Centrebet Affiliates Rogued

[Guard Dog]

Centrebet Affiliates are now rogue at AGD. Their new set of terms can steal commissions from current affiliates and is not a set of terms any affiliate should agree too.

See more: Centrebet Terms Alerts

 

[Engineer]

When are programs going to learn -- quotas are not acceptable!

Neither are retroactive changes that benefit only the affiliate program.

Definitely steer clear of Centrebet.

 

[Louis_IncomeAccess]

Hi Guys,

Thanks for your comments and feedback. Much appreciated.

Centrebet has always valued affiliates to be a big part of its business and online marketing channel. Those of you who have worked with us over the past years can attest to our efforts to be as flexible and fair as possible, and will have seen our commitment to building mutually profitable relationship.

I spoke to Andy today briefly and explained to him the events that lead to these changes in terms. In short, after an extensive audit of the program in May, Centrebet discovered a large amount of fraud and abuse, and needed to immediately enact measures to protect against this, to keep the program sustainable and allow us to better compensate good affiliates. Andy had some good feedback, and he and I agreed that we would arrange a meeting between AGD and Centrebet to discuss the options for adjusting the T&Cs in a way that gives more peace of mind to affiliates.

To be clear, Centrebet had no intention of implementing the negative rollover, or the minimum threshold, on a mass scale in the program at any point. We simply need to find a solution to a problem that is plaguing many programs in the industry at the moment. After speaking with Andy, I’m confident that we can reach a solution that protects us against abuse while leaving CB affiliates with peace of mind.

We understand the sentiments that these changes may cause in affiliates who do not know us well. However, we invite you to look closer in the coming months at all we are doing to improve this program, and hope you will consider this before passing final judgment.

In the meantime, I invite you all to speak to myself, Lee-Ann Johnstone, and Sheldon Chapman personally to discuss your feedback, as well as any concerns or questions you might have.

UK
Lee-Ann Johnstone - Lee-Ann.Johnstone [at] centrebet [dot] com
AUS
Sheldon Chapman - Sheldon.Chapman [at] centrebet [dot] com
North America
Louis Deering – affiliatesupport [at] centrebet [dot] com

 

[Guard Dog]

We will be working with Louis and Centrebet next week to find an adequate solution to the terms change. Louis seems quite willing to work towards an equitable solution.

Thank you for that, Louis.

 

[sipka]

What I don't get is what is the connection between fraud/abuse and the minimum player rule?

The programs that are installing this kind of rule are just working against the industry.
I wonder when will some of them realise that if everyone is demanding minimum players then affiliates won't promote more than 4-5 programs so you can be assured that beside the top performers other programs won't get a click anymore.
Website real estate is not neverending, you are cutting the woods under yourself if you force affiliates into such deals.

I don't have money if I don't have players. But programs don't have that money either if I don't send the player. Affiliates don't cost money directly, programs only pay when affiliates perform.
Why is that not enough? Why is the greed all the time? I am killing time, money,etc into promoting programs that in the end don't convert. Can I modify the contract one-sided? Can I get paid for my marketing efforts that are failed because the program is unable to convert my players? Because these kind of contract modifications are pointing out the exact same situation - the program doesn't perform as per agreement. Can we get a clause please in the TCs that programs guarantee the minimum player conversion from let's say 50 clicks? And if they don't bring the numbers, then we get more commission.

Why make affiliates responsible for the program's disability of conversion?

(Sorry for the rant, but I'm getting really tired of the alltime BS excuses programs use in the name of greed greed greed.)

 

[Louis_IncomeAccess]

Hi Sipka,

Thanks for the candid feedback.

I can tell you honestly that the minimum player rule was not put into the T&Cs with the intention of punishing affiliates for lack of conversion, but rather to protect against abuse in cases where affiliates are not providing any value to the program.

This is not greed. In fact, keeping a Sportsbetting program profitable is a lot more difficult than you may think. Yes, it's true that you are only paid when your program earns positive revenue, but you have to look at the whole picture.

For simplicity's sake, let's say their are 3 affiliates in the program:
Affiliate 1 generates +$4000 in net revenue
Affiliate 2 generates $0 in net revenue
Affiliate 3 generates -$4000 in net revenue

If the program pays 25% commission, then their net earnings for the month are -$1000.

With increasing competition in odds, bonus hunting, and more arbitrage, it's getting harder and harder for bookmakers to turn a profit consistently on players. Add to this the no negative rollover, and it becomes very tricky to keep the program profitable.

I agree with AGD, terms and conditions have to be fair to affiliates. However, in the same hand, I think affiliates need to be fair in what they ask from merchants. If a program is running at a loss for an extended period of time, it is not going to be sustainable. Isn't sustainability what affiliate marketing is supposed to be all about?

