Oppressing affiliates w Betting and Gaming Council's new IGRG guidance

Discussion in 'Anything Goes' started by Joonas, Oct 16, 2020.


    Joonas Certification Member Staff Member

    Likes Received:
    Nov 28, 2017
    You can see The Betting and Gaming Council is made up of operators with views in favour of operators. From their latest (IGRG) guidance (read: guidance, not regulation):

    "A requirement for relevant affiliates to share safer gambling related content on a regular basis, with frequency to be pre-determined with each individual operator with whom that affiliate has an agreement."

    "determined with each individual operator". Are you kidding me? Setting aside how one-sided this is, how viable is non-standard when we work with around 300 operators?

    "Operators are expected to terminate relationships with affiliates who cannot/do not comply, preferably on a one strike and you're out rule."

    For as long as affiliates have been helping operators by providing them traffic, affiliates have been submitting to one-sided and often predatory rules of operators.

    I think it's time to recognise affiliates value as crucial partners and not treat them as second-class citizens and as one-man-band(it) operation from a dusty garage.

    As in any industry, signed contracts between partners, in our case affiliates and operators, that are mutually beneficial will become a norm.

    How about consulting affiliates and making guidance that would be beneficial for the industry?

    I'd like you to please share my post about this to get this message across people in the industry:

    Lucy CBC, preditor, Biti and 2 others like this.

    AussieDave 20 years & still going!

    Likes Received:
    Nov 28, 2013
    @Joonas - if I had a buck for every time I've told the following story, I'd be lounging on a beach. Aside from stirring up a bit of dust, affiliates generally just roll-over and cop it sweet. However, it wasn't always like that.

    When Cindy and the founding members commenced the GPWA 2001, it had balls. The association embraced fairness for all. And, if a program didn't want to play ethically, then it was blacklisted. Subsequently, most members wouldn't touch a program who'd be blacklisted. Hence, operators soon realised not to screw with the GPWA affiliates.

    A few years later, well... it seems someone, or a group of someones, didn't much like the influence held by Cindy and Co.

    Circa 2004, a slur campaigned was mounted against her. It took things to a personal level. By the time the dust settled, the job had been done. Founding members were having internal squabbles, and Cindy, she was on verge of a breakdown.

    GPWA members around back then, may still remember who went after Cindy and Co.

    When the Grand Prive` scam unfolded, microgaming conveniently forget, they gave GP two-databases for their aff program (2 databases meant they could de-tag players etc). While eCOGRA finally stepped in, it was more lip service than anything else.

    Besides, eCOGRA wasn't going to bite the hand that feeds it, was it... FYI start up funds for eCOGRA came from Microgaming, and the CEO of MGS, sat on the board as a non executive director.

    Back when the Grand Prive` ruse was going down, I said... If affiliate don't start banding together, eventually we will all be screwed. Fast track to now, and programs have been rorting little affiliates for years. When the blood from those stones dried up, they moved onto larger affiliates. Pretty soon those rocks will also dry up. Next will be the Super Affiliates.

    TBH, I don't even know if our affiliate industry is even savable anymore.

    Too many programs with way too much power. They do what they like, even if it means committing fraud, to stealing rightful affiliate commissions, and or tagged players. Seems nothing is out-of-bounds or untouchable.

    Food for thought... The latest GPWA Platinum Sponsor is: Jim Partners.

    Info posted on the Jim intro thread, the GPWA lists the program affiliate highlights. Included in these are earnings:
    • Program Admin Fee: 40%
    • Effective Revenue Share: 24 - 30%
    Revenue Share:
    • 1st month = 50% RS
    • 2nd month and forever = 40% RS deal
    So I'm guessing:
    • If you on 50% RS - You actually only get paid 30%.
    • If your on 40% RS - You actually only get paid 24%.
    Maybe my ethics and integrity are alien to some, but if I was approached by a program wanting to sponsor my affiliate organisation, the first (1'st) thing I do is, veto their affiliate program with a fine-tooth-comb. And, in the case of the above absurd fees, the program would received a thanks, but no thanks reply.

    As the line goes... The only people who care about those of welfare, are those receiving said welfare.

    Therefore it should stand to reason, the only people to get a fair deal for affiliates, are said affiliates.

    Unless one enjoys surviving on one's knees like a beggar, then continue with the current status quo.

    However, if your like me and others, who, have been loyal, and worked damn hard for these affiliate programs, and have past agreements, which now have been retroactively changed, and or your sick of being shafted, then it's time to ditch all of our differences and instead... unite as one.


    They did it, we can too!
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2020
    preditor and bettingappguide like this.

    Joonas Certification Member Staff Member

    Likes Received:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Thanks for the brief history, was an interesting read. With fewer affiliates, it was most likely easier to unite.

    As affiliates consolidate, there will be more opportunities to leverage into mutually beneficial, proper B2B contracts. Some bigger affiliate groups, publicly listed and so, already have these in place. I'm waiting for Bojoko to grow a bit more so that we could look into this as well, and at that point, I will invite all affiliates to join into the collaboration. I have already prepared a proper affiliate-operator contract with a law firm.

Share This Page