- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’d like to comment on this but not in public. Can the thread be moved in here?
That’s not practical because less then 4% of our membership has access to this area. Its unfair to leave those other 96% out of the discussion.
That being said we can discuss it at length in here as well if you want your comments to remain confidential. There is no reason we cant have two threads and in a way its probably more productive that way.
Since we are in private let me be candid and say if affiliates do not show any appreciation in the progress made BCP will say “No matter what we do these people will not want to work with us, so why should we do anything?”. What do I tell them in response? I kid you not, I had to fight like hell to get them to come this far.
Anyone who has discussed this with them knows they were adament they weren’t budging on that term. In our private meeting they said their income was not effected in the least bit by the change because the people who DO work with them continued to do so. This makes perfect sense as when people are earning money together they have an interest in maintaining the relationship.
It’s very easy to be a martyr when you arent earning a dime with a program, the rest of the affiliates who do earn money arent going to speak up because they dont want to get trampled by the people who seemingly despise the program. Nobody wants to be the goat.
Honestly by the posts I see now BCP has a point, no matter what they do some people will not accept them or want to work with them. That’s fine and thats a personal decision but thousands of affiliates do work with them. I do, and I do earn money with them and have never had a problem with them other then some slowness in payments occasionally. The fact is Golden Casino converts well for me (US Traffic) and player values and retention are good. I hear the exact same thing PRIVATELY from mainy US based affiliates
Point two which is not as important to non us affiliates as it is to us yanks is that they did stick with us when all other playtechs just cut and ran and sold the us player databases.
They developed an alternative. They were THE ONLY Playtech to do that. As a US based affiliate that may color my opinion of them somewhat, but I genuinely do appreciate their efforts and think it was a stand up thing to do.
Point three in their defense which I will make since we are in private is they are the only Playtech Operator I trust. Can we REALLY say the same about any of the other Playtechs?
In a virtual sea of piss poor PT operators, with far more predatory behavior, known shaving, support of black hatters and spammers and direct blackmailing by their AMs, Golden Palace was ALWAYS known as being the straightest shooters of the group. That has to count for something.
Maybe loyalty is an antiquated concept and I am a dinosaur, but I do remember when they happily sent me $XX,XXX per month for years when they could accept US players on their platform. For better or worse I am going to stick it out with them now. Again I am only speaking for myself and I wouldnt presume to tell others who or who not to work with, so these comments are my own as an affiliate not a CAP statement.
I guess I babbled on long enough. Lets continue this thread for private members and get feedback without worrying about popular opinion or in damaging a relationship you may have in place with BCP/CB.
I’m sure people are appreciative of the work put in by CAP on this. I know I appreciate knowing that you guys are behind us and looking after our best interests. I too spent an hour with Jeff discussing this issue and I think we both saw each other’s point of view. They need to make this change to remain competitive.
It is their business and entirely up to them what terms they offer and I have no problem if they want to offer this term in it’s new format. I can’t say it’s for me personally, but like you say, a lot of affiliates I’m sure think they are worth working with. Some probably feel they have come so far that they have little choice now. For the record, I have earned around $12,000 from BCP this year, although mainly from one player who remains very active.
I hope you don’t mind me talking frankly and this isn’t a criticism, just feedback that I hope CAP will find valuable and I’d be inteersted to know if others disagree with me.
So…my problem is not so much with the term itself, but the fact that it has been applied retroactively. In my opinion, accepting this compromise sets a precedent that means other certified operators can argue that it is OK to change terms retroactively. It’s effectively re-defining the concept of CAP “certification” – I see that word as an indication of fairness and in my opinion, changing a contract without the other party’s consent or approval isn’t acceptable.
The debarcle about 2 years ago with all those programs trying this on was successfully resolved through the power of CAP and it’s ability to provide a voice for affiliates. At that time, to the best of my knowledge, it was unprecedented and the community, with your help, proved it was strong enough to resist this. It’s probably not something we all want to go through again, but unfortunately we are and again CAP is leading the fight for which we are all grateful, but I’d ask you to be strong on this once again.
I know it’s a delicate position for you and not an easy one to deal with and I fully appreciate we’re all here to make money, so please don’t take this personally Lou. I hope my feedback, and hopefully that of others, will help to paint a clear picture when you come to make your decision. And I appreciate it is YOUR decision at the end of the day :hattip:
Cheers,
Ian
Ian I appreciate your feedback and oppinion. Yes retroactive changes are generally unacceptable. And in the form that term was written and being applied it was retroactively going back on the promise of players for life.