 

[dominique]

What I don't get is what is the connection between fraud/abuse and the minimum player rule?

The programs that are installing this kind of rule are just working against the industry.
I wonder when will some of them realise that if everyone is demanding minimum players then affiliates won't promote more than 4-5 programs so you can be assured that beside the top performers other programs won't get a click anymore.
Website real estate is not neverending, you are cutting the woods under yourself if you force affiliates into such deals.

I don't have money if I don't have players. But programs don't have that money either if I don't send the player. Affiliates don't cost money directly, programs only pay when affiliates perform.
Why is that not enough? Why is the greed all the time? I am killing time, money,etc into promoting programs that in the end don't convert. Can I modify the contract one-sided? Can I get paid for my marketing efforts that are failed because the program is unable to convert my players? Because these kind of contract modifications are pointing out the exact same situation - the program doesn't perform as per agreement. Can we get a clause please in the TCs that programs guarantee the minimum player conversion from let's say 50 clicks? And if they don't bring the numbers, then we get more commission.

Why make affiliates responsible for the program's disability of conversion?

(Sorry for the rant, but I'm getting really tired of the alltime BS excuses programs use in the name of greed greed greed.)

Excellent post, Sipka.

The thing is, if I send a player that produces a profit for the casino, I deserve a % of that profit as per contract, period.

Now I know nothing about sports betting, this is a casino oriented comment.

You have that money that player is generating for the casino, and part of it is mine.

There is no reason why you should not be able to pay it.

I see player quotas as extortion - send me more or I won't pay what I owe you.

This will send me running for the hills, and every program that imposes a quota will disappear from my sites asap, even if I lose out at the time. Sending even more players there when I can anticipate future extortion is just stupid and not good business sense.

 

[tryme1]

Louis_IncomeAccess wrote :

Affiliate 1 generates +$4000 in net revenue
Affiliate 2 generates $0 in net revenue
Affiliate 3 generates -$4000 in net revenue

If the program pays 25% commission, then their net earnings for the month are -$1000.

Oh, c'mon Louis, you can surely do better than that. The fact is that sportsbooks quite literally 'make the book'. They set the odds and there is an inherent advantage to the bookmakers. If they only had three clients, what you are saying could be a problem, but they don't only have three clients.

Let's not pretend that sportsbooks are struggling to profit from their players. If they are not able to keep their players long term, then that is their issue.

Affiliates shouldn't be penalised for bringing players. Generally, affiliates don't set the promotions, don't choose the bonuses, don't determine rollovers or any of that stuff. Your clients are the ones that set the rules. Stop whining about your clients' profit margins when the people who promote you earn literally nothing unless they bring you a profitable player.

Grow up. Look at what you're doing. Accept some responsibility for not keeping players long term and act like adults. In the meantime, I'll keep working with the sports betting sites that do.

 

[inspiration]

Their profit forecast is minus 40% which is due to a drop in bookmaking revenue of over 30%, increased fees and $800.000 bad debt.

No wonder CB wants to minimize costs and risk exposure.

As Dominique said I do not want to get penalized for promoting CB casino because the sportsbook is not doing well I rather choose a different one and there are lots to choose from that are profitable.

 

[bonustreak]

Good thing I don't promote sportsbooks so I don't lose here but I will shout out for all my fellow affiliate friends that do promote this place and stand up for them on wrongness of this term!

 

[Louis_IncomeAccess]

Hi guys,

Appreciate the feedback here.

Tryme1, I think inspiration's post should back up our claims that Sportsbook affiliate program's run on much tighter margins than affiliates might think. The fact is, the industry is very competitive, and as such, programs have bid away their margins considerably. Just look at the other Australian programs that closed over the last year. Again though, we need to emphasize that the changes that were put into place were specifically aimed at certain abuses that happen in the industry, and have nothing to do with the profitability of affiliates that promote and send players in good faith. Centrebet has excellent overall player retention and profit from the majority of affiliates. However, because of the tight margins discussed (and considering the earlier example of paying for profits while absorbing 100% of losses), a few bad apples can significantly affect the overall profitability.

Dominque, I understand your concerns, but again, the quotas were never meant to be put into play all affiliates, and especially not for casino affiliates, because that area of the business does not suffer from these abuses, which are specific to Sportsbook. Allow me to explain more clearly the issue:

Affiliate with low traffic site refers 3 players in 1st month. In the following 11 months, they refer no players. Over those 11 months, half the time the players generate positive revenue, and half the time negative. When they generate positive revenue, CB pays commissions. When they generate negative, CB absorbs the loss. Thus over the year, the affiliate earns a healthy commission, while Centrebet takes a loss. In this situation, Centrebet needs to have a way to protect themselves from losing this money, or they will have less overall money with which to pay other affiliates that are continuing to drive traffic.

