Vegas Affiliates - Rogue

[mojo]

Are you stating that all Affiliate Programs with quotas or casino bundlling are listed as rogued on AGD?

Sebastian,

I will try to explain.

If a program comes out of the gate that it bundles, then it is up to the affiliate. Affiliates can choose to take that risk. Vegas Affiliates was not that! You did not bundle then all of a sudden you did. VA cannot do that! You have hundreds/thousands of affiliates that took your word that you DO NOT BUNDLE.

Now you are changing that. You are harming affiliates earnings and electric bills and their childrens lunch money. That is why you will be ROGUE.

Affiliates should have put there efforts and time and top spots on another program, don't you think? One that would be reliable?

Sebastian, you are trying to compare yourself with other programs. Please state what other programs have the same scenerio as VA?

There is no going back here Sebastian. You must move forward. Please. For all our sakes.

 

[vegas.aff]

Many other affiliate programs have implemented worse changes and have been marked as predatory. Not Rogued.

Rogued would normally indicate that a program would have witheld payments or retroactively implemented difficult quotas in their terms and conditions - something that has been done by affiliate programs in your "Predatory" section but not us.

Why haven't you marked them as rogue them also?

This is a clear case of two weights and two measures. Why are we being singled out?

We have had discussions and come to an understanding with many of our affiliates and the most renowned and long standing certification programs and community websites.

How is it that this forum and this forum alone sees fit to classify us, a certified program and reputable program as a rogue program?

 

[Webzcas]

This is a clear case of two weights and two measures. Why are we being singled out?

We have had discussions and come to an understanding with many of our affiliates and the most renowned and long standing certification programs and community websites.

How is it that this forum and this forum alone sees fit to classify us, a certified program and reputable program as a rogue program?

Is it true you have threatened lawsuits against affiliates who dare speak out about the retroactive actions your program has taken such as the bundling?

Is it also true you have threatened to close affiliate accounts?

Your quota for new affiliates which thankfully you in the end did not apply retroactively is one of the most stupid, negative, affiliate unfriendly terms I have come across. You say it is a standard European Term. BS I say. Not one program I promote has such a ludicrous clause.

Sorry but I do believe AGD has pegged you spot on.

 

[bonustreak]

Dominique you are well aware that me and Christine had already discussed this in Budapest and we came to some common understanding. This was mentioned by Christine in a post she made in this forum on her return.

First let me step up here and point out that I have never agreed on anything in Budapest, I came to the understanding that you were not budging on your bundling and that you were accepting whatever came your way from affiliates. I told you in Budapest this was going to get ugly and I sympathized with your company and the financial situation it was in but I never agreed that it was okay to make retroactive changes!!
http:// www. affiliateguarddog. com/forums/budapest-talks-about-term-changes-t1624.html

Dominique I demand to know why Vegas Affiliates is being singled out over so many other affiliate programs who have done the same.

Not really sure why your demanding anything of Dom here? Is there some sort of point? You know she is not AGD as a whole correct? You are sounding like a spoiled brat more then a business man btw

This is a common term that most European affiliate programs have in their agreements and I do not see how we are singled out over this

I told you in Budapest that in fact no it is not common, and your being fed the wrong information.

How is it that this new term qualifies us as rogued over all other affiliate programs when it is not retroactive?

But it is retroactive, you have enforced a new rule that never existed before on all of your currant and new affiliates that sir is considered retroactive as explained by me once again in Budapest!

The Bundling issue is not something that we are able to reverse, due to circumstances we had to implement this as we were being very negatively affected. We have had to make certain changes to remain competitive and this way are able to offer affiliates better terms in other areas.

The repercussions are something that AGD cannot reverse due to the nature of this being a predatory move on your part.

I understand that it is not ideal but many affiliate programs have had to make changes over the past couple of years due to exceptional circumstances. We want to provide a good service to affiliates and do everything above board, whereas many programs even resort to skimming players off affiliate accounts! We suffer because we practice transparency.

Come on get real!

