Retroactive Terms Poll - Roxy Affiliates

[bonustreak]

Really we need to blame MG in the end for all these changes I think because it was their decision to puss out and leave the USA, not the operators! I can completely understand the operators are in a struggle now and need to cut some corners but they need to do it right and not screw over their partners in business while cutting the corners. The opt in is an excellent idea Joe!

[The_CPA]

I have to agree, Joe.
Although I can't personally say I've had any good months with them lately, there were a few in the past 10 years that were OK.

Pure and simple though,...when they changed their terms a couple of years back,they allowed afffiliates the opportunity to stay on their original deal or switch.

IN FACT, I recall them EXTENDING the choice to switch or stay on their original agreement beyond what they initially stated the deadline would be because some affiliates said they didn't hear, or know there was a change in the offing.

Casino Rewards/Reward Affiliates has handled terms changes professionally, and with seemingly sincere appreciation for their affiliate partners.

This is the model/example any respectable program should follow. JMO

[JTodd]

How could taking the first month's income (and not properly fencing) be a gift? I would (in all seriousness) love to hear how you can back that statement up.

First, I misread the first line that the negative balance DOES affect first month's earnings. I thought it did not. But does it go into affect immediately upon a big win and freeze the affiliate loss at $2,000? If so, it's not totally bad... is it?

Guess I'm just too old school, man. I remember many times when whales won big and crushed my earnings so badly at some sites that I never crawled out of the hole. That crap carried forward forever back then. One place I was negative $85,000... and that was my share, not the affiliate program.

When some programs implemented "No Negative Carry Over" it was awesome. However, they didn't plan on what the industry has become today. That's no fault to the affiliates who signed up in good faith under those T&C's, but I fear that if we (as webmasters) don't give a little to help these programs be more profitable we may see more and more Grand Prive type of activity.

Perhaps the solution is to allow webmasters to chose a mix and match arangement with the programs? One affiliate may choose to have a "High Roller Protection" agreement where they have a $2000 commission stop-loss and the player is fenced. Another webmaster may choose to opt-out of the "protection", go $20,000 in the hole, and take their chances that the player will play it all back.

I dunno. Just hate to see affiliate programs grasping at straws and my friends hurting because of it. Wish I had an answer that would work for everyone.

[Bonus Paradise]

My opinion on this HR policy:

It happened to me, that I had a big winner at a program.
and then the next month he played all away, we did get over 5K even the casino had no win at all from that player and still had to pay me.
So imagine how many more times this happens in total,
the casinos sure lost out much money.
So I can understand that they are now trying to find a way protect themselves for such cases.
So with this HR policy now this could not happen anymore.


I agree with others here, if fence the player,
then do it immediatly, not only the next month.

I am voting not acceptable.

btw, do progressive winners also count for this?

[Simmo!]

Agree wih JTodd there has to be give and take. Affs and Operators have to help each other if we are truly a partnership. I also like Roxy and want them to be around for years. That is why I could live with the term. JTodd also makes a good point about the negative carry-over which, by it's removal, also means that we are probably getting more than 30% (or whatever) from most of our players over the long term.

However - it was applied retroactively (I wasn't consulted either FYI). If we have a contract, changes that affect the value of a contract should be agreed by both sides prior to the change or else quite clearly, it's not a partnership.

So for exactly the same reasons as the Playshare term, I voted no because if we start to accept un-agreed retroactive changes to our contracts that affect our earnings, we set a precedent and EVERYONE WILL DO IT. And we can only blame ourselves.

It's a matter of principle as much as anything.

One thing I'd add. Remember when the S.A Mg's got together about 3 or 4 years ago and did that sweeping retroactive change? I took a whole load down at the time (Referback, Fortune, Roxy, VPL etc). They eventually backed down, but it was a great lesson for me.

Although they have gradually come back onto my sites, they have nowhere near the exposure they had before because it made me change my strategy. And as much as I like the people there, I always harboured a nagging feeling that at any of those programs, company policy may well override our relationships - and here we are.

That's why I now share my players around some 30-40 programs and am no longer reliant on just a few.

[Simmo!]

Incidentally, just an aside. From a business perspective, I view the affiliate program managers as a conduit between us the affiliates and the "company" we are dealing with. A relationship manager as much as anything. In most instances, they are in a position of trying to balance the requirements of an affiliate with those of the company, with the added burden of trying to stay employed

To that end, it really bugs me when afiliates rant and vent at the affiliate program managers who are really quite often stuck in the middle.

Just a thought.

[dominique]

The assumption everyone here makes is that the industry is in dire straits.

Is it really that bad?

[JTodd]

The assumption everyone here makes is that the industry is in dire straits.

Is it really that bad?

This is a mixed answer. Some programs and webmasters have actually had to leave the industry, so yes... for them it is that bad. For others, all these troubles may actually be profitable as their competitors leave the industry voluntarily or go out of business.

I truly believe that what's going on right now is exactly what we feared would happen in a post-UIGEA industry. Remember back in 2005 and early 2006 when we used to talk about this, Dom? About what we thought would happen should something like UIGEA get passed?


1) Some weak affiliate programs would go under...

2) Consolidation of affiliate programs for survival...

3) Changing relationships with their webmasters...

4) Fear some webmasters may not survive the transition...

5) Fear webmasters may not have a place in a regulated industry...


Obviously, some of these things have been going on for some time now. So I hope you understand my concerns that we are moving down the list as regulation looms on the horizon. This is why I am more apt to give a little to help the programs survive with webmasters viewed as an asset to be kept, rather than a liability which can be cut.

I understand some things are unfair and it's a slippery slope, but I am also trying to look 5 years... 10 years into our future. None of this will matter if several programs start chopping like Grand Prive, and whereas we need to defend our interests I would also like to have programs look at webmasters as partners they need to keep.

[dominique]

Well, with Microgamings renegging their contracts, I am inclined to attribute it to the withdrawal from the US combined with a bad economy.

I think primarily it is the world economy, which is starting to recover.

Do we want to emerge from an economic setback with a bunch of precedents that contracts can be altered by one (and only one, namely operators) party without agreement by the other party?

This is not good business practice, and it makes it impossible to establish player bases anywhere in good faith, believing one will actually get paid as agreed.

As partner, I am perfectly willing to stick it out through good and bad times, I don't want to see programs failing any more than they want to see affiliates failing.

Also, are these cuts designed to allow operators to continue to make the same profits as before the economic setback and make the affiliate carry the burden? Or are they a sharing of economic repercussions?

Will the future of this industry be governed by lawless behavior (not to be confused with non-regulated, one can adhere to basic business law without direct regulation by other bodies)?

Last not least, we all know that once a clause makes it into a contract, it is there to stay if the issuing party benefits.

So, if the economy recovers by year's end, are we stuck with these terms that were meant to assist operators pull through a bad time?

There are a lot of very serious issues to consider here, that may affect the industry for years to come.

[inspiration]

So, if the economy recovers by year's end, are we stuck with these terms that were meant to assist operators pull through a bad time?

Sure looks that way and if the economy suddenly starts to flourish we still drag those [retroactive active terms] with us for (for hopefully some good) years to come.

What do you think happens to the bottom line of those operators then?

They mave have more money to spend after the whole crisis is over and start investing for their own benefits with parts of our commission.

If we want the same bottom line we have to drink more coffee and work a bit harder and longer.

Sure it is about give and take ....... but they "take" when times are bad and "take" at times when profits will be good.

I just do not expect them to share their succes after they survived the worst.