Will RAIG be an exclusive top-tier club or open to all?

[MissExposé]

There are those in the online gambling industry who have been crying out for affiliates to come together and form a trade body for the best part of half a decade. In May 2019, those prayers were finally answered:

Former Remote Gambling Association (RGA) chief executive Clive Hawkswood announced he would chair the new trade body, Responsible Affiliates in Gambling (RAIG), after it was founded by three of the biggest firms in the business – Racing Post, Oddschecker and Better Collective.

“Gambling marketing is in the crosshairs of regulators and politicians and there is a risk that bad things will happen if we are not prepared and on the front foot,” Hawkswood says, signalling a call to arms for the affiliate industry.

“Having been in discussions and on panels while at the RGA, it was obvious that affiliates were becoming a scapegoat for everything that was wrong in gambling marketing. It was too easy for everyone else to start talking about the affiliate Wild West and for licensed operators to say they had no control over their partners.”

He adds: “It is now time to counter that.”

More info on this link.

We would like to hear the AGD members' opinions regarding this.

 

[AussieDave]

Any bona fide industry body who, collectively fights for the ethical rights and fair treatment of affiliates, is going to be better than nothing at all. However, and in the past, problems have stemmed from conflicts of interest.

The 3 founding firms aren't your basic small time affiliates. Instead their HUGE players in the affiliate industry. What's relevant to their business success, isn't in least bit applicable to affiliates operating as individuals.

While it's not the same thing, eCOGRA comes to mind. That was founded on money from MGS and Cassava Enterprises (aka 888). Although both CEO's held non executive seats on the board of Directors, it was clear who were calling the shots.

Having spoken with fellow peers, and discussed issues pertaining to affiliate organisations in the past, affiliates like myself (who aren't corporate high flyers in our industry) are concerned we'll again be used a cannon fodder.

Bottom line, our-needs wont be met, but instead, the agendas of these larger affiliate based corporations will be front and center.

Edit:
As a small affiliate, it's really frustrating, knowing, some program WILL renege on their "life time commission promises", and or change their T&C's, in which case, for affiliate like myself, we have 2 choices...

1. Agree to changed T&C's, knowing we're allowing program X to screw us.
2. Don't agree, and allow said program to terminate our partnership.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

I've always hoped affiliates like myself could see the BIG picture, and realise, taking a back-2-back stand against even one program trying this stuff on, would likely result in others not trying the same caper.

Singularly we're dots in a large ocean. However, lets say combined we bring in 10,000 NDP's a month to a program, that ain't something you'd f#ck with. In which case the 'power' of many would triumph.

 

[Biti]

I think it will be open to all. The more members, the better the image of such a club. But I doubt it will be interesting for medium or smaller affiliates to join such a club.

Members have to do a yearly audit on responsible gaming for example. That sounds like corporate things. Such audits can cost thousands of €.

I also doubt if this association will lead to fewer rules:

“Affiliate providers of marketing services are already subject to extensive regulation, but more can always be done in relation to consumer protection and RAIG will provide a forum for that.”

That sounds like more bureaucracy. I haven't heard them so far about t&c and that kind of things. A year or more ago there was another "affiliate union". That also sounded more like a compliance product than something else.

By the way, Oddschecker, wasn't that website part of SkyBet? That company that first screwed affiliates with a quota and after that with closing their program to get a few bucks more from The Stars Group at the sell?

I think this kind of associations is more risk to smaller affiliates than a chance. More bureaucracy, more corporate things, perhaps it could be even a requirement to work with some programs. If smaller and medium affiliates are xx% of the markets, they want them perhaps just "out". Corporate companies have to increase their numbers. Online gambling as a market will not grow forever, revenues are declining, because governments take a piece of the cake, etc.

The regulated US markets will be markets for "corporate affiliates" from the start. I think most regulated European markets will be in the future too.

Medium affiliates who have an excellent product will survive, also small affiliates that are happy with a small income.

 

[AussieDave]

By the way, Oddschecker, wasn't that website part of SkyBet? That company that first screwed affiliates with a quota and after that with closing their program to get a few bucks more from The Stars Group at the sell?

Bingo... Your right on the money there Biti... excellent catch, mate

Quote from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Betting_&_Gaming

"Oddschecker is an odds comparison website, which compares the odds offered by the most popular betting companies that cater to British and Australian customers, including Sky Bet. It forms part of the betting content of some other sites, such as Bettingzone. The company also offers reviews and comparison of online gambling websites through its 'Casinochecker', 'Pokerchecker' and 'Bingochecker' sections.

