Discussion in 'iGame Affiliates' started by PaaskeUK, Jul 18, 2014.
Exactly my point and why this is entire campaign is, imho, ethically disjointed.
Ethically disjointed - are you serious!!!
If this was ethically disjointed the refer a friend links would override a btag and no affiliate would ever benefit from this.
Before taking umbrage over my comments, I shall reiterate Vladi's quote once again, with what I believe, hits the nail on the head here!
That's enough... Everyone can have an opinion, but calling them unethical isn't right (In my opinion). I, in all honesty, have no problem with refer a friend. I get what you are saying.... if the player was never sent, they would have no access to the friends.
But, that is what it is. You have players referring their friends ALL THE TIME. And guess what... you don't even know it OR get any credit for it. Why? Because they point them directly to the casino via their MOUTH and WORDS So... here we are at least getting *some* credit. Maybe not as much as you would like, but let's not go overboard and call it unethical - it isn't.
But... with all MY opinions being put out there.... Let's try to keep the conversation a bit more confrontational and a lot more conversational.
That maybe so BUT this is completely different.
It's a dedicated campaign designed to gain players, without giving credit to the referring affiliate, for these referred "friends", of the orginally referred player. If loss of commission, is not grounds for questioning motives, I don't know what is...
So what you are basically saying is that the referring affiliates should be credited for all player if they send the original player?
If this is the case then you are then wanting us to be unethical and rogue, to do this i would need to shave tags of players and i find that unacceptable.
Let me also give you an example or two:
We do a fixed media buy from a large news site this is a non affiliate deal, one of the players that comes from this fixed media buy then sends a refer a friend email to 10 of his friends and they open accounts and three of them have your btags, should i remove those btags to ensure the source gets credited?
You send me a player he has your btag he then refers 5 friends 2 of those friends are tagged to another affiliate, are you saying i should remove those btags and replace them with yours because you sent me the referring player?
I thinking removing tags is by far the most rogue thing an operator can do and i personally would never work for a company that feels that this practice is acceptable.
These are my thoughts would love to hear yours.
I sent you a PM hours ago... Because frankly it was the right thing to do. Yet no response... Maybe you missed it!
Now your playing semantics and trying to twist my words.
Please show me, in this thread, where I have specifically stated, in black and white, that your program should untag players? Simple, I haven't.
I have however said... If a player is referred by an affiliate to your casino and this player goes on to "refer a friend", then the friend should be tagged to the referring affiliates also.
Albeit, common sense prevails with the caveat... If this "referred friend" is already a player at the casino or already tagged to another affiliate, then nothing changes.
Though,. I find the basis of your untagging argumment, bizarre, to say the least!
A "friend" as apposed to an aquantance, is someone who you hold a specific bond with. A mate; buddy; chum; cobber; companion.. Someone you'd share a beer, go watch a soccer match with etc etc. A person you'd invite into you home to share a family dinner with, for example. As a "friend" you'd share things you enjoy and both know what the other likes.
I find it truly odd, that if someone was to "refer a friend", it's on the cards, they already know whether this friend plays at your casino or not. If that's the case of your argument here, then why did this person, find your casino via an affiliate? Wouldn't his friend have told him about this site!
According the GD that's what happens ALL the time:
This need not be turned into a 3 ring circus. When, it's clearly a simple process of tracking.
Affiliate A refers Player-Z to iGame and is thus cookied;
Player-Z doesn't join casino but spots the "refer a friend" offer;
Player-Z fills out the form (or whatever it is) and lists 2 "friends".
At this point, going on what you've (Shaun) explained, by submitting the "refer a friend" form, Player-Z is now tagged to Affiliate A. Unless Player-Z is already tagged to another affiliate. In this case, Player-Z remains tagged to which ever affiliate that is.
The two (2) "refer a friend" players suggested by Player-Z visits the casino, sign up and make their €25 minimum deposit.
At which case Player-Z received 2 x €50 comps. But only if the referred "friends" each make a €25 min deposit. If they don't, Player-Z get nothing! (keep this fact in mind).
At this point, Affiliate A referred Player-Z to the casino. IF Player-Z is non tagged player (a free agent), he will be tagged to Affiliate A when he submits the "refer a friend" form.
IF none of the friends, refered to casino by Player-Z (who is now tagged to Affiliate A) are not tagged to any other affiliate (or iGame) then these "refer a friend" players, should be tagged to Affiliate A.
Keeping in mind the casino, would have neither Player-Z or the "refer a friend" x2 player accounts, if Affiliate A did not refer Player-Z, in the first place.
The following examples explains why this "refer a friend" marketing campaign is not fair to Affiliate A or for that matter, Player-Z.
Hypothetically, for the period of the "refer a friend" promotion, Affiliate A sends 5 (not tagged to any other affiliate) new players to the casino.
All 5 players do not sign up BUT are influenced by the "refer a friend" promotion.
They all recommend two (2) friends each. At which point all five (5) players are automatically tagged to Affiliate A.
Every "refer a friend", that's 10 players all signup at the casino and make a €25 min deposit.
