Vegas Affiliates - Rogue

[vegas.aff]

Dear All,

The inactivity clause is NOT a retroactive term and only applies to new affiliates. No affiliates who were already signed up before the change will be affected.


This is therefore a non issue.

I think it is absolutely ridiculous that you would suddenly "rogue" our program without asking for the facts from us first.

With regards the bundling, as I have stated again and again this has already been discussed and understood by J Todd at the APCW as well as CAP.

We have had numerous discussions on those forums and nowhere was there any talk of blacklisting or rogue listing.

Since all of the above Affiliate Program Certification organisations were acceptant with it I don't see how your forum can then go ahead and decide that we are a rogue program.

Dominique you are well aware that me and Christine had already discussed this in Budapest and we came to some common understanding. This was mentioned by Christine in a post she made in this forum on her return.

Regarding "Legal Threats":

Engineer was asked to refrain from posting negative and libellous comments about VegasAffiliates or we would have been well within our rights to close his account.

Note that we did not close his account but merely warned him after numerous unfounded and opinionated comments that were stated as fact and clearly were not.

here is (once again) the explanation many of you have received regarding bundling:

"Every common official channel was utilised to inform affiliates and discuss this change be. Apart from the official announcement in the newsletter we sent out we also posted this on the most popular affiliate forums Including the GPWA and CAP, within which we had quite some debate with affiliates. In the end, it was agreed with the majority of affiliates that this would be the lesser negative change and somewhat acceptable. This was discussed with J Todd from the APCW and Christine from Streak Gaming all who came to some sort of understanding with me as at the same time I pushed against the retro-active affiliate activity/min player terms being introduced in VA and succeeded.

While I can understand your point about the casino wallet system not being ideal for affiliates who may have benefited in the past from separated results, please keep in mind that this calculation was not an official term and was bound to change.

This was a change we had to make due to concerns regarding a possible negative growth within our casino group. Affiliates were being paid out on overall negative results for the group of casinos. This was pushing us in a dangerous direction and we have had to make changes in order to ensure growth in the new markets we are now targeting due to the closure of Microgaming in the US.

As the costs we were incurring were pushing us towards an unsustainable trend In the log run it may have come to be a matter of: "would you prefer slightly less commissions, or no commissions?"

We may be able to offer solutions for future campaigns by creating new accounts for to deliver new and increased traffic. We would also be willing to discuss increased commissions on that account.

I hope this answers your questions. Let me know your thoughts."

Dominique I demand to know why Vegas Affiliates is being singled out over so many other affiliate programs who have done the same.



Sebastian Debono
Head of Affiliates
VegasAffiliates.com

[mojo]

Sebastian,

Are you not aware of the negative impact that has affected the affiliate community with the changes implemented at Va?

Gambling Portal Webmasters Association

Casinomeister's Online Casino and Poker Forum

Just to name a couple of threads. There are more.

I think it is absolutely ridiculous that you would suddenly "rogue" our program without asking for the facts from us first.

This is not 'sudden'. I have seen many folks trying to talk some reason here with very little response from you though the affiliate manager tried very hard to keep the peace. I think you didn't realize the impact of what you are doing.

This was discussed with J Todd from the APCW, Steve Corfmann from the GPWA and Christine from Streak Gaming all who came to some sort of understanding with me as at the same time I pushed against the retro-active affiliate activity/min player terms being introduced in VA and succeeded.

It's not to late Sebastian. Please rethink this and speak with Andy here and Steven and Christine because I am pretty sure they didn't 'approve' this. Even so and regardless, you need to talk to your partners, ie: affiliates! There is no get out of jail free card because there was a pow wow 'behind the scenes'. Please be upfront about what is happening exactly and what affiliates can do to help. We are pretty reasonable but simply changing terms 'at will' is extremely harmful to affiliates!

Now there are lots of buzz about threats of lawsuits and shutting down accounts. VA hole is getting deeper.

Please let us know what we can do to help reverse these changes.

Best Regards,

Paula

edit to add:

[QUOTE]As the costs we were incurring were pushing us towards an unsustainable trend In the log run it may have come to be a matter of: "would you prefer slightly less commissions, or no commissions?"[/QUOTE]

No commissions thank you! You do realize that affiliates would not have used VA if they knew this would happen? Isn't that why it's called an affiliate program? Where is the affiliate in this money-saving venture?

[mojo]

Regarding "Legal Threats":

Engineer was asked to refrain from posting negative and libellous comments about VegasAffiliates or we would have been well within our rights to close his account.

Note that we did not close his account but merely warned him after numerous unfounded and opinionated comments that were stated as fact and clearly were not.