Are you stating that all Affiliate Programs with quotas or casino bundling are listed as rogued on AGD?

No not all because most are transparent from the start up in their terms, they have not enforced any retroactive changes.


Ok now let me say that you need to stop thinking your the boss to all affiliates because that is how every single post you have made in this thread sounds! You will learn really fast that we are our own bosses and you should be kissing our rear ends to get us to work with you!!!

Now also about the lawsuit threats, I am here right now to state that you did in fact toss out that card to me in Budapest! You were not happy with my giggling reaction remember? You said if anyone makes blacklisted pages they will be sued and my response was bring it! You and no court can stop me or anyone else from having our freedom of speech. Now you threaten affiliates to shut their mouths our you will close their accounts and take action against them. I hate threats really really hate threats and toss that in to doing this against my friends and fellow webmasters I get really upset more!

Close my accounts I don't care but your program best learn really fast that they cannot feed your precious shareholders without the affiliates the backbone of your operation!!
<!-- / message --><!-- message, attachments, sig -->

 

[Guard Dog]

Hello Sebastian,

Sorry for my late response. I was away from the office overnight while this thread expanded.

First: Considering Engineer was not my source in regards to threats, I was a bit surprised to hear that information.

Second: I have been in discussions (although not with you) about Vegas Affiliates, with Vegas Affiliates. That person is aware of the issues with the program and is working to correct what you will see below as the main reason for the 'rogue' status.


Rogue Status: The main reason for the rogue status is the quota. I understand (and knew) that this term was not meant to apply retroactively. However (as discussed already with VA), if the term does not have an effective date, it can be utilized in that manner.

The Affiliate is to remove any and all material related to the Merchant Site(s). Should there be no reasonable marketing activity on the part of the Member for over sixty days this Agreement will be deemed to have been terminated by the Member.

Stated as such, this would apply to all. Especially insomuch as the bundling has affected all affiliates regardless of their contract signing date. This makes this term (without the effective date) retroactive and rogue.

An Effective Date was supposed to have been implemented over 1 month ago, but the 'ball was dropped'.


Predatory Status: Predatory status is given to a program that has bad terms and conditions from the beginning and is unwilling to change those terms to an affiliate-friendly set of terms. Predatory has not been traditionally when a program retroactively changes terms to affect the contracts of their long-standing partners.


Change of Status: This is a tough one. I know, after long conversations with VA, that their is little hope of Vegas Affiliates rescinding their breach of contract in regards to the earnings bundling. I do know that the new terms should be out today that will put an effective date on the quota term.

This means it is up to us at AGD to decide if retroactive bundling will continue to make Vegas Affiliates rogue.

The problem (as we see it) is that 'Rogue Status' simply means that a program has either entered a non-paying status with affiliates or has retroactively changed terms, which directly and negatively affect affiliate earnings. Both are done for the sole purpose of reducing affiliate earnings, increasing program profitability, and without affiliate approval. To change a contract retroactively, without approval, is not only considered rogue - but also considered illegal and immoral.


Thank you.

 

[vegas.aff]

So basically the Rogue status was down to an effective date being put in?

Could you not have mentioned this in your initial posting?

Sebastian

 

[Guard Dog]

So basically the Rogue status was down to an effective date being put in?

Could you not have mentioned this in your initial posting?

Sebastian

It was mentioned. All items of contention were clearly outlined in the original posting.

It was also mentioned in my last post that the quota is the Main reason, but as stated in the last paragraph - the retroactive bundling is also an issue. I believe I have clearly written both posts. I have re-read them and they certainly sound like they clearly state the issues at this point.

If there is any discrepancy or vagueness to my post(s), please let me know and I'll state it with complete transparency and without the possibility of interpretation.

Thank you.

 

[Webzcas]

You said if anyone makes blacklisted pages they will be sued and my response was bring it

The chances of Vegas Affiliates bringing successful legal action against a webmaster or webmasters which decides to rogue them, based on the information they themselves have provided in this thread is slim to none.

