Retroactive Terms Poll - Playshare

[Guard Dog]

NOTE: AffiliateGuardDog.com is taking this poll VERY seriously. The results of this poll will be used to determine how we classify Playshare Partners.

NOTE: All votes are anonymous.

---

Playshare Partners implemented a 'High Roller' Policy (Seen at:Playshare Affiliates Adds High Roller Clause | Casino Affiliate Programs Terms and Conditions Updates )

This policy is retroactive (applies to all players regardless of when they were referred).

The policy works as described below:

1. MONTH 1 - The high roller's negative earnings will affect commissions.
   
2. SUBSEQUENT MONTHS - The high-roller is 'fenced' (removed from the earnings calculations) until which time that player generates positive revenue at the casino.
   
3. When the player is generating positive revenue, (s)he is returned to the affiliate account.

---

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.

TERM Location: Playshare Partners Terms and Conditions

[inspiration]

This new highroller term is in fact a negative carry over that is not zero balanced and therefore retroactive. If you get a one month relief by earning for your other players it is still a negative carry over.

What is the real reason why this HR term suddenly needs to be implemented ?

Frankly I get really scared if reputable brands are adding retro active terms because I did not agree to this when I signed up.

J..... what is left to promote these days without nasty strings attached....all the bread and butter seems to be consumed.......only some leftovers remain.......and if I had to choose either for a can of beans or worms....you will probably know my answer....I will find something else to eat....these new terms which seems to be a implemented at our valued programs can only mean one thing : selfdestruction........maybe not now.....but it is a bad precedent to a new trend of cost cutting if you ask me. You know who are your friends in tough times......all so true !

[MichaelCorfman]

I cast my vote in a way that represents a distinct minority view and in a way that many might view as very controversial for an affiliate.

I voted that I view the change as being "acceptable" and I would like to be clear that by that I view the change is legally acceptable, not that I like the change.

I disagree with the terminology that the term is retroactive. In my view it is not, and it is extremely misleading to use that term with respect to this change. The change only applies from the time it was announced going forward. Retroactive, in a legal sense, implies that a term applies to earnings from the past, and this term only applies to earnings going forward.

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

From a business perspective as an affiliate, I think the marketplace is harder than it was before. But is is also harder as an operator, and I think to cast a program as rogue because they adjusted their terms in a fashion that is allowed under the terms of the contract that affiliates entered into with them is not a reasonable posture to take. I think it is fine to say that they have a history of adjusting their terms in a fashion that means you cannot count on the same earnings forever is fine, and to consider that to be a mark against a program. 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. That feels completely unreasonable and unfair to me.

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.

So, I also voted for "acceptable" because my understanding is that voting "not acceptable" means voting for this program to be classified as rogue, and I do not support that outcome.

Sorry for having to say this, but I think votes cast prior to a clarification of what the effect of the vote is cannot be considered a true indication by the voter of support for a particular rating outcome from the poll.

Michael

[Engineer]

I disagree with the terminology that the term is retroactive. In my view it is not, and it is extremely misleading to use that term with respect to this change. The change only applies from the time it was announced going forward. Retroactive, in a legal sense, implies that a term applies to earnings from the past, and this term only applies to earnings going forward.

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

Hi Michael,

I think that many people have a problem with the fact that the new clause applies to players acquired in the past. Whether we call that "retroactive" or something else doesn't matter to me -- just as long as we are all on the same page.

Affiliates signed up and promoted these casinos with the understanding that there would be no negative carryover, period. To change that policy is fine, as long as it doesn't affect earnings derived from the existing player base.

For example, if an affiliate referred 100 players under a set of T&Cs that offered 25% for life, no negative carryover, and no bundling, then that is how the earnings should be calculated for those 100 players, for as long as they remain active players.

When a program makes a change that involves making the T&Cs less attractive than before, such as going from a 30% base rate to a 25% base rate, or such as going from a blanket no-negative carryover policy to a partial negative carryover policy (which is what the high roller clause is), then the new policy should be applied only to players referred after the change went into effect. It should not affect the players referred in the past.

That is what many affiliates have a problem with. If the companies would simply apply the new rules to players referred after the changes went into effect, this wouldn't be as big an issue. It would take only a minor adjustment to make this happen. If the referral date is before July 1 (or whenever), leave the player alone. If the referral date is after July 1, implement the new term.

So, I also voted for "acceptable" because my understanding is that voting "not acceptable" means voting for this program to be classified as rogue, and I do not support that outcome.

This isn't necessarily what will happen.

What will hopefully happen, is that the affiliate programs will see the feedback here and respond by adjusting their T&Cs so that the changes do not apply to the existing players. The door is still very much wide open; this poll is definitely not asking whether or not the program should be rogued. So, please vote only on what you see in the poll question -- i.e. whether or not you think it is acceptable or not to apply the high roller clause to your existing player base.

[mojo]

I didn't vote yet. Before I can, I would like clarification why PS and Star has the same basic term yet PS doesn't pay the month of the win but SP states that they do. It appears to me that they can use it whichever way they want. I would like to know which it is clearly.

From Playshare:

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.

From Star Partner:

If both measures are met (clause 1), then the negative net win generated by the player (high-roller) will be taken forth and compensated against future net win generated by the same player.

I know it's confusing. Hope that makes sense.

I think MC has a point as well. Are we voting to rouge?

[Engineer]

I think MC has a point as well. Are we voting to rouge?

No. See my post above.

[mojo]

No. See my post above.

Missed that while posting Engineer. TY. I would not want to make such a drastic vote.

[bonustreak]

SP did not make retroactive changes to the terms that is the difference. I don't want to vote on this either since I am hoping my contact there is able to have a chance at fixing this for us affiliates. I don't think it is fair to rush just as of yet to mark a good standing program as predatory until talks are ceased and the program is refusing to talk, which is not the case here.

[mojo]

SP just lowered their threshold from 10k t0 3k via an email vote. There was no discussion that I saw and I think it's fair to say not everyone had a vote.

I would still like to know the intentions of the term. SP claims it happens in that month. PS takes ALL our earnings that first month.

Is PS using this term the way it was intended? I would like to know and I think it is important.

[dominique]

This is a very good discussion and we hope the reps will stop by and clear up questions.

And again, this is not a vote to rogue. It is a vote to measure affiliate opinions and let the programs see the various points made in the discussion here.

Re. the term retroactive - I see it referring to a breach of contract. Contracts need to be renegotiated when changed. It is not appropriate for one party to just change the terms.

If times are so tough that we all need to tighten belts, it needs to be done in the frame of the partnership and with full understanding and agreement.

No one wants to see programs fail. No one wants to see affiliates fail. None of us will do well without the other.

If times are bad, as partners we can come to agreements as to how to handle it and share the burden fairly.