Predatory/Rogue Programs - Make your opinion known!!!

[Guard Dog]

This is a post that was made on Facebook... sorry, the linking to it was a hassle - so the next thread will show all the comments. I would LOVE to get everyone's opinion on this topic.

that includes:

• Affiliates
• Affiliate Managers
• Company Owners

We all need to show how we feel about this VERY important topic.

 

[Guard Dog]

Hope this is not becoming the industry standard,4 out of 5 new affiliate programs terms we have read since LAC are considered predatory by the AGD team. I urge new programs to stop adding min player/min activity terms!

Sure seems to be the trend.

Sadly that term actually makes sense for programs with a sports betting background

If they're in there from the very start, then surely it's not predatory? I agree that changing terms to include minimum levels of activity are, but if someone signs up and the minimums are there, then they should have read the Ts & Cs

It is predatory. It is ROGUE if they breach the contract and add it after.

To be fair, it is AGD's opinion. A minimum number of players (total, not monthly) makes commercial sense for an operator primarily as it reduces the significant amount of affiliate fraud (players using affiliate accounts to hedge against). This is something that sportsbooks are eternally facing. The minimum activity is, I will agree, a different issue

Response to this quote:

The big issue with min # of players or min activity clauses is it handcuffs affiliates to a brand. For small affiliates starting out, these terms hurt them from growing and faced with negative SEO they could not just lose their traffic but commissions as a result. Some quotas from bookmakers make zero sense for the monthly min activity/quota where sports is seasonal. It also forces affiliates to promote a brand just for the sake of saving their commissions rather than promoting or recommending a brand that might be better for players.

As for affiliate fraud, the quotas don't make sense as a means to block it. Maybe it stops the one affiliate from referring their single friend and abusing the system, but why not make it more fun and get multiple accounts to make even more money. Now these affiliates would make more money and probably go undetected. If a program can't keep up with fraud and just close ban accounts there is no problem and they don't need the quotas as a means of catching it, the quotas are more threatening to legit affiliates of cutting off their commission.

Look at what happened with casinomeister not long ago. They wouldn't handle complaints so they don't get promoted or recommended but they did refer players and they had their account closed. I think this was eventually solved but look at what they would want to do.

Applying BetVictor's clause on sports is a bad one. How many sports do you know are live every month of the year? Tennis ok, football, north American sports and really most sports are seasonal.

No Andy B they are predatory from the get go and that is why the team at AGD certify affiliate programs smile emoticon AGD will notify affiliates if these terms are predatory so they DO NOT register to market those brands.. We also work hard and encourage programs to make changes to become friendly, several have already entered into talks with us to make changes, that is encouraging..

I think maybe the term "predatory" sounds a bit aggressive. I personally will not work with programs that use quotas with one exception: when it's a threshold. IE: Bet365 insist on 5 players before being paid - but it's a one-off which I think in light of Tom's argument is a fair balance.

And this is why AGD is so important.

Here is the deal... If a casino cannot convert the traffic, don't stay in business. But if they DO convert traffic, an affiliate will continue to send traffic. Affiliates spend a lot of money creating content, hosting sites, and generally marketing for FREE. It costs money to do that. Affiliates recoup this money over the long term with players and residual income. But if the almighty Google comes in and smacks down their site... or if they get sick for a bit and can't promote... OR (and this is the most common) if a casino's conversion goes down the drain - they shouldn't have their players stolen or their revshare reduced to a paltry amount. Again - if a casino can convert and retain - affiliates will continue to promote.... hence the clause is not necessary. Easy math.

I think this is the picture we will see in future. Including everyone switching to negative carryover and I am quite sure we will see more and more "paying for two years".

As an affiliate I would never promote a program with min player requirements.

http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://thepogg.com/why-minimum-activity-quotas-are-bad-for-players-affiliates-and-the-industry/&h=iAQG-NMCd

Not judging guys, simply predicting

This is the reason we only work with a small selected amount of programs. And unfortunately our choices are becoming narrower as this industry matures

Completely forgot I wrote this years ago: http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://gaffg.com/blog/why-quotas-minimum-player-terms-are-bad-for-affiliates/&h=dAQH82zcj

I would argue for a minimum player quota that a program has the right not to enforce (ie an affiliate really is trying their level best to drive genuine traffic) is a safe way to go. Sports books really do get hammered by "affiliates" month on month hedging. The reality ought to be the money programs save goes towards positive action with hard working affiliates

I think you really do have to separate Sports and all other products here. Sports affiliates are as Tom says, very dangerous to even successful programs who are very large firms, they can (and have) destroyed smaller companies.