As Ali once said " And slim is out of town "

I will be updating my blacklist page later on today to include Vegas Affiliates and here is why:

1) Quotas - Absolutely ridiculous and affiliate unfriendly regardless if applied retroactively or not.
2) Bundling applied retroactively. No matter how you paint it, this is a predatory change to the terms and conditions your existing affiliate base signed up to
3) Sebastian's aggressive demeanour in this thread. Totally uncalled for and unprofessional.
4) Threatening to take legal action against affiliates that speak out against predatory terms

 

[vegas.aff]

Webzcas,

The "threat of legal action" was greatly exaggerated and it is not a matter of legal action. what was said was that affiliates who post libellous or damaging comments are in breach of contract. There is quite a difference there.

The quota is common throughout Europe. Most top affiliate programs have it in their terms, including Willhill and Ladbrokes.

The bundling issue has been discussed and is not something we can change but we have offered to create seperate accounts for new campaigns in order to help minimise negative bundling effects on new traffic.

 

[dominique]

Lololol!

Ok, somehow Sebastian assumed I was AGD, no idea how that came about but I am talking with him on messenger right now and we are getting this straightened out.

I have to say I was surprised, usually people think Christine runs AGD. Maybe this is something we all at AGD have to straighten out. Andy runs AGD, for everybody's info. And it is he who posts as Guard Dog.

Sebastian says the missing date on the quota is an oversight and being fixed as we speak.

So that eliminates the retro quota aspect.

As far as the bundling goes, obviously I dislike it also and I usually avoid programs that bundle. But - I think the time factor there needs to be taken into consideration. It was introduced months ago and no one complained here at AGD as far as I can recall.

So in my mind (now don't shoot me, guys) - how retro can we be about rogueing someone? I think we need to have a consistent rule about this as I think it affects our credibility.

Thoughts please?

PS. Sebastian says the date has now been added and appears in the T&Cs.

 

[Guard Dog]

The "threat of legal action" was greatly exaggerated and it is not a matter of legal action. what was said was that affiliates who post libellous or damaging comments are in breach of contract. There is quite a difference there.

And what about Vegas Affiliate's Breach of Contract? What are the affiliate's recourse for that?

The quota is common throughout Europe. Most top affiliate programs have it in their terms, including Willhill and Ladbrokes.

Naming 2 does not make something common

The bundling issue has been discussed and is not something we can change but we have offered to create seperate accounts for new campaigns in order to help minimise negative bundling effects on new traffic.

Now we are getting somewhere.... How about you have your programmers work on auto-creating separate accounts for each casino on accounts of your partners who signed up prior to bundling. That would, essentially, make this a non-issue by making the term not retroactive anymore.

 

[Webzcas]

Most top affiliate programs have it in their terms, including Willhill and Ladbrokes.

With regards Ladbrokes who I know very well having worked for them for 5 years. They do have a quota in place - However the big difference is this:

You are required to have 1 active player during any two month period. However this is dealt with on a case by case basis. In other words if you actively promote them, they are very very very very very unlikely to invoke this clause.

Regards Hills, I don't promote them.

Regards Vegas Affiliates. Your bundling, introduction of quotas and subsequent legal threats exaggerated or not is reason enough for me to advise my visitors to my sites to steer clear of your program.

 

[vegas.aff]

Andy I cannot do anything about the bundling.

We discussed this ages ago. It's been month's now and you know we cannot reverse it. We can only perhaps help affiliates set up an account for new traffic. This will however still be a bundled account but will not be effected by their other negative earnings.

I could've named 20 other programs but I don't have the time to go through all those terms. Off the top of my head affiliatelounge and bet365 do it also, among many others and you know this as well as I do.

I've now implemented the date in the quota clause.

 

[Guard Dog]

Ok, somehow Sebastian assumed I was AGD, no idea how that came about but I am talking with him on messenger right now and we are getting this straightened out.

I have to say I was surprised, usually people think Christine runs AGD. Maybe this is something we all at AGD have to straighten out. Andy runs AGD, for everybody's info. And it is he who posts as Guard Dog.

