Retroactive Terms Poll - Playshare

[Adrian-LiveCasinoPartners]

I see a couple of things wrong with this.

Firstly, the retroactive part is concerning. The no negative to negative carryover (hybrid) hits the bottom line a few points (retroactively I might add).

Secondly, if you are going to fence a player, then fence the player. Don't take away the first months' affiliate commissions and then fence the player.

I respect Michael, but I would like to disagree with his comment:

...... But in my book a solid program that makes a change like this should not have the same mark against them as the mark against an affiliate program that cheats and steals.....

Well, I agree that the history of a program has a lot to do with how we receive their changes, but .. if this is judged wrong unfair ti affiliates and not addressed what is this saying to the industry. It's saying it's ok.

I for one think that in an effort to acquire more affiliates some programs were too aggressive in choosing their revenue models. Taking back the no negative carry over is like retroactively reducing commissions for 5% or more percent. (depending on niche). Instead of coming out and saying they are paying affiliates less they are modifying certain parameters that don't seem quite so bad.

If I am wrong, then please show me how.

Since my main role is managing the LCP program, I will obstain from voting.

[triple777s]

Well i am also waiting to vote, there are way to many questions that need to be answered first, if it was a program like "gambling wages" etc..i would vote now, but we are talking about a program that has been good to affiliates, and has a good reputation, and i feel i need to let them explain, change or defend their actions before i take action.

Thanks for this thread, it is needed and will make a difference for all of us who care about our business and the industry as a whole.

Pat

[inspiration]

I this highroller term also applying for commissionwarehouse because it is a G3 partner?

MC : I agree it applies to players acquired in the past, but it applies to those players prospectively, not retrospectively.

I have not agreed to that in the past so for me this new term IS retrospectively, so no rouge vote IMO.

If negative earnings are not zero-ed out the next month it is a negative carryover. I sure have had some months when big wins wiped all my earnings in a certain month, but I at least had some hope some of that would be played back the next month. Now I have to wait until the whole negative amount from the highroller is played back and then I start earning commission again.

- first month I can lose all my commissions if a highroller wins over 10K.
- HR winner is fenced and has to play it all back (10K+) before you start earning.

I think this term hits my profits in many ways :

- I miss the commission that normally was would be paid for the 10K loss if it has been played back.
- If you have more players that meet the HR term you have more to lose.
- what if the economy turns, US markets are open again and we all do well again...we still have this term......!

If times are tough for you and you can not go ahead with the old terms at least think about having it as a temporary measure other than permanent. You will never know when the good times will come and you can well do without this term, especially when the US market may open again in the future.

So what I want to say is that this term has more implications than you might think.

[Guard Dog]

I think a 'temporary term' would be much like our politicians implementing a 'temporary tax'. No matter what their intentions, they always keep the tax. And, that's probably their intention anyway. It's difficult to give up a profit center.

As far as 'voting or not voting'. Sorry to say, Michael, but it feels like you set a precedent for NOT voting in this poll - which is wrong, IMO.

This poll is not asking if AGD or anyone else should rogue Playshare. Quite the opposite, really. We are asking if those terms (I've outlined the complete term in the original post) are acceptable. The poll is not even 'leading' the affiliate as the very first choice is that they ARE acceptable.

I have a solid relationship with Playshare, feel they are great folks, and even promote their properties. We have successfully worked with them on several occasions in regards to their terms and they have always been forthcoming and easy to work with.

With that said.... The poll is a simple one. Do you agree with the term being implemented or not?

I really hope EVERYONE votes regardless of what the future brings (changing the term or keeping it intact). It does not matter at this point what our current negotiations with Playshare are - because this term is in the contract.

Let's 'Rock the Vote'

[dominique]

Emmm, the way I read it Michael DID vote - and he voted "acceptable".

I think we need to make clear that this is a survey, and not a tribunal...

[Simmo!]

I voted "unacceptable" but ONLY because of the retroactive application. IMO once an affiliate and a program enter into a "partner" agreement, both partners should approve any changes and if we accept otherwise, it sets a precedent.

I have no problem with the term itself, especially in the current economic climate where allowances have to be made to ensure all parties can continue operating.

[bonustreak]

I voted unacceptable and I plain to continue my talks with the the program to get these changed.

[Guard Dog]

Originally Posted by dominique

Emmm, the way I read it Michael DID vote - and he voted "acceptable".

Yes, I know he voted I just meant that some of the words led others to say that they won't vote yet. Like the following:

Originally Posted by MC

I think this poll cannot be a fair one unless the consequences of being found to be "not acceptable" are explained in the poll. Otherwise those who vote in this poll do not really know what they are voting for.

I think that sets the wrong precedent, but I may just be reading it the wrong way No offense intended.

[ziggy]

I removed my affiliation with playshare partners some time ago due to various negative reasons which I will not go into here.

It only further proves my decision to drop them was correct.

Shame.

[Lawrence]

Hi all,

To add to this thread and poll, PlayShare Partners would like to clarify the details of the policy as much as possible, so that you can make a fully informed decision.

This policy has been active and in our terms and conditions for over a year, the policy applies to all players of any revshare or hybrid deal affiliates, it is retro active in as much as it applies to all players acquired by these affiliates, however this does not imply that PlayShare will look at historical high roller wins older than the previous month and apply these to the high roller policy. We believe that this policy is transparent, honest and fair both to the affiliate and to Playshare

The way this is structured is that:

1. In any given month, if an individual player generates a negative net win of at least $10,000 ('high-roller'), and the aggregate net win in that month (for the casino) for that affiliate is negative, then the high-roller policy will apply.

2. Note that both the stated criteria need to be met in order for the high roller policy to be applied.

3. Going forward, any negative balance will only be applied, proportionately, to the high rollers until the negative balance is reduced by future netwin for that month, this means that the high roller carry over does not affect the affiliates earnings from the balance of their players.

I have attached an example of the high roller policy below. Here the affiliate is on 25% revshare.

To take an extreme example, imagine on the last day of the month a player wins $400,000 then the very next day which is the 1st of the month the player loses it ALL back. So the net result at the casino is ZERO. Is it fair the affiliate is on 25%, is it fair that the affiliate earns $100,000 for this event?

We are being as fair as possible by still allowing no zero carry over, but just ring fencing big winners, rather than just stopping zero carryover.

i. High-Roller Policy

I. In any given month, if an individual player generates a negative net win of at least $10,000 ('high-roller'), and the aggregate net win in that month (for the casino) for that affiliate is negative, then the high-roller policy will apply.

II. If both of the above criteria are met (see point I) then the negative net win generated by the high-roller will be carried forward and offset against future net win generated by that high-roller.

III. The negative balance carried forward cannot be set-off against other players' net win.

IV. If there is more than one high-roller, the negative balance carried forward will be split proportionally between them.

V. The negative balance of a high-roller will be reduced by future positive net win that they generate in subsequent months. The high-roller will continue like this until the total net win has been zeroed then the player shall return to the affiliate account.

VI. Affiliates who have qualifying high-rollers on their account will be notified at the beginning of the following month

VII. Progressive wins do not affect the High-Roller Policy as this payout is taken from the Progressive Prize Pool

VIII. This applies to all affiliates on Revenue Share or Hybrid Deals only.

Should anyone have any questions, please feel free to contact me personally.

Regards,
Lawrence Wilson
Affiliate Program Manager
PlayShare Partners