There is also a difference in a min quota to terminate, and a min quote to effect the commission %. Also if it is automatically applied, or if the operator has the right to apply it if it choses.

But a min quota or termination clause, to a Casino affiliate, isn't acceptable.

Currently I only offer Casino in my current role, but at one of the largest UK sports companies who's affiliate program I used to head up, this was a real killer even there. It is every bit as unethical as any rouge actions operators do.

There has to be some balance here and fairness on both sides, along with a realisation why this exists. Yes, some operators have jumped on the bandwagon applying it to Sports etc, but this term was created after affiliate abuse. There are bad eggs on both sides of the field, as always.

 

[Engineer]

I agree with most of the comments. Affiliates would be wise to avoid programs with quotas.

If an operator truly wants to protect themselves against fraud, they will write and enforce an anti-fraud clause -- not a quota.

 

[bonustreak]

Anti Fraud Clause sounds pretty acceptable..

 

[AussieDave]

I recall years ago an uproar over at the GPWA where, from memory, it was FA who were trying to hand-cuff affiliates. Again, as far as I can recall, it all came down to affiliates who had, lets say lucractive accounts & were earning each month, but had stopped promoting FL casinos (for whatever reason). It got so venomous that BigBCasinos (Brian D - the GPWA manager) had a face-2-face meeting with the powers that be at FA and a resolution was found.

Granted many moons ago but player qouta's and retroactively changed T&C's are becoming more of the norm these days.

It's always been my firm belief, any affiliate who signed up to a program before they had quota's etc, whatever the T&C's were then, should NOT be overrridden (errr retoactively) changed by "new terms". However there's more than one way to skin a cat. And, this industry are experts in finding ways to circumnavigate (renege) past agreements and promises and make it all sound legally legit.

How many programs have now changed their names or consolidated...

Owership hasn't changed, neither has the true management either, yet every single time this has happened, I've had to agree to new T&C's or forfeit my current players and income - essentially bent over a barrel with my pants down.

A long time ago, we as affiliates (Big or small), had a combined power, we flexed and smart programs listened because they knew the consequences if they didn't. We can ALL pat each other the back and say we're still doing a great job. But truth is, if we still had the influence we once had, these quotas, retrocative changes etc., etc., wouldn't see the light of day. Programs would know, if they tried any of this funny business, we'd act en masse to protect our futures and past agreements.

Sadly that power & control over our agreements which affect out livilihoods, has slowly been eroded and we're now at the mercy of aff programs.

I'm no better than anyone else, I'm faced with the same Bullsh#t every day.

My ethical compass tells me to drop Program-A like a hot cake but the bottom line means I'm kissing goodbye my rightful income if I do. I hate living like a slave BUT that's basically how it is these days as an affiliate in the gaming industry.

Things need to change soon, we need to somehow clawback some power, to even the scales, or pretty soon we'll have nothing left to fight for!

 

[RyanWeb]

Agreed.. I only work with one program that currently has a quota and thats because I started with them years and years ago.. Other then that, I refuse to sign up with any new program that has them.. I have recently went from the US market to a broader (world-wide) market and that has been the deciding factor when choosing not to promote a program several times.

Quotas force affiliates to put to many eggs in one basket, and with as many changes that have been going on in recent years (programs closing, terms changing, going rouge), everyone should agree that is a bad business model here.

 

[gamingaffiliatesguide]

When it comes to helping new affiliates get into the business, they really should stay away from programs that have predatory terms and conditions and/or ones with min player quotas. The main sticking points

- sports affiliates income and players are usually seasonal
- new affiliates are more susceptible to negative SEO attacks
- new affiliates might not be able to maintain certain levels of referred players

Add all of these up and it's the new affiliates that are getting punished for these terms which operators claim are in place more for fraud. There are more than enough cases of programs enforcing these min quotas and closing accounts of existing affiliates.

