- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
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…
Like lifetime. I am going with life time. If Referback isn’t there, they are an inferior choice and since I don’t think loyalty matters in this environment of broken promises, I am going with the best offer.
From Fortune’s, Vegas Partner’s and Partnerlogic’s shenanigans I am so disillusioned, I am casting all loyalties aside in this business.
From now on I am going with the best offers.
bb1webs I have a lot of respect for you and I can understand your position of wanting to negotiate better terms. But I am viewing this differently than you are. Referback has clearly proven that they will do the maximum that they can to offer webmasters the least they can. We are not partners, we are instead parasites that they give a little bit if we bitch enough. Why should we partner with this program when they have proven this time after time? Even if they agree to your terms, they will still do everything in thier power to offer us the minimum that they possibily can.
When you compare this to other programs which are willing to make us happy and offer us fair terms and conditions from the start then it makes no sense trying to work with this program.
Microgaming casinos are a dime a dozen, there is nothing special with referback, they are of my opinion not worth the hassle.
Quote:The 6 month clause does not apply to players that were refereed prior to the 1st of August 2005. We have updated the terms and conditions to include this date.This solves the retroactive problem of this clause but leaves me with questions. If you are willing to go to the trouble of tracking lapsed players from before August 1st and after separately then there must be some benefit to you, and therefore a penalty to the affiliates.
Stop trying to spin this clause, there is obviously profit to be made from these lapsed players and now it will go 100% to you.
Quote:What is a qualified player in your opinion? A player that makes (a) large purchase or one that makes multiple purchases over monthsThese two examples are not mutually exclusive. A player is someone who deposits and plays – you can twist this around all you like but the simple fact is that if someone deposits and plays then they are a player.
Whether the first deposit is incentivized or not is irrelevant. Clearly the overall net effect of your bonuses makes a profit, otherwise you wouldn’t offer them, so we’ll be happy to take players from their first deposit thank you.
It may be that we’re shooting ourselves in the foot on this one but even if you believe the new clause is better for us then it’s still a bad clause if we don’t believe this also.
Requiring one new player a month to avoid being penalized is clearly a retroactive clause in the classic program and there’s little to argue with on this one – change it back.
This is a trust issue. If referback, VPL, FA or any other program make these retroactive changes without consultation or consideration with regards to what we actually signed up agreeing to – then as far as I am concerned, they can do the same 6 months down the line again.
Not only do Referback need to remove all changes they have made before I will promote their portfolio of casinos in the future, they also have to repair the trust in the relationship, of which they broke.
By this afternoon, there will be no referback casino having any exposure on my site.
Hi again,
well Ant, just like RB, I don’t have a solid leg to stand on; I guess the only difference is that you called me on it and I admit it; instead of trying to spin it off.
I made this statement in a different thread (i think) which I give in explanation now. I see redemptive qualities in RB that have been proven to me. there was a long stretch where I stopped sending them traffic (for the most part; some links are always missed it seems like… ) but anyway in that time I saw my income at RB skyrocket to levels that i’d either never seen from them, or seldom seen. And this went on for an extended period of months all of which during that time I did not ever increase their exposure (cause the thought crossed my mind that they were trying to buy their way back into good graces and I was determined not to fall for that)… but still month after month I made good money.
that really means something to me since I’ve been around long enough to have seen programs that should have kept making me money for a long period of time …. fall off almost as quickly as when I pulled their links for poor performance.
so after experiencing some of that; I am very impressed when it doesn’t happen and the longer that I see income under those circumstances; the more I am impressed of course.
Now I can’t say how anybody else is going to get treated. But for me; RB has proven that they will be an honorable company that although I am first to admit I think they at times are at the least making some very bad decisions; because of the afore mentioned fact I think that they aren’t evil; but rather just a little bit inexperienced with dealing with people; I suspect that I’m probably dealing with people even younger than I: and if that’s the case I can easily see how they get to thinking up ways to increase their bottom line and then they start justifying …. and you get this kind of thing happening.
And I think they just need to be reminded, perhaps even pushed on occasion, to do the right thing and stop thinking so hard with their wallets.
Now this is just for me, and I’m not making any claims of anything towards anybody else – but for me … with the situation as it was … they proved to me that they weren’t going to have my income suddenly disappear just because I stopped sending traffic. during those months I found it more … much more lucrative to give one of my surfers a $100 bucks to go join at an RB property in order to preserve the 25% and avoid the 5% penalty, but other than that they saw almost no traffic and of course, there weren’t too many months where I landed anything more than the one player I gave money to go join. It was pretty obvious, yet they still kept paying. I just can’t say enough about that and I’m sure the old vets here can appreciate what I’m saying.
Windows casino is the only other program that i ever had keep making me very good money long after I’d stopped sending traffic.
you can check my history and you’ll see that i’ve not ever been a huge fan of RB. i’ve taken their links down or all but down off my sites at least twice; once due to poor performance and then about the time they started pulling out of that … and I’d increased their exposure once again;.. .. they came out with the 5% penalty thing and that was when I cut their exposure way way back once again.
so for myself; I see a company that although I fully admit does some really bad business decisions once in while … still is a company that I now know I can count on to be making me good income for a year or better after I’ve stopped sending traffic.