That is some scary stuff that you told Engineer. You are seriously going to close his account because he expresses his anguish?? What right do you have? Please show me how you could steal an affiliates players and not have any reprocussions? I have posted in your own forum here as well:

Vegas Affiliates Lawsuits? - Gambling Portal Webmasters Association

[vegas.aff]

Mojo,

Are you of the mind that partners do not have any responsibilty towards the affiliate programs that they promote? Is this not part of the agreement?

The same way we have an obligation to pay our partners every month, partners also have an obligation to represent us in good light and truthfully.

We did not and were not going to close any accounts. Merely reminding a partner (and that's A partner as it was only one instance) that he has an obligation towards us the same way we do him.

Kindly stop exaggerating the facts, you have posted that there were many instances when there was not. Only one.

Also, you posted that we have retroactively implemented quotas. That is untrue, kindly amend.

The issue in discussion here is not the quotas as those were introduced as a new term for new accounts.

Are you here to discuss the facts or not?

[mojo]

Retroactive Quota (Minimum Activity Rule) - Vegas Affiliates DID decide to not have a quota some time back, but implemented that term anyway

[QUOTE=vegas.aff]

Also, you posted that we have retroactively implemented quotas. That is untrue, kindly amend.

It is easy for affiliates to assume that these changes will commence. It is also easy for affiliates to assume we will be sued if we speak out against VA. I would like nothing better than to resolve this here and now. Then I can amend the rogue pages I spent hours on today.

1. Will you reverse the bundling term and revert back to your original 'no bundling' policy?

2. Will you retract any and all quota terms and conditions?

[vegas.aff]

Paula,

Vegas Affilaites did not implement a retroactive quota. The quota is in no way applicable for old affiliates who agreed to our old terms and conditions.

This is a common term that most European affiliate programs have in their agreements and I do not see how we are singled out over this.

How is it that this new term qualifies us as rogued over all other affiliate programs when it is not retroactive?

The Bundling issue is not something that we are able to reverse, due to circumstances we had to implement this as we were being very negatively affected. We have had to make certain changes to remain competitive and this way are able to offer affiliates better terms in other areas.

Please understand that we discussed this many times with affiliates and we came to an understanding with many people in the business including the APCW.

I understand that it is not ideal but many affiliate programs have had to make changes over the past couple of years due to exceptional circumstances. We want to provide a good service to affiliates and do everything above board, whereas many programs even resort to skimming players off affiliate accounts! We suffer because we practice transparency.

Please explain how this qualifies us as a rogue program?

Rogue programs have witheld payments or implemented retroactive quotas and stolen affiliate's money. How can we be compared to these programs?

[mojo]

Sebastian,

The bundling is something that you are required to reverse as an affiliate program. I am not sure that you realize that affiliates do not, generally, promote programs that bundle. By VA offering no bundling for years and affiliates promoting it heavily because of that, then removing it.. well I hope that helps you to realize why VA would then become rogue. Affiliates put in thousands of hours promoting you because you did not bundle. Please consider that.

This is a common term that most European affiliate programs have in their agreements and I do not see how we are singled out over this.

As far as quotas go, not one affiliate that I know would use a program that has a quota term. I hope that I am helping here by letting you know that affiliates - new and old - will shy in a big way from programs that have a quota.

All programs I promote do not have a quota that I am aware of and if they did, I would replace them instantly.

I hope that helps Sebastian.

Paula

[vegas.aff]

Honestly I do understand you, but the bundling is still not something that I have control over or that we are able to reverse.

However we will do everything in our power to ensure affiliates are compensated as best we can via promotions and even on a negotiable basis opening of sperate accounts in order to generate new, unblundled traffic.

While I understand that you may feel this is not an ideal situation, this is still not an issue that qualifies us as a rogue program.

Now that we have clarified that:

A) The quota is not retroactive.
B) There was no threat of lawsuits or of account closure, merely a warning not to post libellous information.

Can you please clarify our classification on AGD?

Best Regards,

Sebastian Debono
Head of Affiliates
VegasAffiliates.com

[mojo]

Honestly I do understand you, but the bundling is still not something that I have control over or that we are able to reverse.


A) The quota is not retroactive.


Can you please clarify our classification on AGD?

Best Regards,

Sebastian Debono
Head of Affiliates
VegasAffiliates.com

Thank you for understanding.

I cannot help you if the bundling is non-negotiable. There must be something you can do. Affiliates are being harmed by this and we cannot just stand by on it.

Whether the quota is retro or not, it harms new affiliates. I am not so selfish to not consider that. Would I recommend the ONE program that has a quota?

I know you can work this out Sebastian. I want to see VA succeed with the support of its partners.

[vegas.aff]

Are you stating that all Affiliate Programs with quotas or casino bundlling are listed as rogued on AGD?