There will always be new affiliates coming into the business and there are many programs that don't have these terms and conditions in place so we advise them to either avoid programs with predatory terms of min quotas OR to operate on a CPA basis only where they get paid for every player referred and don't have to deal with consequences of terms and conditions.

 

[AussieDave]

There will always be new affiliates coming into the business

I'll agree on that, least until it gets to the point where it's not worth the effort.

there are many programs that don't have these terms and conditions in place

And there are lots of program who now do have these nasty T&C's, who once didn't. And the programs who don't, well give them time. And then what? They retroactively change T&C's, so any past agreements are null and void - because if you don't agree to the new T&C's, your not paid or worse they terminate the partnership.

That window your presenting is growing smaller, soon it will be the size of a pin head.

 

[gamingaffiliatesguide]

It will soon be the size of a pinhead if affiliates allow it to happen and don't voice their concerns. Some programs are going to do what they want regardless but there will always be choice in choosing programs that don't have these terms or just sticking with CPA

 

[AussieDave]

If an operator truly wants to protect themselves against fraud, they will write and enforce an anti-fraud clause -- not a quota.

Anti fraud clauses would be the appropriate stance to take. However, I think for most programs who have enacted these quota's, it's just a convinient excuse to hand-cuff affiliates into promoting their gaming properties, even if and when these casinos, sportsbooks et al stop converting for an affiliate.

Granted other factors can influence one's judgement on who to promote and who to drop; not paying players or shaving stats for example. However without complicating things, let face it, who drops a program if they're converting... Affiliates drop programs because they are not converting... SO why should any affiliate be forced to continue to promote (give free branding) to a program who is not honouring their part of the agreement... Simple answer, no one should!

 

[AussieDave]

there will always be choice in choosing programs that don't have these terms

Your missing my point...

Irraspective if a program doesn't have these preditory T&C's now... When the day comes that they do (and many more will follow this path), what then?

To date they ALL retroactively change (renege) past T&C agreements. And if you don't agree to the new T&C changes, there goes all your hard work and future income down the drain. So your forced to accept the "new" terms. Worse you have to keep promoting a brand who has essentially shafted you and is robbing you too; unless you can maintain their min quota's & or maintain the evuaviliant level of players to the commission you were on pre the T&C changes.


Now the quota's are now tied to the commission % with NDP numbers. Not the NGR of your past agreement, which should still be active and current.

So the affiliate who has been forced to agree to the "new" T&C's, may only bring in 5 NDP per month, yet the NGR is high due to him/her signing up mid to high rollers, this affiliate is now on a base (25%) commission. Rough calculation, 10% deducted from $50K NGR = $5K your being shafted for each month, on the excuse, these quota's are to prevent affiliate fraud... Yeah Right!

I think we agree that these quota's are evil. My point is unless we start making waves about those who have chosen to take this path, others will soon shift course and plot that path in their programs too. When that happens everything else is a moot point.

 

[KasinoKing]

Totally agree with pretty much everything posted above, especially the comments from AffiliateManager-KH & Bet4You.

Things have changed a LOT since I started out 10 years ago - and the biggest "rogues" have definitely been the Sports-Book related operators.
I've lost count of how many of them have imposed retroactive terms on me - and I have now dumped the vast majority of them.
Casino (only) operators are MUCH better and fairer - especially for the smaller affs like me.

To date they ALL retroactively change (renege) past T&C agreements. And if you don't agree to the new T&C changes, there goes all your hard work and future income down the drain. So your forced to accept the "new" terms. Worse you have to keep promoting a brand who has essentially shafted you and is robbing you too; unless you can maintain their min quota's & or maintain the equivalent level of players to the commission you were on pre the T&C changes.

This sentence made me think of Sky Vegas (Affiliate Hub), who were definitely my worst EVER experience of being shafted, mugged, beaten up and stabbed in the back
I put a VAST amount of effort into promoting their brand for 7 years, and just when I was starting to see consistent decent returns from 10-15 active players every month, they pulled their "5% stunt".
There was absolutely NO WAY I could ever send 5 new depositors per month (my average was less than 1 per month), so I had no choice but to dramatically reduce my promotion of them. Just writing about it make me feel sick.