I’ve always said that if I could get a true, honest 20% then I’d be happy; so when they came out with that clause I looked at things as that I was getting what I’d asked for – a company that was at least going to be honest with me about what I had coming …. even though it meant I was cut back to 20%.
you guys all know how it works. 50% of nothing is nothing. so to what good is it to be affiliated with some company that may promise the moon, but then when it comes time the bottom line always is a disappointment. I don’t want to find that out when I’ve quit because then its too late.
With RB, I figure that at worst they might chisel down my % of earnings, but at least I know they’ll still be paying me something a year from now where as opposed to other programs which I DON”T KNOW how they’re going to do me when/if the time comes that i stop sending traffic.
so I hope that explains why I’m trying so hard to get RB to come around on this stuff; its because I have faith that they are just a little young and therefore perhaps being a little greedy but in the end I also know they are not going to just shut down what I have earned because I stopped sending traffic.
I hope that explains my POV.
…. and thanks for the kind words Ant. you know I have nothing but the utmost respect for you as I do for all the members here.
I also agree with croupier 200% and then some.
I agree with mostly everything that was said here.
Referback, if you could extend the 6 months to 3 years that would be something I could live with.
And some kind of limit, if a player deposit more than X, we do get paid for the 1st deposit or something similar.
That being said under the current rules, how does this work anyway:
I’m on the Classic Commission model, now if I send only 1 new player in any given month and this player only makes 1 deposit, besides you not paying me for this particular player, do you lift me out of the 20% bracket for commission on existing players? Or do I in fact remain at 20% because this player doesn’t count yet?
Or in other words, do I need to send at least 1 new player who makes at least TWO deposits from now on?
That seems to be a very likely scenario and it is very important for me to have this question addressed.Quote:I in fact remain at 20% because this player doesn’t count yet?Thats exactly what it means GG the way the current terms and conditions are written.
I am sure that was one of the selling points pitched to the client casinos before enacting this horrible clause. 😡 😡
Wayne your relative silence since yesterday coupled with the Assinine email sent out by Judith leads me to believe Referback is NOT going to work with us on these issues and are instead more interested in doing damage control on the public relations front while maintaining these new PREDATORY terms and conditions.
Is this what’s happening or are you working on correcting these errors?
Hi there
I’d like to clarify the misunderstanding with regard to the definition of a new Active Casino Customer i.e. the “1st Purchase” issue.
The customer will be linked to you once he/she has made a second purchase at the casino. Once this has happened, you will own the customer. And all revenue from all of that customer’s accounts within the Belle Rock Gaming Group will be linked to you. Therefore, you will receive commission from all the casinos within the Belle Rock Group at which that customer purchases and plays at from the day he/she opened the account including the 1st purchase.
I hope this helps to clarify this particular issue.
Thank you for all of your feedback to-date, we do recognize that this is a trying time for everyone concerned.Best Wishes
Nicolette Tsombanellis
On behalf of ReferBackYes Croup, I agree.
Now we are all in business, and no one is going to believe for a minute that Referback would take all this abuse in order to introduce clauses that were beneficial to affiliates and bad for RB.
I am satisfied on the legal point – the other change – it’s our fault we let it slide at the time. We should always speak up immediately when someone does illegal things to our contracts. We blew this one.
But I want my share of every deposit made, and I want life time players.
I personally have no beef with RB anymore, it’s just that they have become on of the worst deals around so are not promoteable to me anymore.
The thing I liked best was the players that would come back for years or after years. To have a player show back op after years of absence – it gives a feeling of security and continuity that is hard to find in this industry. It was one of RB’s strengths as far as I was concerned. The rock of Gibraltar, the program where you could send your player and they would be safely kept like stocks in a safe deposit box. When the stock made profit, it was always safe there.
No more. Now my players will be stolen out of my account. The safe deposit box is busted.
Granted, there are some programs who have been doing this secretly all along, and I have to give Referback credit for forthrighness on this count. But when you remove what sets you apart from others, you lose the advantage.
Quote:The customer will be linked to you once he/she has made a second purchase at the casinoThere’s your answer Gambling Guide as suspected 😡
Nicolette was posting at the same time I made my last post, so I withdraw the statement about silence. I reiterate the core question though, ARE YOU GOING TO WORK WITH US ON CORRECTING THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS?
Or are you going to continue to insist we dont UNDERSTAND whats going on?
We are not children or morons we know perfectly well whats going on and WE DONT ACCEPT IT AND ARE ASKING YOU TO CHANGE IT!!!
I am sorry if YOU at Referback dont UNDERSTAND That!
😡 😡 😡
Wayne wrote:Thank you for all of your feedback to-date, we do recognize that this is a trying time for everyone concerned.Best Wishes
Nicolette Tsombanellis
On behalf of ReferBackWell from what I have seen it is a trying time for Referback and not the other way around. The whole affiliate community is up in arms over these damaging terms that you have introduced. Referback as it stands is not profitable to promote period.
croupier wrote:Stop trying to spin this clause, there is obviously profit to be made from these lapsed players and now it will go 100% to you.Yep. I imagine they know exactly what the number is too. Instead of speaking in generalities… if it’s such a small number, what’s the number? Last 3 years? 5 Years?
I have an account at River Belle that I haven’t played in 3 years. Can I log in and play tomorrow?
Rhetorical questions, I’m sure.
Webzcas wrote:The whole affiliate community is up in arms over these damaging terms that you have introduced.Anyone dealing with affiliate management is getting thrown under the bus too. It won’t be long before there are very few affiliates to manage. I suspect we’ll still mention your properties on our sites, but they will be warnings of broken promises, not endorsements.
