- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
gamblingguide wrote:..
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.This is a big advantage for referback, and I think they could save more money this way than they will make from not paying one-off deposit commission.
I am pretty cynical about the whole requirement to send 1 new active player per month, to get over 20%.
It is looking more and more like a way to constantly worsen affiliate terms from now on, while blackmailing affiliates to keep sending traffic.Perhaps the prudent thing to do is to take the 25% deal for existing players, and switch to other casinos that honour their contracts and offer straightforward lifetime deals.
Webzcas wrote:The whole affiliate community is up in arms over these damaging terms that you have introduced.NOT :flamer:
I know dozens that have already removed referback casinos and placed blacklist warning players not to play at these casinos! I for one make five figures at RB. Am I up in arms? HELL No! They are trying to screw me and now they shall receive the same! I will send my players to a reputable casino!
Live by the golden rule treat others as you would want to be treated also an eye for an eye.
How much longer are you people going to stick this out / continue to send them players?
You mistake me. I have removed referback casinos from my sites and am in the process of updating every page so as I do not miss a single banner.
I’m just in shock. I have held off putting up my blacklist because I don’t want to have to add to it the names of properties where I’m making some really good money but as I wrote to Wayne they’re really leaving me no choice; or that of anybody else.
Even if you choose to not run a blacklist; if you still go ahead and promote these properties you are then as much as associating your website with what will become (and likely very soon) casinos which will literally be seen in warnings at websites all across the gambling internet, and if you think that isn’t going to have implications on your website’s ability to convert players then I have news for you.
if the casinos are owned by separate entities; as some have said; are the individual owners of each respective casino aware that in just a very short time the internet is going to be saturated with warnings to stay away from their casinos?
I cannot hardly believe if there are separate owners, that all of them have decided to see the good name they’ve worked for literally years to accumulate; shot down in a matter of weeks by an overwhelming campaign of warnings.
Its not too late RB. But time is growing extremely short. Please do the right thing. Don’t end up joining the ranks of fortune and vegas partners.
after some consideration I’ve decided that Dom is right. that as long as they’ve taken out the retroactive thing; that they’ve really done nothing illegal, but that at the same time they are under the new terms no longer a profitable group of casinos to promote.
so as it stands now, to avoid being associated with casinos that probably are going to be on a lot of blacklists; and because they are no longer an affiliate program which is going to prove profitable for the reasons of the new terms, and because they’re going to lose so much in reputation and I don’t want to be dragged down with them,
I’m going to remove their links but as long as they don’t do any retroactive changes past the one we let them get away with; then I will not add them to the blacklist.
I will however be putting them into a section that says a warning to players that if they stop playing at these casinos for any period longer than 6 months, then their accounts will be erased from being under me, and therefore I have no further incentive to guarantee they’ll get paid from these casinos.
In other words, as I always try to do; I’ll call ’em as I see ’em. Be totally honest with the surfers and let them decide.
I’m holding off on that section a few more days however in hopes that RB will come to its senses and make the few little tweaks in these new terms that would prove they are serious about being a good partner.
why is it so hard to give in on these as you put it: matters which will not effect affs for the most part anyway?
there is nothing more frustrating than seeing another party sink your ship (and of course: their ship as well) and not being able to do anything to stop it … when its so damn unnecessary!
I am with you, BB1. I would like to see them change. I gave Fortune, Vegas Partners and Partnerlogic 6 weeks or so before I blacklisted them. Maybe that was too long since now they are being forgotten because of the Referback mess.
I don’t know whose hairbrained idea these 6 months and 2 deposit rules were, they surely could not have thought that affiliates would go along with it.
I am still chewing on the two deposits – the fact that players can be xmarketed and lead through all the referback properties before they make the second deposit anyplace boggles the mind.
If Referback is so big on choices – give a choice. Let people choose if they want to pay their share of bonuses or if they want to forfeit the first deposit. I don’t like paying for bonuses either because it is just funny money that gets lost anyway – the people who cash them out must be both great players and super lucky with today’s wagering requirements. But – taking away our first payment because you hand out too much funny money – that is totally nuts.
Then the 20% thing kicks in because you can send a dozen players and none count.Add in that players are removed from our accounts and the site still says “lifetime” all over – really!!! What are you thinking?
So I have blacklisted Fortune, Vegas Partner and Partnerlogic because they remain in breach of contract for some 6 weeks now, which permanently damages the industry.
But I somehow think that RB will see the light before I have to go to that extreme. If not, then they really just don’t want affiliates.
All of these programs are being removed from my site bit by bit. I hope to make good progress with that on the weekend. Once removed, I doubt I will work for them for a percentage ever again. Prepaid flat fees from thereon out for these folks – I’m not taking any chances.
Last chance, guys. Want traffic? Be reasonable.
Would you guys PLEASE stop saying that nothing is wrong?
When they REMOVE the “one player per month” clause that they introduced some months ago then I won’t argue – but for you to blatantly say that everything thing is OKAY is just NOT ON.
Perhaps a few of you missed this?
Spearmaster wrote:Lest I need remind anyone yet again:Referback implemented a “one player per month” clause some months ago which is STILL RETROACTIVE and STILL IN BREACH – so please stop saying that they are not doing anything illegal. They have been operating in breach for MANY months now.Also, you should all know that the T&Cs STILL read as follows:
2. Commission: Choice, Selection and Calculation
2.1. Upon appointment as an Affiliate of the Affiliate Program, such Affiliate shall be required to select one of the Casino Commission Models and the Classic Poker Commission Model.
