of no neg carry over I would not alter for 365. That actually provides a solid foundation for them to be fair and ethical from.
Arguably too many others listen to bleating affiliates and come up with deals too good for the affiliate that thus eventually get welched on.

But 365 could ponder the perceived risk promoters have with them. Many will fear the doomsday big lucky punter win. True odds of it happening are not as important as the perceived risk in the heads of promoters that consciously or sub consciously lowers promoter 365 based activity to levels it could possibly be at.

The idea of emergency disaster insurance for promoters that reduces such perceived risks could work out well for 365. They could add a few small strings to it if they wanted. eg it will kick in once X new players have been referred or whatever else suited and was fair enough.

Would only have chance of flying as an idea if 365 ask what may be best for the future performance levels of out entire affiliate network
as opposed to honing in on one individual account.

Who knows someday it may happen. I see a degree of logic for 365 making it happen.

Cheers
Mick

[AussieDave]

Dumping all your eggs into one or two baskets, in this industry, will certainly come back to bite you HARD at some point. And, the longer your an affiliate, the BIGGER the risk of that happening is. It might not see like a BIG deal, but as other members have posted, and as I learned years-ago, waving bye-bye to xx,xxx a month cause a casino goes flop, or turns rogue, isn't a nice experience.

I do however believe, there's a point where, promoting too many casinos, can have a negative impact.

What that number is, would rely heavily on the type of site your operating. EG - if your claiming to have played at these casinos, and use that 'statement' to encourage visitors to sign-up, then you'd need to keep those numbers within reason. Otherwise, visitors may call BS on you.

[Juan Roman]

Definitely not easy to decide on the right number of casinos to promote, at least in your main homepage casino table.

I have a casino website completely dedicated to one payment method and my initial idea was to list as many good casinos supporting this payment method as possible.

However, we now have over 35 of those and I am thinking it may be too much for the homepage. Maybe trim it down to 20 and leave all 35+ available showing in the casino reviews section.

[allfreechips]

Depends completely on your sites focus, are you promoting the 3 best casinos, or are you offering all available casinos with legit reviews from you and your users? Having over 1000 casinos hurts a bit though as most operators are looking for 50+ NDP but thats almost impossible when your runnning 1000 casinos...

[Juan Roman]

Yes, the idea is to offer all available casinos with legit reviews. Won't be too many casinos either way. It is a payment method that is still not too famous, but becoming quite popular with casino players from top markets.

[AussieDave]

It is best to work with affiliate programs that have several casinos in their offer.

That's not always a good plan. If the program(s) 'bundles' all their casinos.

EG - At Casino-X you've earned $5K, however at Casino-Z your down $5K. Your RS for the month = $0

Whereas if the program doesn't "bundle"... You'd receive $5K

[TheGooner]

I try to get 3-4 bookies per main market - with a preferred partner in each regions.

But when you realise that there are half a dozen geo-regions (North America, UK, Main Europe, Scandis, Asia, Africa), and most bookmakers are only good in 1-2 regions then that gets to around 20 or so total recommended sites.

[universal4]

Great thread, showing many of the possibilities and trying to show all sides.

I think years ago it was easier to just keep adding programs to the mix, but as many have implied, you need to study things closer and try to find a mix that works on individual sites, with the most trusted programs getting a little bit more exposure, but also be ready to change that in a hurry if needed.

Rick
Universal4

[dannyx]

I agree that promoting one company is not a good idea. However, it also depends on what niche you are promoting. In some niches there is not much choice.
For example, in the one in which I'm starting slowly, it's not a casino, but betting, targeting one of the niches (I won't reveal which one because it's under development, I'll brag about it in the future).

And by way of example, the options are 3. I mean there are 3 operators on the market that have been operating for more than 15 years in their niche and have proven themselves for players (for affiliates I don't know because I'm just starting out) But I assume there are trustworthy brands. Also, there is another one that seems to be ok but I am not sure. There are 2-3 more sites with an affiliate program but they are junk bookmakers. The rest don't have an affiliate program.

I think 3-5 is already pretty much ok. The less the more the quality matters, it's a difference to promote 3 junk brands and promote good brands like bet365, Mybookie, Bovada etc. However, I personally like a lot of choice on the site. I know a lot of people criticize it here, but I like sites where I scroll and there are still bookmakers/casinos. Then I feel that someone is exhausting the topic. I like how there are badly rated casinos/bookmakers at the bottom of the list. It is known these companies are not promoted but the site then looks more authoritative to me. And not just 5 stars everywhere.