Dumping programs is never an easy thing to do, especially if you have some active players, but it just has to be done.
NCO is pure evil. I have been heavily promoting bands while being in the red for 18+ months far too many times (Bet365, iNetBet, Club World, Ladbrokes). Sending brand new players to a casino when you know you wont earn anything even if they lose is not a nice feeling.

KK

 

[Guard Dog]

Granted other factors can influence one's judgement on who to promote and who to drop; not paying players or shaving stats for example. However without complicating things, let face it, who drops a program if they're converting... Affiliates drop programs because they are not converting... SO why should any affiliate be forced to continue to promote (give free branding) to a program who is not honouring their part of the agreement... Simple answer, no one should!

This is the EXACT point I was making. And, let me tell you... when I get these terms changed... in nearly every case - they don't mention fraud. They say - why should we pay an affiliate who isn't actively promoting our brands? My response is always - why should an affiliate actively promote when you refuse to convert their traffic? It goes 2 ways, but programs want the onus to be on us. The ones who mention fraud - I take a look at their fraud clauses and point out where they are missing effective fraud-prevention clauses against collusion, specifically, which is the biggest affiliate fraud.


Good comments by everyone!

 

[Islandmaan]

Our strength as a group can only be shown by our reactions to these predatory terms. If we reward programs with good terms we are enabling the industry to provide us with acceptable conditions, we have proven over the years to overcome adversity such as this. The way to do it is to vote with your traffic and push your traffic only to affiliate programs with good terms.

 

[falseadoom]

Another issue with min player activity is non working links. This has happened a lot lately.


1. They update and remove a promotional link which now points to a 404 error page (gamblingwages is good for this one)
2. Links for some reason are not tracking even if you see traffic going to them in your own web logs (have one of those right now been trying to get them to fix issue for over 2 months)

So not all of it is affiliate not actively promoting but on their end with links not working proper. Then all the other things you mentioned doesn't help.

 

[slotplayer]

I suppose if you plan on dumping a program because you're at 5% of net, maybe consider selling those players to a larger affiliate that does not need to worry about meeting quota for a certain $$ amount, now the program is paying full % on those players. Kinda, beat them at their own game .

 

[Kadabra]

I agree with pretty much everything written, but I would say there is huge difference between a program that has it from the start and the one that makes those retroactive changes. First one is just a program i won't work with, the second is predatory. Same with NCO.

The problem is that many owners are temped to add this terms after getting plenty affiliates to commit to them. The second problem - it that they know that it won't hurt them much - eventually 80% of the traffic coming from 20% of affiliates, and those 20% are less influenced by this term.

 

[bonustreak]

If we reward programs with good terms we are enabling the industry to provide us with acceptable conditions, we have proven over the years to overcome adversity such as this. The way to do it is to vote with your traffic and push your traffic only to affiliate programs with good terms.

Exactly!! There are many programs that have been around for years and they seem to being doing quite well with friendly terms.
Several have made it through some pretty tough times but still managed to never change terms on us affiliates.

I think we need to address the retro active changes as well as the trend of charging affiliates outrageous admin fees, often times once they take those funds from us we are left actually only earning 5%-10% NOT the advertised 25%- 35% !

 

[AussieDave]

Sending brand new players to a casino when you know you wont earn anything even if they lose is not a nice feeling.

In my book, that scenario, is a total ripoff and anyone experiencing that has every right to feel shafted. We don't like HR policies but least they only corral the the player who won. What's wrong with NCO being treated in the same manner. Least it gives affiliates a fighting chance to earn against players who have lost.

the trend of charging affiliates outrageous admin fees, often times once they take those funds from us we are left actually only earning 5%-10% NOT the advertised 25%- 35% !

I strongly second!
Can only use Affiliate Republik as an example... Snagged a player and by the time my commission was extracted, I could barely buy a cuppa coffee (7 Euro). From memory it was either 59 or 79 Euro which had been deducted. If the same player had joined one of my MGS casinos, I'd have received $50.

Thankfully it was only one player I learned that lesson on... I'd be none too pleased if these shenanigans were applied to multiple NDP or existing players.

And it's also these falsely "advertised" commissions, which really urk me too.

There's a huge different between 25 - 35%, when in reality, your truly only being paid 5 - 10%.