Player-Z receives €250 bonus.
iGame now has 15 players signed up - 5 tagged to Affiliate A BUT an additional ten (10) players, who are tagged to the iGame.
IF Affiliate A didn't referred these five (5) untagged players in the first place, iGame would not have these 5 players or the ten (10) additional accounts now tagged to iGame.
Where this becomes unfair to Player-Z or any player using the "refer a friend" promotion, is IF their friends don't make a minimum deposit of €25. If they make anything less, the friend who referred them gets nothing. A big fat $0.
In this scenario, iGame prospers because regardless if they don't deposit or don't make a min deposit, iGame ends up with ten (10) players account, tagged to the casino. In this case, for free!
What should ethically happen is this:
IF the player(s) referred to iGame by Affiliate A (are not already tagged to another affiliate), they are tagged to Affiliate A when/if these players use the "refer a friend" form.
Players obtained by the iGame "refer a friend" promotion, who are not tagged to any affiliate (or a player of iGame) are tagged to Affiliate A with a 2'nd tier commission structure. (10% say).
Anything other than this is not fair and imho it abuses affiliates, who, if it weren't for them, iGame Casino would have neither refered player(s) or the referred friend(s)!
Lol, this is not new and has been going on for over a decade. I used to do it as a player.
I totally agree. A refer-a-friend promotion would be in the best interest of the casino. I don't have a problem with the casino offering it to it's own players, but as an affiliate, I'd rather refer as many players to the casino via my rev share link. So if I was at a social event/gathering, I wouldn't turn around to my friend and say, "Hey, if you join the casino through my link, and refer your buddies, you will get $ per referral". I would be more likely to say to everyone there, if anyone is interested in playing at a great online casino, check out the reviews on my website, etc etc. That would be in the best interest of the affiliate.
Im not going to quote anyone here but the first set of comments make complete sense to me.
But here is where i think people are getting it wrong.
These promos have always existed.
Yes it would be cool to get these players tagged to us, but do you moan because they pay for ads, keywords or run Facebook campaigns? we are part of their campaign!!
Im all for affiliates (obviously), and getting a heads up on such a promo is great albeit not great news, but you know in advance and not after you just finished a big campaign or put hours of work in promo. (maybe im wrong)
Unibet dropped their tier for bonuses a while back and if im not mistaken refer a friend seems to have took its place!! (correct me if im wrong) they literally do zero bonuses and are asking members what they can do to improve. They had a great system.
This thread has got way blown out of proportion.
Just my 2 cents. (ignore me im just going to watch from here on out)
This is a fairly disingenuous post. The simple answer to the whole thing is to do whatever every program that offers a sub-affiliate commission does. As I have established in my earlier post that no-one has rebutted, it is the same thing after all.
Off the top of my head I honestly could not tell you what programs that offer a sub-affiliate commission do in those situations, but I would prefer the later referrer overwriting the earlier tags and getting the credit, if it is a choice between two affiliates (not a media buy). If you don't credit the last referring affiliate you encourage cookie stuffing and other dodgy practices.
To give you a taste of your own medicine (I think its fair game given the way you posted):
So what you are saying is that your program sets non-overwritable cookies for the first referring affiliate and allows dodgy affiliates to use cookie stuffing to lock in sales at the expense of other affiliates?
Now I know you didn't say that but neither did Bet4You say any of that stuff you just posted either.
The lesson is this: you are entitled to run your refer-a-friend program if you like, but it isn't very smart to expect affiliates to promote it for you.
A reminder is sent to all affiliate managers.
We at not time ever asked any affiliate to promote it, i sent a newsletter informing affiliates in the same way i would for any promotion or major change that we have.
I will backup Shaun on this. Shaun already made this clear in his first post. So I do not find it fair to blame iGame for asking us to promote this. It clearly shows from email as well that it is just a heads up / information!
I started this thread and changed my mood after some thinking I am not that keen on casinos or affiliate programs who make a massive promotion like this for players "only" but okay I guess it is up to them if they want to pay their players to refer new players instead of doing Prize promotions for their affiliates instead to increase traffic.
But you did take the opportunity in this thread, to plant the seed:
You failed to mention, a referred player using the refer-a-friend promo, all these friends are tagged to iGame.
If you had included the fact all refer-a-friend players are tagged to iGame, I'm sure CaseyM and others, would see this as a negative and not a plus!
I really only mentioned RAF as last resort, when I was having trouble coming up with some better selling points but I think I'll make a conscience effort going forward to stop mentioning it in any reviews and put on the 'to do list' to go back and replace any mention of it with something else.
The lesson is this: you are entitled to run your refer-a-friend program if you like, but it isn't very smart to expect affiliates to promote it for you."
it is in my face when I visit 24hcasino, this is a highly player incentive driven on site (email) campaign which only helps Igame not the affiliate.
they have no clue we do not like this at all.
do not ask us to promote you then if you yourself offer CPA traffic deals to players with this incentive.
I agree that I would not promote a casino with this promo popped up in front of the player like that. Makes no sense as an affiliate to promote it (IMO).
Separate names with a comma.