- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:I use the word additions as there are no retroactive changes to the revised terms and conditions.
This is incorrect. Referback MUST still address the term requiring delivery of at least one new player a month to maintain the currently agreed percentage, instead of dropping to 20%. This term was introduced months ago and has NOT YET BEEN REMOVED or modified.
That is VERY retroactive – so you better VERY hurry and VERY fix that!
Wayne wrote:The 6 month clause does not apply to players that were refered prior to the 1st of August 2005. We have updated the terms and contions to include this date.That is good. Now you are legal and I will lay off.
I still will pull you because of the active and lapsed player clauses – they make Referback unprofitable for me. I have to go with the best deals.
But at least you didn’t break any promises this way.
Hi Wayne,
I have already removed the referback casinos and poker from my sites.
If we get this sorted – I will replace them.that said.
There are too many uses of words like “rarely”, “assuming”, “probably” etc to make this an ideal and positive situation. Those words are used in any situation in life when exceptions can occur. Knowing this, it is often the exceptions that earn us a bit of extra $$ in this industry and to take away that possibility all together is simply not ideal.
Also, please do not take this the wrong way and I am in no way saying that you would do this, but that clause leaves a huge opening for abuse against us.
if you were so inclined, you could see a player come in and due to profiling, you see that he or she could turn out to be a big spender, all you would need to do is lure them away from the casino we sent them to before they make a second deposit and sign up through a different tag. Now, you could argue this:
The player only made one deposit with a bonus – so you get nothing for that.
The player signed up at a different casino using a different source, so it he or she does not belong to you.
the oppertunities here are limitless…Again.. not saying you would do this.. it is possible…
See, i have used one of those words again
All too wishy washy for me at this stage…
Wayne I think Dave’s suggestion of extending player “life” to 3 years to be a fair trade and would support this modification.
The other issue I want corrected is the loss of first depositing players. It’s not in anyones best interest for this new stipulation to exist and affiliates find it abhorent. I personally cant work with you guys under this exclusion. What can we do to remove this obstacle? Surely you cant believe its of such value to Referback that you are willing to lose a large percentage of your best affiliates over it?
Hi Wayne,
once again I’m impressed my friend. You’re the first aff manager since JJ at RB that I’ve ever seen face issues which obviously nobody would want to face in a timely fashion and all the while you’ve endured some rather nasty posts (though trust me – tame compared to what the source was likely wanting to say) …
and I – like I’m certain most here understand, know its not your decision, but you are rather the messenger.
So before we get into the meat and potatoes, know that your position is appreciated by the majority of us and that the venom that is spewing is not meant at you personally, a person whom I consider to be a pretty nice guy.
I’m putting aside the lapsed player stuff for now because I too; don’t have a clue as to what is meant by all that? and need it clarified further.
so putting off that for later; Now lets get dirty.
it seems to me that your explanation is a damn good one and I think that we are much closer to realizing an end result which all can live with.
at least to me anyway, I can now see where they were trying to go with this; rather than being left feeling this was some sort of ploy to just run off affs. I’m now certain that is no longer the case.
I think that to satisfy the majority of us, all you need to do is tweak a couple of things.
change the deal about first deposits so that if a first deposit is more than (you guys decide a fair amount and enter it here) then that is automatically considered as having been a second deposit as well, therefore you can still use the formula you mentioned on that deal.
How’s that tickle your petunia? I think it works great.
it completely does away with these very reasonable and well-thought out concerns
Also, please do not take this the wrong way and I am in no way saying that you would do this, but that clause leaves a huge opening for abuse against us.
if you were so inclined, you could see a player come in and due to profiling, you see that he or she could turn out to be a big spender, all you would need to do is lure them away from the casino we sent them to before they make a second deposit and sign up through a different tag. Now, you could argue this:
The player only made one deposit with a bonus – so you get nothing for that.
The player signed up at a different casino using a different source, so it he or she does not belong to you.
the oppertunities here are limitless…I know there’s more to address, but I see light at the end of the tunnel for the first time in days.
Please keep communications open and allow us to keep bouncing suggestions off you until we can arrive at a mutually agreeable future together.
Wayne I think Dave’s suggestion of extending player “life” to 3 years to be a fair trade and would support this modification.
This is not competative. Given the choice of “for life” and “for 3 years” I will choose life anytime.
And yes, I want to be paid for first deposits too.
I can get all that elsewhere.
I have already removed most all referback casinos from sites as well..
Simply put:
ReferBack: 20% to start, 25% if a new player is generated.
Others: 25%, 30% or 35% to start that can rise up to 50%ReferBack: No commission on first deposit, 20% or 25% on the rest
Others: Commission on all deposits, 25% or more on all of them.ReferBack: Removes players after 6 months of inactivity.
Others: Keeps all of the players in your account forever.I cannot promote this group of casinos anymore with these three
changes. Just yesterday, I had a new player at an online casino..
deposit $500 and take the new player bonus that was being offered.
If this was at one of your casinos and the player was to lose the
money and quit.. I would make absolutely nothing off of the player.The 6 month “no activity” clause doesn’t really make any sense. What
is the reasoning behind removing these players? Keeping a bunch of
players in a database can’t be taking up that much bandwidth. Why
would I want to chase down the same player multiple times, when
I only need to acquire them once at any of the other affiliate programs?It doesn’t matter how you spin these new terms, they are a step in the
wrong direction for affiliates. Like Peralis said, the rarities in this industry
are often those things that help affiliates pull through every single month.yall are much more patient than me
maybe im still new but I sure know when im taking it without a kiss 1st.
there are quite a few sites out there with basically the same product (backend), why spend effort on those that prefer to muck with something thats working…
From what Ive read this seems to be focused on casinos mostly, but im sure poker will be the next target of change.