As mentioned before, we accept all your concerns as valid, and because of your feedback, we will be working with AGD to adjust the T&Cs to better address this issue while protecting affiliates who promote in good faith. Again, if anyone should want to speak about this in further detail, please don't hesitate to contact us personally to set up a time to chat.

 

[dominique]

the quotas were never meant to be put into play all affiliates, and especially not for casino affiliates, because that area of the business does not suffer from these abuses, which are specific to Sportsbook.

Then you need to specify this in your terms.

Also, you just can't do it retroactively, that's breach of contract. You can apply it going forward for new affiliates if you think you will fare better with it.

Just be explicit in the terms as to who and what they apply to. As is, you have a blanket term.

 

[Louis_IncomeAccess]

Agreed. It was a slash and burn maneuver. We accept the critique, and will be working to fix it.

 

[Adrian-LiveCasinoPartners]

For the last year I have been the affiliate director for LiveCasinoParnters. It's an entirely different story when looking from this side of the fence. The margins are much smaller than anticipated, and I think that affiliates would be surprised to learn how much they are making at our program. That being said, I am just beginning understand the dynamics the programs face in the online gaming environment.

Maybe you could help explain why the minimum player rule would help counteract fraud? I understood the scenario where an affiliate with only a few new players could possibly have fluctuations of revenue (can, but not all the time). These fluctuations combined with a no-negative carryover would certainly provide an overall positive revenue for the affiliate, and a net loss for the program. I get that. The same would be true no matter if there were new players or not. New players doesn't mean that they will lose money.

I think if you explained the reasoning more clearly you would find less resistance.

When we started LCP, we came across the decision to offer no-negative carry over or not. We decided to have a negative carry over program for the same reasons you mentioned in your thread. We are now implementing a "high roller" term to protect players from large winners. I think this hybrid model that protects affiliates and assures a stable business model is a good compromise. Out of that compromise we were able to pay affiliates more than 5% more revenue than if we had a no-negative carryover.

I hope that your program rebounds soon. I am sure it will. You guys are with Andy, and all will be sorted soon.

Finding a compromise between a stable program business model and affiliates is going to be a challenge if your program is expected to lose revenue. If you can avoid it, try not to take it away from the affiliates.

Best of luck.

 

[Vladi]

I get the feeling Louis is afraid of spelling out exactly what the "fraud" problem is. So its most probably affiliates that refer themselves or their friend but no-one else, then reclaim 30% (whatever) of any losses through affiliate payments, which is way more than the bookie's edge.

Oh no! oops! Gee I just gave everyone on the internet the idea to do that too! Come on Louis we're not all that stupid.

 

[Guard Dog]

We are working with Centrebet to determine a good path forward and they have shown a willingness to work with us to return their program to an affiliate-friendly set of terms and conditions.

We hope to have more information very soon.

 

[Louis_IncomeAccess]

Hi Vladi,

As I mentioned in my previous post, one of the major abuse issues that we've had to deal with in Sportsbook is this:

Affiliate with low traffic site refers 3 players in 1st month. In the following 11 months, they refer no players. Over those 11 months, half the time the players generate positive revenue, and half the time negative. When they generate positive revenue, CB pays commissions. When they generate negative, CB absorbs the loss. Thus over the year, the affiliate earns a healthy commission, while Centrebet takes a loss. In this situation, Centrebet needs to have a way to protect themselves from losing this money, or they will have less overall money with which to pay other affiliates that are continuing to drive traffic.

As Adrian mentioned (great post by the way Adrian!), this is a major issue when affiliates really just referred themselves or a friend, and are using the affiliate revenue to wipe out the bookie's edge. Since in reality, these type of sites have little to no traffic, Centrebet is paying a substantial amount for a placement that does not have substantial value.

Again, we've been in dialogue with AGD this week and hope to have an affiliate friendly resolution very soon.

 

[Louis_IncomeAccess]

Ooops, sorry Vladi I realized I attributed the line about the bookies edge to Adrian but it was actually yours. Sorry about that!

 

[dominique]

Don't you have a clause that prohibits affiliates from signing up as players?

Anyway, it looks like the intent of the clause in dispute is much different from the actual effect. That should of course be fixable.

 

[Louis_IncomeAccess]

We do have that clause, under rake back schemes. However, it can be difficult to prove that a particular player is linked via family or friend relationship, since many fraudsters are pretty crafty about creating multiple seemingly unlinked identities. The way we usually discover them is due to betting patterns and affiliate player traffic patterns (particularly betting patterns).