2.2. If an Affiliate is an existing Affiliate of the Affiliate Program on 1 August 2005, he/ she shall have until and including 30 October 2005 to notify Referback of his/ her selection of the Casino Commission Model and the Classic Poker Commission Model.
2.3. Should no selection be made by a new or existing Affiliate, such Affiliate shall be deemed to have selected the Classic Casino Commission Model and the Classic Poker Commission Model.
2.4. If an existing Affiliate chooses a Casino Commission Model other than the Classic Casino Commission Model, he/ she shall earn a Commission of 20% of the Casino Net Win (defined below) generated by the Merchant from Customers acquired by such Affiliate prior to 1 August 2005 notwithstanding that prior to such time his/ her Commission derived from such Customers may have been more than 20%.
2.5. Once an Affiliate makes his/ her selection of a Casino Commission Model and the Poker Commission Model, he/ she shall not be entitled to change such selection for a period of 12 months from the date such selection was made by the Affiliate and confirmed by Referback.
HELLO?!
Could Section 2.4 be a more OBVIOUS breach of contract??
Things are NOT OKAY AT ALL. Referback remains in breach, and NO attempt has been made to address these retroactive issues.
he/ she shall earn a Commission of 20% of the Casino Net Win (defined below) generated by the Merchant from Customers acquired by such Affiliate prior to 1 August 2005 notwithstanding that prior to such time his/ her Commission derived from such Customers may have been more than 20%.
This is NOT ACCEPTABLE. This is a BREACH OF CONTRACT! Players delivered prior to August 1 MUST be tracked under the old T&Cs. I will not allow you to steal from me. Period. We had a deal — a contract — you ARE NOT entitled to lower my commissions simply because you feel like. END OF STORY. This will not happen. Also, I WILL NOT be forced into the new “Classic” model as it stands.
I suggest you rectify this immediately. If you do not, I will contact Microgaming, Kahnawake, and whoever else I need to, to get this resolved.
Your recent behavior has been obscenely unprofessional, unethical, and downright shocking. I am astonished by your nonchalant attitude about this whole situation. Your lack of input here is disrespectful and insulting.
Please respond soon.
ya, they’re definitely going to have to change the first deposit thing for me to even consider anything further. Also the 6 month rule.
and for the record. I do not think its okay that they retroactively did the 20% thing.
I was apalled and for a long time I sent them no traffic. And as I mentioned I didn’t start sending again for almost a year thru which time they made me good money which proved something to me.
so they know I’m not kidding. I pull casinos all the time for much less: like for poor performance, because to me its always the bottom line.
RB had a good bottom line. but a person can only take so much…
The new T&Cs are a choice. one I will have little choice but to pass on for financial reasons as well as when you add into the mix the fact that they can’t be counted on to keep their word in a contract. – that eludes to the 20% thing.
I keep trying to find an angle where somebody is going to benefit from this just to have understanding – even if its knowing that it was done because someone is evil and greedy. But the truth of the matter is that even when you look at it from that point of view; there is not going to be benefit because of all the lost revenue due to players both leaving the casinos due to the warnings they will see; and due to the lost revenue because there won’t be any new players coming in.
It just boggles my mind.
I know one thing though; whatever accountant it was that did the number crunching on this one; the one that didn’t figure in the “x factor” … that being the huge impact that affs will have on reaching players with their disatisfaction over this mess… will be losing employment sometime in the near future.
man I can’t believe this.
bb1webs wrote:The new T&Cs are a choice.Not according to the way they are written at this time. If you don’t choose one of the new models by October 30, this is what happens:2.3. Should no selection be made by a new or existing Affiliate, such Affiliate shall be deemed to have selected the Classic Casino Commission Model and the Classic Poker Commission Model.
2.4. If an existing Affiliate chooses a Casino Commission Model other than the Classic Casino Commission Model, he/ she shall earn a Commission of 20% of the Casino Net Win (defined below) generated by the Merchant from Customers acquired by such Affiliate prior to 1 August 2005 notwithstanding that prior to such time his/ her Commission derived from such Customers may have been more than 20%.
You will earn 20% on your past referrals (instead of the former % that you agreed to), regardless of what you do after August 1. So even if you refer 100 players a month; even if they all make at least 2 deposits; even if you choose one of the non-Classic models — doesn’t matter — your previous referral commissions are reduced to 20%.
This is retroactive and not acceptable. I will not choose the Classic model, nor will I be forced into this model by selecting none of the other options.
Referback, please respond.
Also, everyone please note that there are two different Referback threads here — please find both of them and read them carefully.
Quote:You will earn 20% on your past referrals (instead of the former % that you agreed to), regardless of what you do after August 1. So even if you refer 100 players a month; even if they all make at least 2 deposits; even if you choose one of the non-Classic models — doesn’t matter — your previous referral commissions are reduced to 20%.This is retroactive and not acceptable.
Thats correct Dave
Dominique wrote:Add in that players are removed from our accounts and the site still says “lifetime” all over – really!!!Dishonesty (breaking previously made deals) obviously does not bother them.
If we can use the past as an indicator, they’ll just change them again whenever and however they feel like it. They’re probably thrilled that anyone is even still taking what they say seriously. Pretty sick, huh?
