Question for the guard dog

[fruitmachineguy]

Everybody knows that affiliate programs convert players from casino A in their portfolio to casino B. But, not every affiliate program will pay out earnings to the affiliate if that player was brought in by the affiliate initially (stealing a player).

Does Affiliate Guard Dog, during the review process of an affliate program, take that in consideration?

If so, is this considered "predatory" on a principle basis or does it get judged in another way?

Thanks!

 

[Guard Dog]

Everybody knows that affiliate programs convert players from casino A in their portfolio to casino B. But, not every affiliate program will pay out earnings to the affiliate if that player was brought in by the affiliate initially (stealing a player).

Does Affiliate Guard Dog, during the review process of an affliate program, take that in consideration?

If so, is this considered "predatory" on a principle basis or does it get judged in another way?

Thanks!

We do not take that into consideration at this point. We would have to work with an independent auditor for that type of information to be valid within our current certification framework.

Unfortunately there is nobody out there doing proper audits (at this point), so we have no certified data to work with

 

[WCD Admin]

The best thing we can do about that type of behavior is come in here and post if it's happening. Usually if it is going on and someone says something in a public forum most casinos will fix the problem.

 

[fruitmachineguy]

Thanks for the replies first of all!

I know affiliate programs aren't audited in general (ECOGRA only reviewed 2 programs yet) , but do affiliate programs mention their point of view on this kind of marketing in their terms and conditions?

If it's not mentioned explicitly in their terms and conditions, affiliates by signing up basicly say it's ok that affiliate programs steal their players. I know there's no absolute certainty about tracking of players in general, but there are trustworthy programs who will do what's agreed upon. If programs like this give their point of view in their terms and conditions then i would give it some trust.

1. So, is the marketing technique of converting a player from casino A to casino B, owned by the same company, even mentioned in the terms and conditions of affiliate programs?

2. What should this kind of marketing mean for the certification framework of affiliateguarddog.com?

 

[Guard Dog]

1. So, is the marketing technique of converting a player from casino A to casino B, owned by the same company, even mentioned in the terms and conditions of affiliate programs?

Sometimes it is mentioned in the T&C's. We recently asked a program to clarify one of these statements to ensure that affiliates were 'covered'. When the clause is in the contract we do take a good look at it to ensure it does not enable cross-promotion without affiliate tags.

2. What should this kind of marketing mean for the certification framework of affiliateguarddog.com?

That is an interesting question. If there is a clause which allows a program to cross promote without tags, then that program would not be certified. That is a predatory action.

 

[WCD Admin]

It almost seems like the T&Cs are the basics which AGD has covered. But a program, by leaving terms out completely can avoid detection

Maybe we should have a few other terms which are sought out each time a program signs up.

(1) tracking and cross promotion
(2) bundling groups of casinos
(3) when the casino doesn't pay affiliates (RHR)
(4) when the casino has major record of non-pay players
(5) non-existent T&Cs

Which are obvious things, but not necessarily going to be addressed in T&Cs.

To me it seems like a lot of programs are getting the benefit of AGD but aren't necessarily "green-light" programs. We need a way to separate the truly exceptional affiliate programs from the "so-so"

 

[fruitmachineguy]

It almost seems like the T&Cs are the basics which AGD has covered. But a program, by leaving terms out completely can avoid detection

Maybe we should have a few other terms which are sought out each time a program signs up.

(1) tracking and cross promotion
(2) bundling groups of casinos
(3) when the casino doesn't pay affiliates (RHR)
(4) when the casino has major record of non-pay players
(5) non-existent T&Cs

Which are obvious things, but not necessarily going to be addressed in T&Cs.

To me it seems like a lot of programs are getting the benefit of AGD but aren't necessarily "green-light" programs. We need a way to separate the truly exceptional affiliate programs from the "so-so"

Thanks for the useful replies, WCD and guard dog.

The general point which WCD made is clear. What affiliate programs say and what they do can be 2 different things. But that doesn't mean that explicity on crucial T en C's isn't needed. If you have explicity then you can always show the responsibilities of the affiliateprogram towards you.

So if something crucial isn't stated explicitly in the T and C's, then they shouldn't be certified. They should create an extra paragraph in the T and C's before they can be judged in total. Explicity on cross marketing for instance is something crucial I think. But in the points of WCD there are also other points worth to be made explicit before they can be judged.

Another question is: How is it possible to seperate the great from the "so-so programs". That's a hard one and can only be tested by testing a large amount of traffic (i.e. large amount of webmasters). Maybe it's a good idea to create some kind of a test panel of some reputable members of this forum to review the conversion of different affiliate programs next to the regular certification process of guard dog...

 

[Guard Dog]

So if something crucial isn't stated explicitly in the T and C's, then they shouldn't be certified. They should create an extra paragraph in the T and C's before they can be judged in total. Explicity on cross marketing for instance is something crucial I think. But in the points of WCD there are also other points worth to be made explicit before they can be judged.

We already have a list of items that MUST be explicitly stated within the T&C's. We are certainly open to adding more, though. I will open a dialog with the certification team about the items mentioned above.

Another question is: How is it possible to seperate the great from the "so-so programs". That's a hard one and can only be tested by testing a large amount of traffic (i.e. large amount of webmasters). Maybe it's a good idea to create some kind of a test panel of some reputable members of this forum to review the conversion of different affiliate programs next to the regular certification process of guard dog...

It is possible. This is where we would need to be VERY thorough. It is extremely tough to make that distinction when some affiliates can do quite well while others struggle (with any program). For example - Many do very well with Rewards Affiliates (awesome program and affiliate manager), while others cannot convert them at all. Same with another well known program [32Red].

Making subjective decisions based upon conversion factors is extremely tricky and not something we would like to 'take on'.

I agree that another 'level of certification' would be nice. At this point I have a difficult time finding a true answer to that, though. This is why we elected to create the icon legend in lieu of a new certification.