The reduced commission for inactivity modification does NOT take away players or your ability to draw a monthly check from the program. Is it the best scenario to be paid at a lower rate? No. But all one has to do is be active and make a good faith effort. While they arent going so far as stating this in writing in the term modification Jeff and Fred both said “if we go to the affiliates sites and see they are running our banner and trying to send us business we wont lower their commissions”
CAP will always go to bat for affiliate interests. Its not always easy and it does strain relationships we have with the programs, but we bite the bullet and do it. We generally come away with a positive resolution. Its not always 100% what everyone wants, but we certainly shoot for that goal. When progress is made we have to acknowledge it or the programs wont have any incentive to change. A “It’s 100% our way or the highway” attitude that some affiliates adopt makes many programs bristle and just want to dig their heels and stick with a bad term to show they arent going to be shoved around either.
A spirit of compromise and jointly working together, if even by baby steps, does help to change things. Thats what we are seeing here. BCP made a small step in the right direction.
The economic realities of where we are at now, post UIGEA, and in this economy, makes some flexibility necessary. We all have seen programs collapse under the new climate. We will see more of that and more consolidations and acquisitions in the next year. As affiliate partners we need to be sensitive to this and do what we can to help the decent programs out there weather this storm.
I agree with that – it’s hard times for everyone on both sides of the fence.
I say, accept the new terms, but insist they don’t apply it to affiliate agreements that were in place prior to implementation the new term. If we are seen to accept retroactive changes (from anyone), then there’s no way back from that.
Agreed. Retroactive changes are not acceptable at all. Also, please see my post in the other (public) thread for the rest of my thoughts on this issue.
So…my problem is not so much with the term itself, but the fact that it has been applied retroactively. In my opinion, accepting this compromise sets a precedent that means other certified operators can argue that it is OK to change terms retroactively. It’s effectively re-defining the concept of CAP “certification” – I see that word as an indication of fairness and in my opinion, changing a contract without the other party’s consent or approval isn’t acceptable.
I am still recovering from Spain so not thinking as fast[shut it Simmo:)] but now that it has been mentioned I have to agree that we should not allow this to be applied to currant affiliates and should only be enforced on new sign ups, we cannot allow a program to do retroactive term changes on affiliates if we do other will follow. I am also very glad to see CAP step up and say ‘hey guys enough is enough’ to the team at BCP and I also appreciate progress but I hope you can see also what will happen if this program is allowed to change rules to terms that are retroactive. What if you went back to them and said a few affiliates have come to you quietly and expressed a concern and see what happens? I think this is all negociations to the positive and none of us are wanting a war here we just want what is fair and I personally cannot and will not let bad times get in the way of my ethics.
For me, they have performed sporadically. I did make some 28,000 with them, but there were some nice months and a whole lot of lousy months with them. Many or most other programs are not fluctuating like that for me. Most may have a bad month or two, but they don’t have these wild fluctuations.
So, for me, the term is a total deal breaker, retroactive or not, because it would cut into my revenues. Yes, they did act admirably during UIGEA, and that is why I did send them players. But that doesn’t mean I have to let them walk all over my revenues.
Secondly, I will never under any circumstances agree that any program is justified to impose retroactive terms. It will turn our entire industry on it’s head and we will lose big time. It sets a precedent. You bet that a ton of programs are watching this unfold and are ready to jump on the bandwagon. Why pay if they don’t have to?
I do make money with them, but I am not afraid to speak out and I have pulled them as soon as I heard of the term and they did not attempt to settle this on CAP.
IMO this whole “contact them” thing is just a minor part, the major part is that they will not pay for what I deliver. I would be a fool to build up an even larger player base there, I am getting out before it hurts any more than it will now.
That’s how I see it, and Lou, I am sorry but I just can’t approve of retroactive changes. I think they will kill our profitability. Other programs will jump on the chance to do so themselves. We will be screwed.
Besides, with so many decent programs at this time, why waste good traffic on one that won’t pay?
@Professor 178912 wrote:
Jeff and Fred both said “if we go to the affiliates sites and see they are running our banner and trying to send us business we wont lower their commissions”.