Oddschecker was established in 2001 and acquired by Sky in 2007."

Sky = Skybet.

---------

So to put it bluntly, how the hell can affiliates trust an organization (trade body) like this???!!! If the truth be know, their agenda is to put small to medium affiliates out of business.

 

[NDG]

It needs to be run without any sponsors and by affiliates that do not have any other connections to the online casinos.
The GPWA was an association that was put together to help affiliates.. and it ran without sponsors for quite a while.
Once sponsors were added into the mix.. it slowly evolved over time into something that looks more like a business.

 

[hazartnata]

There is a nice articles called:
Monopolising Affiliate Compliance in the new iGB Affiliate Magazine
Phil Blackwell asks whether high membership fees and a structure that appears to benefit only the biggest in the sector will effectively undermine new trade body Responsible Affiliates in Gambling’s (RAIG) efforts to become the voice of the industry ...

 

[hazartnata]

I haven't double - checked but he says: The cost of RAiG associate membership will start at £5,000 for the first year and includes an initial audit, conducted by impartial third party Gambling Integrity. Full membership is set to cost affiliates up to £20,000 – a cost greater than the annual fee for some remote gambling licences.

 

[Biti]

I haven't read 20k anywhere else, but also if it's 5k it's thrown away money if the agenda of such an organization is not in your interest.

It sounds still more like consolidating the market and selling compliance products than anything else.

 

[AussieDave]

It needs to be run without any sponsors and by affiliates that do not have any other connections to the online casinos.

The GPWA was an association that was put together to help affiliates.. and it ran without sponsors for quite a while.

Once sponsors were added into the mix.. it slowly evolved over time into something that looks more like a business.

When I joined the GPWA back in 2001, it had only recently been formed.

Founder: Cynthia Carley
Administrator: Craig Miller
Webmaster: Dean Royston-Ing

It was operated by affiliates, for affiliates. Back then, and the proceeding years to follow, the GPWA's mandate was to fight for the rights of their members, and all igaming affiliates. As membership grew it became more and more powerful. An affiliate program would have to be crazy to step over the line. The GPWA would not hesitate in blacklisting wayward programs.

As I've said before, it's my firm believe that because of this power, it was seen as a threat to operators. IMHO (having lived through it) subsequently steps were taken undermine the credibility of founding members. I wont go into detail, nor name names. But if did... wouldn't be hard for most people to join the dots and see the big picture.

What I will say is, once that destructive agenda was fulfilled, the GPWA was left essential in ruins. Its former purpose was never reinstated, much less embraced by the new owner. And, slowly but surely it was turned into a commercial entity, where member numbers were used as marketing-cannon-fodder to secure paid sponsorships.

The SEALS are good example of that...

Back when the GPWA was ethical, you just couldn't pony up and apply for 'private membership'. Back then, you had to show a commitment. Which equated to posting on a regular basis, getting to know your peers.

But all that change with the new ownership...

Anyone could apply for "private membership", then apply for the "SEAL", get that, and most were never seen or heard of again. Management didn't care, they got bums in seats, and increase memberships.

More members = more sponsorship dollars and the ability to charge higher fees for said sponsorships.

Once an organisation heads down that road (regardless of what's said or claimed), you can bet your bottom dollar members welfare has been sold out, and that organisation is now operating as a commercial money-making business.

Seems the only people who care about member's welfare over there these days, are those members who find themselves getting screwed over, and in some cases, bent-over by GPWA sponsors. Who it seems, as long as the dollars keep being paid, these wayward sponsors can do what like to GPWA members.

Edit:
My Affiliate Union (circa 2011) was founded in hope of regaining power, and fighting for the ethical rights of all igaming affiliates. That seemed like it was going to succeed. However, after I refused to allow a certain person a seat on the founding members board, approx 24 hours later, the rug was pulled from under me, with information one of the founders were promoting rogue casinos. My fault, I should have vetoed everyone.

But in my defense, who approached me to commence said "Union" had recommended I had engage this person as a founding member. For the record that person who approached me, was on the Casino City payroll.

Was that recommendation made just so someone had an 'Ace' up their sleeve, just in case I refused their request for a seat on the founding members board...

After that shat itself before even opening, out of the flames rose GAU, headed by Mojo and Chalkie (both GPWA private members), and also sitting on the board was Micheal C (same person who asked me for a seat but was refused). After 18 months or so those 2 founders resigned, then PokerKeep took over (another trusted GPWA member), and eventually that went ass-up too.

You have to wonder why all 3 versions went ass-up. Or was their demise ALL planned well before time.