:flush: :flush: :flush: :flush:
Sorry to beat this dead horse but it deserves it, this was not a well thought out or well implemented roll out at least from the aff’s point.
Lets keep in mind that an initial bonus is not necessarily a loss for the casino. I look at Riverbelles current Depostit $50 (or more) and get $300. Fine print states the following. Get $10 every day you sign in and play for the next 30 days (how LIKELY is that).
Slots, Videopoker and Blackjack allowed and you must wager 20x the bonus unless your from a specified handful of countries then it is 30x.
These conditions are in place to assist that the player still will loose there bonus plus your deposit. How LIKELY is that to happen. Well let me tell you all we do is have to look at our reporting from many aff programs were we can see the deposit, bonus and win/loss for a player and we can see in many instances the casino does win that entire deposit.
In addition we can see that the player is then pissed because he fell for this FREE BONUS only to be used in the end and that player goes away to another casino making only his initial deposit. Why would he make a second deposit when he fiqures he cannot win with and extra free $150!
Wayne I appreciate your responses here but there are holes and alot of suppositions that I think are way off the mark.
I was planning on adding more traffic prior to this incident instead I have taken down the majority of the banners promoting your sites as well until this gets resolved in an agreeable fashion.
Brian
Well, taking back the retro clause is certainly a start. However, the other isssues are still very valid. Particularly the first deposit one. I commend Wayne for coming in and explaining things in more detail and facing the fire, that does indicate that RB does care about it’s relations with affiliates…
That being said, I did in fact take down RB links days ago and still find that it should remain that way until, as others have said, the T&C’s have been ‘tweaked’ a bit more. I agree that the 3 year clause would be better and the 1st deposit thing should be removed…Needless to say I regretfully and painfully am taking down RB casinos one site at a time. RiverBelle and Jackpot City converted great for us on one site and Judith has been a great manager but I just cannot accept the first deposit = no money.
I will however put them back up if the last 2 Jenny mentioned are corrected and made what is right although at this point I do not trust them or their stats anymore. I dealt with the 20% thing because bringing in players to RB was not an issue. Man Belle Rock has really blown it this time. Hope you can fix it Wayne. I’m out for now.
With respect, instead of trying to spin how the changes are beneficial to affiliates, perhaps Referback could consider the unanimous opinion here, that this is not a good thing.
Most affiliates will happily accept a temporary $150 negative balance, instead of miss out on the occasional large initial deposit.
As mentioned, the bonus terms are so strict, that almost no bonus-hunter is going to emerge with a profit.It would be a real shame if this condition remained as it is.
Referback has been a great program until now.Wayne wrote:..
Here is my reasoning as to how this can be beneficial to affiliates. Players receive an incentive for their first purchase and most cases the free bonus exceeds the purchase as with the $50 for $200 promotion. As per the old definition the affiliate has a balance of -$150.00, and as per the new definition the balance is still $0. If the player leaves the casino you have lost nothing if the player purchases again the balance will show the first and second purchase less the bonus. Now the player has value, as he/she is able to make multiple purchases.
..Referback was the first program I joined.
Happy me thay never converted for me so I didn´t lose any time with them.Then I read so nice things about referback ( before the first big change) So I decided to give them room but they never made any big money for me.
BUT this is making me and many others to lose trust in this business. If you as a affiliate work very hard to bring someone traffic and they change T&A
without talking to you, that hurts.And or if you work hard and close to one affiliate manager and then he/she changes the deal and don´t mention it to you :lookaroun
What kind of business is this?
Everyones business MUST rely on each and another. A signed deal MUST be valid until other T&A has been negotiated with the involved partners.What is this. Do you not want to continue with your business? This looks like a huge experiment and it will fail.
edit: You will also hurt Microgaming as the leading online casino software developer, and my personal favorite until now (I have heard rumors that Microgaming owns Referback and Belle Rock Gaming, anyone knows if this is true?). This will only reward the Microgaming competitors. And I know where I will start looking..
I cannot promote this group of casinos anymore with these three
changes. Just yesterday, I had a new player at an online casino..
deposit $500 and take the new player bonus that was being offered.
If this was at one of your casinos and the player was to lose the
money and quit.. I would make absolutely nothing off of the player.The 6 month “no activity” clause doesn’t really make any sense. What
is the reasoning behind removing these players? Keeping a bunch of
players in a database can’t be taking up that much bandwidth. Why
would I want to chase down the same player multiple times, when
I only need to acquire them once at any of the other affiliate programs?it seems to me Wayne that you are really so close … and you said it yourself; most of these things happen rarely so why jepardize so much in the sake of so little?
I think my idea of having a set amount on the first deposit if big enough; then automatically qualifies that player as having made a second deposit has merit. It satisfies both our concerns about getting credit for money earned; as well as credit for having signed the big player without our having to worry that the big player only makes the one deposit and then wonders off only to show up later under somebody else’s tag – while still accomplishes what you’re saying is the goal. You simply make the cut-off line an amount that covers the concerns that brought about this change…
Yes we stand to lose out on the credit of signing some small player if that player only makes the one deposit; but hardly anything worth losing sleep over IMHO.
the 6 month thing … well if its true they aren’t likely coming back then I don’t see how it could be such a big issue with you guys that you aren’t willing to shell out the few extra bucks every month it would take to store this info.
and I think its already been pretty much agreed upon that we have no problem if you take that number up from 6 months to a more reasonable expectation…