Yes... I own AGD. AGD is owned by my company. I am Andy I am 'Guard Dog'. I am 'kwblue' elsewhere. I am married with a dog and a child. I think that should about cover it

Sebastian says the missing date on the quota is an oversight and being fixed as we speak.

So that eliminates the retro quota aspect.

Spider forced on Vegas Affiliates Term, effective date implemented. This portion of the terms is now predatory, not Rogue.

Upon termination The Affiliate is to remove any and all material related to the Merchant Site(s). Should there be no reasonable marketing activity on the part of the Member for over sixty days this Agreement will be deemed to have been terminated by the Member (Applicable only to new member accounts created after 1st September 2009).

As far as the bundling goes, obviously I dislike it also and I usually avoid programs that bundle. But - I think the time factor there needs to be taken into consideration. It was introduced months ago and no one complained here at AGD as far as I can recall.

So in my mind (now don't shoot me, guys) - how retro can we be about rogueing someone? I think we need to have a consistent rule about this as I think it affects our credibility.

Thoughts please?

I have been talking with Vegas Affiliates for months now regarding retroactive bundling. The issue has been brought up in many places throughout the web regarding the bundling. If you see the definition (several threads up in my thread) of Rogue, then you will see the problem I (we) have.

You bring up a good point.... What is the 'statue of limitations' on a term? Should there even be one? If there is, then you can bet that programs will do their best to 'trick' the AGD spider so that we don't notice. I have already had to recode the spider MANY times to ensure that tricks aren't played on us. We have had to masquerade as: Google, Yahoo Slurp!, IA Archiver, and many more to stop programs from trying to stop our spider from trolling their terms. We have had to do complete site spidering to watch for terms moving locations and the original terms being left in location. All sorts of fun stuff. Imagine if there was a statute of limitations? I think this would set a bad precedent (my opinion only)

 

[vegas.aff]

Webzcas,

We too will obviously handle this on a case by case basis. We've always been fair with affiliates. You've clearly not worked with us before or you would know that the same way you do about ladbrokes.

 

[Webzcas]

I did several years ago. But reduced your exposure, finally removing you from my sites, when payments kept on being made late. The last payment I had was several years ago.

 

[dominique]

I think the statute of limitations is smething we need to address - at what point are we retroactively rogueing?

I know it's not the same as changing a contract retroactively, that is a legal matter.

But I do think there need to be some guidelines here.

Wow, I had no idea you had to go through such contortions to get the T&Cs from programs. That's kind of disturbing. And irritating.

I doubt though that programs can hide a T&C for long - sooner or later someone will be affected and we likely hear about it.

I think purposefully hiding a T&C should be counted as a minus....

 

[Guard Dog]

Wow, I had no idea you had to go through such contortions to get the T&Cs from programs. That's kind of disturbing. And irritating.

I have purposefully not mentioned this except to a few programmers for the purpose of understanding coding options. I felt it was the right time to mention it, but Vegas Affiliates has NOT done this (let's make that clear).

It isn't a widespread problem, but I do not want it to become one either.

 

[bonustreak]

Sab thanks for the date change that is a step in the right direction.

I have a question is there any reason affiliates cannot open a separate affiliate account for each casino brand they want to promote? So say I want to promote 7 of your casinos without being bundled can I do that? If that is possible then cool.

I also want to know that the strong arming of affiliates that are talking about being unhappy with your program will cease as of today. This is the big reason for me biting so hard, I hate to see people bullied around.

 

[Webzcas]

I also want to know that the strong arming of affiliates that are talking about being unhappy with your program will cease as of today. This is the big reason for me biting so hard, I hate to see people bullied around.

This is the crux of the issue for me as well. If you can confirm that you will cease talk of legal action against affiliates unhappy with your new terms then I will not publish Vegas Affiliates as rogue on my site.

If however you are unable to do so, it would be wrong of me not to warn prospective webmasters about promoting your program.