That is what made me so angry… They have said this before and what happened? Yes – loads of accounts locked last month.
I was promoting them – albeit not very high up on the sites, but their links were all over to be found and they were getting traffic.. not much – but I was not inactive
Why would I believe them now?
And I stand by what I said… not once did they try contacting me before.. the first time I heard from them was that my account was locked and that I needed to contact them.
A bigger smack in the face I cannot think of.. except for the blantant scam artists at other playtechs.. but if BCP want to harp on about partners etc. why are they not acting like partners? Why are we the ones that need to bend backwards?Sorry – but I am done with them – as I said to you in Barca – I know I can be a hothead at times – but this is not one of those – this was done with such little respect for what they call a “partner” – that the bridges have been burned.
The only way I would have considered going back is if they had completely removed that term. It is retroactive and predatory – many other programs were cut down for only one of those in a split second – why not this one?
I have a bad feeling that if affiliates bend on this one.. it is going to open the flood gates for many others to follow.
After chatting with you and Ben in Barca, I understand where you are coming from – but simply put – they are not playing by the rules that they want us to play to… they want partners, but do not act like partners.
The question I was asked was “Why were they not listed higher up on my sites?”
There was no real reason.. as you all know, there are so many casinos with loads of campaigns – these campaigns come from the programs, who contacted me.. so a few fall by the wayside – this is not being nasty to these programs.. but one does “forget” about one or two .. if they do not contact us.
You see? That is my issue – they want from us what they do not give – and then we must still bend over backwards???
No thanks!
and for the record – I have earned about 5K from them this year from 2 players – so am also not an affiliate with no earnings who is playing martyr.
Guys I agree the retroactive aspect is a concern. To be honest I dont know how much more I can get from them especially given the chilly response they got on this slight move forward. I know I sound like a broken record but I am not asking anyone to work with anyone.
I encourage everyone to do what their consicience says is right. CAP will probably get sued for breach of contract. I will also look like a total liar in front of them as I said affiliates would appreciate the modification, but I will give them back their money and reject their spot here in the community if thats what the members want. Its a shame and I hate to see it go this way considering the money they made with all of us over the years and the support they have given our community and our events. It will also be a closed line of communication with a major program. But if blood is all that will do then blood it shall be.
With Cpays I didnt mind to see them go, but this one hurts.
Lou,
I appreciate your position and do not envy it.
But it isn’t blood we are calling for.. simply keeping what they promised… either do away with that term or keep it but do not add it retroactively.
We signed up there under certain terms and conditions, these should be upheld on their part – if not, they are in breach of contract.
New affiliates can decide themselves if they want to promote under the new terms… these are not what we signed up for.
@peralis 178961 wrote:
Lou,
I appreciate your position and do not envy it.
Seconded.
peralis wrote:But it isn’t blood we are calling for.. simply keeping what they promised… either do away with that term or keep it but do not add it retroactively.We signed up there under certain terms and conditions, these should be upheld on their part – if not, they are in breach of contract.
New affiliates can decide themselves if they want to promote under the new terms… these are not what we signed up for.
My sentiments too.
@peralis 178961 wrote:
Lou,
I appreciate your position and do not envy it.
But it isn’t blood we are calling for.. simply keeping what they promised… either do away with that term or keep it but do not add it retroactively.
We signed up there under certain terms and conditions, these should be upheld on their part – if not, they are in breach of contract.
New affiliates can decide themselves if they want to promote under the new terms… these are not what we signed up for.
I agree with every word there. Well said. :hattip:
Lou what about that idea with a seal that says CAP approved with caution or something along that line? I can appreciate the position you must be in and I feel for your team on this but as a business women I just cannot agree to retroactive term changing because once this happens all the others will soon follow so like you said I will have to watch out and do what is in my best interest. I don’t see a chilly response here I see appreciation for your hard work and concerns about what the future would bring if we all accepted this term change.
I have always held the greatest respect for you Professor and that has been reinforced today.
In the long run this decision will be best for us all. No casino has the right to pull this stuff because it’s setting a precent for others to do the same.
Competion is stiff and if they feel they can do without us then we certainly can do without them.
Times are hard for all of us and I know that this will cost CAP and I’m truly sorry about that, but I believe that we need to take a hit sometimes in order to stand up for our rights.
