If they do not reverse this policy, than in my opinion 400 and any other programs the have this same policy in effect and will not change them should be rougued.
Yes
No
I have no opinion
If they do not reverse this policy, than in my opinion 400 and any other programs the have this same policy in effect and will not change them should be rougued.
I voted 'no'. Not because I don't think that 400Affiliates are behaving in an underhand or - at best - misguided manner. They clearly are.
Rather, I think that crying 'rogue' should be a last resort and should carry some weight to it. If you/we/us rogue every affiliate program every time there is a difference of opinion, then we will end up undermining the whole idea.
Credibility is everything on the internet and if you undermine that, you're done for.
To me, this looks like an issue that is solvable. So let's see if it can be solved.
I'll try to say this again......
This isn't a 'Should we rogue them today'
This is an issue of - Should we rogue them if this change becomes permanent? Which, then, makes it a retroactive change affecting affiliate earnings without warning or notice.
I hope that is more clear because apparently I have been less than clear in this thread.
bonustreak (02-15-2010),dominique (02-15-2010),Engineer (02-16-2010),tryme1 (02-15-2010)
IF this change becomes permanent, yes, I will rogue them.
It is a change to T&Cs without notification, a breach of contract, and one detrimental to affiliates.
bonustreak (02-15-2010),Engineer (02-16-2010),WCD Admin (02-15-2010)
I do want to believe that this is a Rival-issue more than a 400 Affiliates issue. I have been an affiliate of 400 since 2006 and have always felt they are a good group of affiliate managers and operators for the most part.
I certainly hope this is all a mistake and will be resolved soon enough.
dominique (02-15-2010)
bonustreak (02-15-2010),dominique (02-15-2010),WCD Admin (02-15-2010)
I think that the very least, you should have the RED light on "retro-active" changes.... ? Can't we do that now , prior to rogue status? This way it gives them time to respond and know we are serious without outright sending them to the pit?IF this change becomes permanent, yes, I will rogue them.
It is a change to T&Cs without notification, a breach of contract, and one detrimental to affiliates.
Engineer (02-16-2010)
No tip toeing around the issue if the earnings are unfair so is the program. If they are unwilling to be fair rogue is the alternative. Comes a day after numerous complaints regarding some Rivals to call it what it is Rogue (deviating from the usual practice).
I voted yes because the problem may change in the short run but long term prospects look dismal based on their history.
And yes this will hit me hard but rather take it now rather than later.
JMO
greek39
By the sounds of things, it looks like some rival programs didn't even know this existed. Looks like something was rolled out by Rival and some operators didn't know about it. We've seen it with Microgaming, we've seen it with iPoker.
I think my issue is that a software company would roll something like this out. It doesn't make smart business sense.
operative words being : doesn't make smart business sense.
This seems like a prudent next step imo. This was not just an oversight, this was a furtive attempt to squeeze affiliates. And then not being forthcoming about it says a lot. While I am all for findind an amicable solution to these sorts of problems, programs need to know we mean business and will take swift action against programs demonstrating unscrupulous behavior with affiliates. This is actually pretty scary stuff and makes me wonder what else is being kept under the radar in our industry.
bonustreak (02-16-2010),dominique (02-16-2010)
