Rivalwide Progressive Issue - Rogue Poll.

[Guard Dog]

High-Level Summary: It has been noted that 400 affiliates are now charging affiliates for progressive play. This means that if your player wagers on a progressive jackpot, it will be deducted from your affiliate earnings. This is a retroactive change to the commissions calculation that affects all webmasters. Please read the full thread here for more information:

POLL: Would you want 400 affiliates rogued IF they allowed this commissions calculation change to become permanent?

This is a poll, but PLEASE read through this complete thread before making your decision. The mathematics are involved and it is imperative that you understand the calculations prior to making a decision.


RE: 400 Affiliates Earnings Calculations Change
Summary: This change was not sent out as notification to their affiliate partners and appears to be done in a very 'odd' manner (i.e., at the end of the month).

400 Affiliates are the ONLY program to do this (Rival program) and they implemented this without regards to their partners (consultation or otherwise)


Example of how this affects YOU

Assumption: 35% Revenue Sharing

[warnnote]
Player 1: Deposits $5000. Takes no bonuses. Plays $0 in progressives. Loses all.
Affiliate Share: $1750

Player 2: Deposits $1000. Takes no bonuses. Plays progressives and wagers, in total: $75,000 (due to wins and losses). Loses all.
Affiliate Share: $350 – 2% ($75,000) = $350 - $1500 = $-1150

Player 3: Deposits $50. Takes no bonuses. Plays progressives and wagers, in total: $25,000. Loses all.
Affiliate Share: $17.5 – 2% ($25,000) = $17.5 - $500 = -$482.50
[/warnnote]

Affiliate End Revenue = $1750 - $1150 -$482.50 = $117.50

Affiliate Revenue Share Percentage = $117.50 / ($5000 + $1000 + $50) * 100 = $117.50 / $6050 * 100 = 1.9% Revshare



Now to the question / Poll:


Should we ROGUE 400 Affiliates?

 

[belgamo]

It would be nice to know if they ARE allowing players to play the progressives while on a bonus first. At all the rivals I play at you can not play progressives while on a bonus.

 

[bonustreak]

Are we positive 400 is the only Rival doing this?

 

[Herd]

Affiliate Revenue Share Percentage = $117.50 / ($5000 + $1000 + $50) * 100 = $117.50 / $6050 * 100 = 1.9% Revshare

So instead of getting
($5000 + $1000 + $50) x 40% = $2420

Earnings is : $117.50

Heres my question.. can rival or 400affiliates confirm.. is it 2% of $2420.. or 2% of all wagers lost on the progressive like in AGD's scenario?

 

[Engineer]

This is blatant shaving.

 

[Guard Dog]

Are we positive 400 is the only Rival doing this?

From what I've heard so far, yes. But that doesn't mean Rival isn't doing something behind the scenes that they do not know about yet.

It would surprise me, though, since there have been a lot of 'end of month' deductions at 400 and not elsewhere (from the information I've gathered so far from other affiliates and my own accounts)

 

[Herd]

I've been throwing this one from side to side in my head, and you know what... I'm not down for rouging 400affiliates, I'd rather have them see our view on things and see if they can change their policy. I would rather that, then to slam them and rogue them. It would achieve nothing.

I'm changing my vote to No

 

[Guard Dog]

I've been throwing this one from side to side in my head, and you know what... I'm not down for rouging 400affiliates, I'd rather have them see our view on things and see if they can change their policy. I would rather that, then to slam them and rogue them. It would achieve nothing.

I'm changing my vote to No

The idea here is to vote on whether this change (if permanent) should rogue them. I do not believe we should rogue them before they have a chance to reverse this. And, since we are having conversations with some AM's there, it could be a possibility.

So - this is more of a 'should we'... and 'if they make it permanent'.

sorry for the confusion!

 

[Steve S]

In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that this practice is not limited to 400. I know of two other Rival programs that also deduct contributions to progressive jackpot pools. So, I think if you are going to rougue 400, you may have to rougue some other Rival programs as well.

Both of these other Rival programs have offered to discontinue charging me for these contributions effective immediately. Both have also confirmed that there is a setting within their software that allows them to turn this deduction off. One of them did not believe me when I told him of this, but later found it could in fact be done.

Also, it should be noted that you are supposed to get credit for deductions to progressive jackpot pools when one of your players wins. But, only the contributions for that one player. Not for any other players who have played the progressives.

So, in your example, you may want to cut your deductions to the progressive jackpot pool by 1/2, since you would get credit back for wins. However, those wins were all played back and lost so 1/2 sounds about fair.

