BetFred's new terms - NCO or not???

[KasinoKing]

Got an e-mail saying the Affiliate Terms have been updated - but it didn't say WHAT exactly has changed, so this MIGHT have been the same before...

NCO or no NCO - can someone please translate this English into English for me please!

6.6 ...
In the event that a Revenue Share in any calendar month is a negative amount, Betfred.com shall be entitled but not obliged to carry forward and set off such negative amount against future Revenue Shares which would otherwise be payable to you.
However, Betfred shall also be entitled but not obliged to zero the negative balance that would otherwise be carried forward.

Also - can anyone work out the value of "X" without having any other parameters of the formula...?

6.6 ...
If a Revenue Share does not exceed [£ / $ X], Betfred.com shall be entitled to withhold and carry forward such sum until the end of the first calendar month in which the Revenue Share (including such carried forward sum) exceeds [£ / $ X], at which time payment shall be made in accordance with clause 6.7. For the avoidance of doubt, you will only receive a payout when there is a positive balance and it is greater than [£ / $ X]in any given month.

KK

 

[Engineer]

Well, X is the roman numeral for 10 -- so maybe it's £/$10? ;D More than likely, though, someone was lazy and published without proofreading.

As for the "entitled but not obliged" wishy-washiness -- when I see that, I interpret it to mean that they do have negative carryover, and that is usually how they are labeled here if it isn't 100% clear.

 

[Guard Dog]

Very strange... I didn't receive a terms alert I'll see what I can find out in the morning about all of this.

 

[justbookies]

Very strange... I didn't receive a terms alert I'll see what I can find out in the morning about all of this.

The bit that worries me a lot is this:

6.11 You acknowledge and agree that, in addition to the affiliate program, Betfred.com also uses
television advertising as a way to promote its products (“TV Advertising”) and that, from time to time,
such TV Advertising exposure will be increased to take the form of a campaign intended to drive
customers to the Betfred.com Site. You further acknowledge and agree that during campaigns of
increased TV Advertising ( to be determined solely at Betfred.com’s discretion), any Customer that
accesses the Betfred.com Site via a Link on the Partner Site must place a qualifying bet on theBetfred.com Site within 48 hours of access via that Link in order for you to receive a share of the Net
Revenue derived from that Customer’s bet.

To me that surely reads like you lose the referral totally and forever if they dont do a "qualifying bet" within 48 hours. If so that is one of the worst clauses I have ever read in affiliate terms anywhere.

This is the link I got to the new terms:
http://content.betfred.com/affiliates/terms/Affiliate Terms and Conditions v 4 22 08 2013.pdf

 

[Louis_IncomeAccess]

Hi Guys

Will be working with Betfred / Activewins to get some clarification on these issues and get back to you.

Thanks

 

[Louis_IncomeAccess]

Regarding KK's questions

NCO or no NCO - can someone please translate this English into English for me please!

6.6 ...
In the event that a Revenue Share in any calendar month is a negative amount, Betfred.com shall be entitled but not obliged to carry forward and set off such negative amount against future Revenue Shares which would otherwise be payable to you.
However, Betfred shall also be entitled but not obliged to zero the negative balance that would otherwise be carried forward.

This is term has started to be applied across a lot of programs that do not carryover negative balances. Basically, this means that in certain situations they have the option to carryover negatives.

To my knowledge, Betfred / Activewins have no intention to actively implement this term, it is simply legal protection.

6.6 ...
If a Revenue Share does not exceed [£ / $ X], Betfred.com shall be entitled to withhold and carry forward such sum until the end of the first calendar month in which the Revenue Share (including such carried forward sum) exceeds [£ / $ X], at which time payment shall be made in accordance with clause 6.7. For the avoidance of doubt, you will only receive a payout when there is a positive balance and it is greater than [£ / $ X]in any given month.

This just means that there is a payment threshold in order to receive payment and where the threshold is not met, the earnings are carried forward to the next month. The threshold depends on the payment method selected. Bank transfer is $150, all other payment methods are $50 (neteller, moneybookers or player account).

 

[Guard Dog]

Regarding KK's questions



This is term has started to be applied across a lot of programs that do not carryover negative balances. Basically, this means that in certain situations they have the option to carryover negatives.

To my knowledge, Betfred / Activewins have no intention to actively implement this term, it is simply legal protection.

Then no need to have such a term Basically, BetFred is NCO. We can't list it any other way because if it could be applied anytime BetFred feels like it, then we have to assume always.

 

[Louis_IncomeAccess]

Is there a clear precedent for that? I haven't done a thorough review recently, but my understanding was that this term was common in programs with no negative carryover.

 

[Guard Dog]

Is there a clear precedent for that? I haven't done a thorough review recently, but my understanding was that this term was common in programs with no negative carryover.

there are a few, not many, that have that term. Some have removed it when requested, others who kept it knew it would mean that they would be marked with NCO here.

 

[KasinoKing]

Is there a clear precedent for that? I haven't done a thorough review recently, but my understanding was that this term was common in programs with no negative carryover.

There are normally 3 distinct definitions:
1) There is no NCO, period.
2) There is NCO if a player wins over a set amount (offset against that player ONLY) - the amount MUST be stated in the terms.
3) There is NCO, period.

BetFred need to decide which of the 3 they are going to apply and put it in the terms.
1 & 2 are acceptable to me personally, but if it's 3 then I will stop promoting them.

KK

 

[Louis_IncomeAccess]

Hi All,

After discussing with Betfred, they confirmed that both term 6.6 and term 6.11 are not in fact new terms. Both these terms have been in the T&Cs for a significant amount of time, and there has been no incident of Betfred actually implementing these terms. Betfred have no plans to implement them at any point in the future.

Betfred’s affiliate policy and technical set up is to zero out all negatives each month, and any affiliate who promotes them knows that this is the case, month after month. There has been no incidence of carrying over negative balances. Likewise, there has been no incidence of players not being credited due to them not placing a wager within 48 hours.

With this in mind, we hope that these terms will not cause any undue problems, as this is truly nothing new, and Betfred have not had any issues with these terms previously.

If you would like to discuss with the ActiveWins affiliate team, we encourage you to reach out to Natalie Merrison – Natalie@activewins.com

Thanks

 

[slotsaff]

If they don't plan to implement them, they should remove them - then they can't be used in future against affiliates

 

[Engineer]

This same issue was discussed a year ago:

https:// www. affiliateguarddog. com/forums/negative-carryover-possible-terms-t5190.html

Nothing was changed then, and I suspect nothing will change this time around, either. Betfred apparently wants to keep the term in place so that they have the option of using it one day.

It's only a matter of time before they hire someone who wants to take advantage of the term to make himself look good to senior management. "Look how much money I saved, boss! How about a raise?" :

 

[Louis_IncomeAccess]

One could also observe that this term has been in place for some time and has yet to be used.

It could be argued, based on the number of programs that have had affiliate friendly terms, then later gone rogue and retroactively changed their terms and conditions, that it is better to judge a program by their record of behavior than by their terms.