- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
So we have seen Rival programs deducting processing issues from aff pay. Now it seems that CWC (RTG) is also doing it.
Firstly, IMO if they are going to do this they need to state it in their T&Cs. It hits a lot harder than even neg carry over and should be disclosed ahead of time.
Secondly, if all programs are going to start doing this, it may well tip the profitability of this business to the point where I would just abandon my sites and collect residual income until things improve on the political scene.
I got hit by Club World to the tune of $500 or so. Which is not massive compared to many, but then their exposure on my sites is not great to be honest.
I treat this as a chargeback. The casino didn’t actually get the money, so we shouldn’t derive commissions from money they didn’t received. The good thing is the players that cashed out, did get paid in the club world scenario at least.
Moving on, I think anyone promoting US Facing casinos needs to weigh up the very real risk of more processors going down in the future. There are ways you can do this.
1) Reduce exposure
2) Request a media placement payment + Rev Share
3) Stop promoting US Facing Casinos.For the record, my US Program commissions since November has nose dived to below 4 figures a month now. Thank god I don’t target that market anymore.
I used to derive most of my income from US, but now it’s more like a third.
I sure hope the situation in the US changes asap!
@Webzcas 225797 wrote:
I treat this as a chargeback. The casino didn’t actually get the money, so we shouldn’t derive commissions from money they didn’t received. The good thing is the players that cashed out, did get paid in the club world scenario at least.
Moving on, I think anyone promoting US Facing casinos needs to weigh up the very real risk of more processors going down in the future. There are ways you can do this.
Exactly how I see it. It’s a situation where everyone loses out – except maybe the processors. And if those funds do one day get cleared back to the casino group, I’d hope they would pass them back onto the advertisers it was deducted from.
Processors going down on US facing casinos is now the norm, and its something you do have to factor in when choosing to promote one.
I wonder if it’s worth making a list of those groups that got hit by the processing issues but absorbed the losses themselves, rather than pass it on to affiliates?
It could be that these are the groups that are well-funded (financially stable), which in turn, could mean they are the safest to give exposure to in the future.
Are there any US-facing groups that got hit and absorbed the losses themselves?
I think AffiliateWide may be one of them?
Any others?…..
I wonder if it’s worth making a list of those groups that got hit by the processing issues but absorbed the losses themselves, rather than pass it on to affiliates?
Whilst I can see some merit in doing this. If this continues, and it will whilst the UIGEA is in place. Eventually all US Facing programs will have to pass the cost on. Not to do so, will mean as a business, will mean they will probably go under.
In the case of Club World, ewallet express being busted, cost them hundreds of thousands.
Nature of the beast when it comes to promoting US facing casinos. I can’t see any of them keeping their processing up and secure for US players. At some point, the squeeze will get tighter, and eventually reach them. You only need to look at what has happened over the past 12 months.
Yep. Had this article in today from Infopowa who provide our news:
If you promote US Facing casinos, either insist on some kind of media buy placement if your traffic can warrant it, or minimise your exposure.
@Webzcas 226055 wrote:
In the case of Club World, ewallet express being busted, cost them hundreds of thousands.
Club World are, of course, a very professional and trusted group that have been around a long time and it must have been a very difficult decision for them to make.
I’m still a little surprised, though. For such a high profile company, with their casinos being promoted on so many top sites across the web, I kind of expected that they had built up a war-chest of millions over the years, so could absorb losses running into hundreds of thousands with no problem
I guess the risk now is that loyal affiliates might reduce their exposure, which in turn could affect them more than if they had taken on the losses in full themselves.
As ever, the problem for affiliates is we can’t see the accounts of the companies we are dealing with, so we can’t get a picture of their stability. Publicly listed UK companies like 32Red, Ladbrokes and Partygaming all publish their accounts, including their cash position
So anyway, yes I agree with you, concentrating on other geographical areas and reducing exposure to US casinos is a sensible way forward.
I guess that ideally, you would want to promote at least three geographical regions and know you would be able to survive if two of them went down. Seems to me that reducing risk is just as important as maximizing profits at this point in time
