Vegas Affiliates - Rogue

[vegas.aff]

Hi Christine,

Basically this will be done on a case by case basis provided there will be good exposure. We have even done that and increased commissions but it is subject to review.

We are here to work with affiliates and grow stronger as partners. I am not trying to strong-arm anyone. I have had to deal with the changes and you know what I went through to get things turned around so as not implement the quota terms retroactively.

I would just appreciate a little support from our partners. After all I'm here to ensure success for VA with the tools I am given and the new ones we are creating.

If anyone would like to promote us through new accounts we are willing to discuss this. Definitely.

BR,
Seb

[Engineer]

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.

Nothing that I have posted is untrue. VA retroactively bundled the casinos, which is a breach of the original contract that I entered into 5 years ago. Bundling was never mentioned in the T&Cs, but it widely understood by everyone that the casinos there were not bundled.

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.

My opinion is that something like bundling cannot be "bound to change" unless both sides agree to the change. The fact that the casinos were not bundled in the past was a major reason affiliates promoted more than one of VA's casinos in the first place. One of the main reasons I put so much time and energy into VA's brands was because they weren't bundled. Had they been bundled, I would have promoted only one casino to limit my exposure.

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.

I think there are other ways to get out of a hole besides screwing your marketing partners. Revamp the casinos, offer better creatives, update the banners more frequently, offer special promos to affiliates.... Basically I think the company should "grow" its way out of the problem instead of trying to "save" its way out.

We did not and were not going to close any accounts.

Thank you. I will sleep a little easier tonight (seriously).

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.

I wasn't the only one. I talked with another webmaster via email about his/her experience. I won't "out" him/her like you did with me, though. If he/she wants to step forward and post, he/she will. Guard Dog has confirmed cases separately as well.

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.

VA had "no bundling" for over 5 years. Why does VA need to bundle now? Revenues are probably down due to MGS leaving the US, but do you think it is fair that affiliates get their earnings sliced to a fraction of what they once were so that the "shareholders" can maintain a constant (or near-constant) earnings level? Personally (obviously) I don't think that's fair.

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.

Exactly.

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

I think you could easily reverse this with just a few lines of code.

Many other affiliate programs have implemented worse changes and have been marked as predatory. Not Rogued.

VA isn't being singled out. For many months, affiliates have been trying to get VA to understand that retroactive changes that harm affiliates are not acceptable. At a certain point -- sometimes sooner, sometimes later -- affiliate programs that implement unfair retroactive changes are rogued or labeled as predatory here.

Moving forward.......

I agree with the earlier posts that suggest splitting the existing accounts into multiple accounts (one per casino). Having a new account to use doesn't help. Having the old account split into 5 accounts (which would effectively eliminate the retroactive bundling) is a great idea. I'd be happy to move forward if you can do this. Is this something you can at least consider? No need to respond right away -- talk it over, think about it. It'd be nice to get this resolved in a fair way, where everyone is happy with the outcome.

[pdjoe]

I agree with the earlier posts that suggest splitting the existing accounts into multiple accounts (one per casino). Having a new account to use doesn't help. Having the old account split into 5 accounts (which would effectively eliminate the retroactive bundling) is a great idea. I'd be happy to move forward if you can do this. Is this something you can at least consider? No need to respond right away -- talk it over, think about it. It'd be nice to get this resolved in a fair way, where everyone is happy with the outcome.

I'm just looking for a little clarification here. If we affiliates did open new accounts for each casino......would we be bound by the new "quota" term? If so, I wouldn't touch that !

[Engineer]

That's a good point.

I think brand new accounts (with no existing player base) would be bound by the new T&Cs with the minimum activity rule, which states:

Should there be no reasonable marketing activity on the part of the Member for over sixty days this Agreement will be deemed to have been terminated by the Member (Applicable only to new member accounts created after 1st September 2009).

But if the old, existing account was split into multiple accounts, with the players from each casino mapped to the appropriate "child" account, I would propose that the original, affiliate-friendly T&Cs be in effect for those accounts.

[vegas.aff]

We are only offering a NEW single seperated account for affiliates who will be marketing us and providing new traffic. We will not seperate old accounts.

We have had a good takeup on this offer with plenty of partners marketing us and generating new traffic through a new account.

[Webzcas]

You still haven't confirmed that you will cease talk of legal action against affiliates publically conveying their unhappiness with your new terms, which as far as the bundling is concerned is predatory and retroactive.

This is very very relevant and hence requires an answer.

[vegas.aff]

We have already confirmed that we talked of libellous postings being a breach of contract. We have not talked of legal action. In any case we deny this statement and retract anything that may have been misunderstood as such.

[Guard Dog]

We have already confirmed that we talked of libellous postings being a breach of contract. We have not talked of legal action. In any case we deny this statement and retract anything that may have been misunderstood as such.

ok - will Vegas Affiliates stop threatening account closure and confiscation of earnings? That has been done on several accounts. And, BTW, V.A. did talk of legal action in Budapest as well in at least 1 other situation.

[Webzcas]

We have already confirmed that we talked of libellous postings being a breach of contract.

Commenting on the actions your program has taken is not libellous when said comments are factual. Blacklisting/Roguing/Not Recommending a program due to said program changing terms and conditions retroactively is not grounds for legal action on your part. Indeed said action would fail as there would be no case to answer.

Let me be frank here and I am sure I echo what many other affiliates are afraid to convey.

What I am reading in this thread, such as what Bonustreak, Engineer & Guard Dog have posted - in addition to your own posts Sebastian, just sets off really loud alarm bells with regards working with your program.

Vegas Affiliates would be best advised to step back, take stock and realise that to be successful, you do not crap on your partners from a great height.

Threats of lawsuits and account closures are rogue actions, make no mistake - especially when you have no grounds for either action. Combined with your predatory term changes you have implemented makes your program as affiliate unfriendly as can possibly be.

[Engineer]

We have already confirmed that we talked of libellous postings being a breach of contract. We have not talked of legal action. In any case we deny this statement and retract anything that may have been misunderstood as such.

Thank you.

We are only offering a NEW single seperated account for affiliates who will be marketing us and providing new traffic. We will not seperate old accounts.

Please reconsider this. A new account doesn't solve the issue of the retroactive bundling. Further, the predatory new "minimum activity" clause would apply to a new account.