In that case you would have the following:

Affiliate End Revenue = $1750 - $550 -$241.25 = $958.75

Affiliate Revenue Share Percentage = $958.75 / ($5000 + $1000 + $50) * 100 = $958.75 / $6050 * 100 = 15.85% Revshare

Still not what you signed up for.

One of my problems with 400 is that it does not appear I have ever been given credit for player wins.

My bigger problem is with Rival. As I have mentioned before, since they had to pay people to program this scenario, there must have been some thought put into.

I told a friend of mine last night that I imagined a meeting that went something like this:

"Players like progressive jackpots. We need progressives."

"How are we going to fund it?"

A moment of silence - and then:

"I know! We'll get the affiliates to pay for it!"

At which point, just like in the Guiness Beer commercials, the rest of the attendees at the meeting stand up and shout "Brilliant!"

Seriously though, they must have considered the possible outcomes of this policy. They had to know that there is no way for the affiliate to break even on this and that affiliates would be negatively impacted. And, they did not think enough of us to let us know.

It should have been known that sooner or later that some affiliate was going to see their earnings negatively impacted enough that they would begin questioning things. They had to know that this would come to a head at some point.

 

[Steve S]

I am in the process of asking every program I promote if the deduct contributions to progressive jackpot pools or anything else that I am not aware of from my affiliate commissions.

So far the answers are:

Best Casino Partner: No
Mainstreet Affiliates: No

 

[Steve S]

If they do not reverse this policy, than in my opinion 400 and any other programs the have this same policy in effect and will not change them should be rougued.

 

[tryme1]

I voted 'no'. Not because I don't think that 400Affiliates are behaving in an underhand or - at best - misguided manner. They clearly are.

Rather, I think that crying 'rogue' should be a last resort and should carry some weight to it. If you/we/us rogue every affiliate program every time there is a difference of opinion, then we will end up undermining the whole idea.

Credibility is everything on the internet and if you undermine that, you're done for.

To me, this looks like an issue that is solvable. So let's see if it can be solved.

 

[Guard Dog]

I'll try to say this again......


This isn't a 'Should we rogue them today'

This is an issue of - Should we rogue them if this change becomes permanent? Which, then, makes it a retroactive change affecting affiliate earnings without warning or notice.

I hope that is more clear because apparently I have been less than clear in this thread.

 

[dominique]

IF this change becomes permanent, yes, I will rogue them.

It is a change to T&Cs without notification, a breach of contract, and one detrimental to affiliates.

 

[Guard Dog]

I do want to believe that this is a Rival-issue more than a 400 Affiliates issue. I have been an affiliate of 400 since 2006 and have always felt they are a good group of affiliate managers and operators for the most part.

I certainly hope this is all a mistake and will be resolved soon enough.

 

[slotplayer]

I do want to believe that this is a Rival-issue more than a 400 Affiliates issue. I have been an affiliate of 400 since 2006 and have always felt they are a good group of affiliate managers and operators for the most part.

I certainly hope this is all a mistake and will be resolved soon enough.

Pantasia
ANW': Deposits - Cashouts - Chargebacks - Progressive Adjustments.

same for 400G and Lion Slots

Didn't see it at Sloto.

 

[WCD Admin]

IF this change becomes permanent, yes, I will rogue them.

It is a change to T&Cs without notification, a breach of contract, and one detrimental to affiliates.

I think that the very least, you should have the RED light on "retro-active" changes.... ? Can't we do that now , prior to rogue status? This way it gives them time to respond and know we are serious without outright sending them to the pit?

 

[greek39]

No tip toeing around the issue if the earnings are unfair so is the program. If they are unwilling to be fair rogue is the alternative. Comes a day after numerous complaints regarding some Rivals to call it what it is Rogue (deviating from the usual practice).

I voted yes because the problem may change in the short run but long term prospects look dismal based on their history.

And yes this will hit me hard but rather take it now rather than later.

JMO

greek39

 

[Herd]

By the sounds of things, it looks like some rival programs didn't even know this existed. Looks like something was rolled out by Rival and some operators didn't know about it. We've seen it with Microgaming, we've seen it with iPoker.

I think my issue is that a software company would roll something like this out. It doesn't make smart business sense.

operative words being : doesn't make smart business sense.

 

[bonusgeek]

I think that the very least, you should have the RED light on "retro-active" changes.... ? Can't we do that now , prior to rogue status? This way it gives them time to respond and know we are serious without outright sending them to the pit?

This seems like a prudent next step imo. This was not just an oversight, this was a furtive attempt to squeeze affiliates. And then not being forthcoming about it says a lot. While I am all for findind an amicable solution to these sorts of problems, programs need to know we mean business and will take swift action against programs demonstrating unscrupulous behavior with affiliates. This is actually pretty scary stuff and makes me wonder what else is being kept under the radar in our industry.