Retroactive Terms Poll - Casino Coins

Is Casino Coin's retroactive Big Winner Term Acceptable?

  • Casino Coins's retroactive Big Winner Term is acceptable

    Votes: 8 24.2%
  • Casino Coins's retroactive Big Winner Term is NOT acceptable

    Votes: 25 75.8%

  • Total voters
    33

Vladi

Affiliate Guard Dog Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
772
Reaction score
115
Irrespective of this specific issue, I don't understand how or why what another affiliate thinks is acceptable has anything to do with me. A contract between two parties is not a democracy that other parties can have a vote on.

If they held a vote and 99% of affiliates said yes to a change but I (or anyone else) said no, then I expect that they should not be able to change my specific contract. I don't care if it is harder or more work for them to maintain individual contracts with affiliates. That is what happens in any other business in "the real world", not affiliate marketing fantasyland.

If they really want to leave themselves the option of changing terms then make every contract last for a fixed term (eg 12 months) and then you have to agree to a new one after that. Players referred under a specific set of terms should always be handled under those terms unless I explicitly give the program permission to migrate them to a new set of terms.

Otherwise what is to stop a program saying "we'll only pay you for players who generate net revenue of 10,000 a month". You would all be up in arms if that happened. I don't see a difference here, whether it is a good change or not. The big problem is that cross-border jurisdictions and associated costs make it very unlikely that a program will get taken to court when they attempt these kind of manoeuvres.

On this specific issue, I would likely say yes as it is being implemented the right way. However "votes" between others which are not party to my contract are irrelevant, meaningless, and a waste of time.
 

WCD Admin

Affiliate Guard Dog Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
1,160
Reaction score
99
While I agree mostly with what you say, that will not change the situation. As much as we'd love to live in a perfect world we do not. You are correct to saying a vote/discussion "shouldn't matter" (but it does). You are right to think no one will take them to court. You are right that in the "real world" this would not happen. And you are right that we are in affiliate marketing fantasyland, that's how most of us make a living. I think it's a good thing to come to terms with. (reality that is)

I once saw a bumper sticker that said: "You may not like it and you may be right, but that's the way it is."

Given our current position which makes it difficult to solve problems the "real world" way, and given that these guys have control of our player bases and money, and given that some programs are just running us over, I feel that when a program is open to at least letting us talk about the changes, we should negotiate / talk. After all that seems to be the big beef.

It doesn't seem like you are willing to sit down at the table, and don't seem willing to (vote/discussion) so your voice will never be heard. Who knows you might be our biggest advocate. But you have to be able to deal within the frame work (not legal framework, but the framework of "reality" that we are in).

In other words....do you have a better solution? What will you solve by not participating? Is the outcome likely to be better by NOT participating in discussion / vote, or would more people expressing their concerns help us out more?

In the end, its not about what's right. It's about what you can effect, change and make "more" right than it is now.

For those waiting for a perfect world, kiss your income goodbye and stand firm, prepare for draconian measures to be enforced on your "not so enforcable contracts" without any input at all. Personally, I feel we need to try to be reasonable here.

(and definitely no offense Vladi, I've always enjoyed reading your posts, truly independent mind and thinker. I appreciate it!) and again, I think you're right in what you say, but the fact is we live in the affiliate fantasyland >:D
 

Nandakishore

Affiliate Guard Dog Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
46
Reaction score
1
If they held a vote and 99% of affiliates said yes to a change but I (or anyone else) said no, then I expect that they should not be able to change my specific contract. QUOTE]
I agree 100%. If they conduct a poll and the majority accepts the terms, they can introduce it, but not retroactively. That's my position.
 

WCD Admin

Affiliate Guard Dog Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
1,160
Reaction score
99
Considering what other programs are doing - enforcing it without ANY discussion what-so-ever and you really can't do anything about it, why wouldn't folks want a chance to cooperate.

Do you want to negotiate on your own? I mean (maybe I am reading this wrong) you're saying you don't want to harness the power / negotiating skills of all of us as a collective because you have individual rights in this contract. (seemingly non-enforceable)

So my question is what as individuals do YOU plan on doing? Stop promoting them? The alternative is them enforcing something no one ever speaks about. I guess you can pressure them into making an exception for you IF you make enough money with the group to have influence.
 

Vladi

Affiliate Guard Dog Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
772
Reaction score
115
WCD, I did say at the end of my post that on this issue I would agree as what they are doing is at least going about it the right way.

You are right that it isn't a perfect world, it is far worse in this industry as the "contracts" between affiliates and the programs aren't worth the "paper" they are written on. Affiliate programs pretty much have carte blanche to change whatever, whenever, and the only recourse you or I have is to pull them from our sites - which can become like cutting off your nose to spite your face. The programs know this, which is why they hold most of the aces.

I don't propose doing anything really more than what is being done, because there is little use fighting a battle you cannot win. The best thing any affiliate can do is look out for themselves, anticipate this sort of thing (even expect it), make sure you widely diversify your player base, so if any program "Grand Prives" you it becomes a loss you can deal with. Also might be another reason to consider CPAs as long as you have good experience and know your player value.
 

bb1webs

Affiliate Guard Dog Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
207
Reaction score
0
why wouldn't folks want a chance to cooperate

Hi all,

Well here's the thing. We need to establish that call it marketaffiliatefantasyland or whatever ... that its not fantasy money and not fantasy families depending on the money. So we MUST have the same as in the real world and not give an inch or we'll be run over for miles.

That said: I echo B's statement. Why would any thinking affiliate turn their back on the chance to prove we are MORE than willing to be open to finding a working solution to today's problem.

This is an opportunity to take a positive action towards a positive solution that in the end benefits both parties ... instead of having to take a negative action (blacklisting) which ruins things for everyone.

Yes there are going to be a select few who despite it being for the best for ALL involved ... will stand stubborn and I'm afraid if they cannot be swayed to do something for the good of all ... then allocations must be made.

However I do believe it is in the aff T&Cs that the sponsor can end the relationship upon proper notification and if an aff chooses to make life hard on the sponsor ... they must honor their prior responsibilities but at the same time can choose to not further any business relations with that said affiliate.

pain in the ass meet maybesobutnotfromhereonin ...

That's about all that can be done. As my dear departed Father used to say .. pain in the ass but cost of doing business.


its extra paperwork and yes the sponsor can hope for the day when all that affs players no longer play ... but you can't just say well because this is extra work that it justifies breaking a contract.

That's why they made contracts in the first place so that when things got tough for one side they still had to stick the deal.
 
Top