- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hello ALL
I have spoken to a number of affiliates and listened to the concerns regarding all the points raised since 01 August. I can see how some of the changes can have been misunderstood or interpreted in a negative way ONLY. I also realize that perhaps some of our terminology and terms may need to be modified in order to ensure clarity moving forward.
That said I would like to clarify some of the issues, misconceptions and suggest some way forward on points of contention.
1. The term “Players lapsed after 6 month” is viewed as predatory.
This can also be interpreted in a highly positive way for all affiliates. I say this because, once players have been marked as “lapsed” and removed off the ReferBack database it means that these players can be “re-acquired” by ANY affiliate. So please understand that there is a glass half full view to this too.We need to AFFIRM the way forward by polling ALL our Affiliates on which is the preferred way:
a) Leave rule as it stands, effective as from 1 August 2005 allowing all affiliates to benefit from the lapsed player opportunity on any of the Referback commission options.
b) For all players acquired affiliates earn revenue on the lifetime of that customer.
We need to ascertain which option would be preferred by the majority of our affiliates. We intend doing this poll via our website AND via this forum next week.
2. The term “A player is accounted only on 2nd successful purchase” is viewed as predatory.
This rule has a two-fold reason for existence:
a) To ensure that the CPA is paid only on legitimate traffic from affiliates and not traffic that is simply designed to gain the affiliate CPA revenue with no value to the casino. This would be highly damaging to Referback’s client’s and is not be a viable business model.
b) An attempt to reduce the risk of abuse to ReferBack by Affiliates sending poor or fraudulent traffic to our merchant sites. That said, in a revenue share scenario that risk is lower and some affiliates may lose small levels of income as a result of not being attributed commission from the 1st successful purchase.
NOTE! We have worked on a scenario that pays out from 1st successful purchase for revenue share deals ONLY. I will clarify this on Tuesday.
3. The term “Customers must be new to the Belle Rock Gaming group of casinos” is NOT seen as predatory.
We are asking affiliates to undergo a paradigm shift with us. We are saying that we need affiliates to find us new customers.
Belle Rock Gaming has a proven cross sell marketing team that can convert customers across the various brands. This means we only give benefit to Affiliates for new customers they bring us. That said, please NOTE, if you bring in a new customer and have chosen a commission based model, you enjoy the revenue off that customer regardless of which brand they play at. They are YOURS across all of Belle Rock Gaming.
I hope Affiliates see this as good news and that we have listened and acted on your feedback. I am sure there may still be many questions and concerns which will will clarify during the course of next week.
Best Regards
Zane Green
General Manager: ReferBackZaneReferback wrote:Hello ALL
1. The term “Players lapsed after 6 month” is viewed as predatory.
This can also be interpreted in a highly positive way for all affiliates. I say this because, once players have been marked as “lapsed” and removed off the ReferBack database it means that these players can be “re-acquired” by ANY affiliate. So please understand that there is a glass half full view to this too.Most players that leave for 6 months probably will not come back.. However high rollers do take those type of breaks.. So basically you are saying give up lifetime of a high roller player
To ensure that the CPA is paid only on legitimate traffic from affiliates and not traffic that is simply designed to gain the affiliate CPA revenue with no value to the casino. This would be highly damaging to Referback’s client’s and is not be a viable business model.
It was your idea to do CPA deals, now you are saying you can’t trust CPA deals..
An attempt to reduce the risk of abuse to ReferBack by Affiliates sending poor or fraudulent traffic to our merchant sites. That said, in a revenue share scenario that risk is lower and some affiliates may lose small levels of income as a result of not being attributed commission from the 1st successful purchase.
My concern is, how can we trust a program that obviously can change players from the backend not to map to us… I assume the player will never map to us, until you feel like it.
1 – B. Lifetime, as promised in the past.
2. No comment as it does not impact my past acquisitions.
3. No comment as it does not impact my past acquisitions.
You forgot one MAJOR point from the LAST stunt you tried to pull – requiring a minimum delivery of 1 customer per month or else percentage reverts back to 20%. This DIRECTLY breaches the contract I have with you to pay me 25% over the LIFETIME of the player.
Please address this point.
You are absolute right Spearmaster
I want my 25% and my players for LIFETIME, as promised in the past. :madat:
Dont be so greedy referback!!
What wil be next 5% for 1 month?
b) For all players acquired affiliates earn revenue on the lifetime of that customer.
Revenue share must be paid on first deposits period.
You forgot one MAJOR point from the LAST stunt you tried to pull – requiring a minimum delivery of 1 customer per month or else percentage reverts back to 20%. This DIRECTLY breaches the contract I have with you to pay me 25% over the LIFETIME of the player.
I agree with Spearmaster 100%
First of all I´d liked to write a lot ref. to your statements but in my opinion it´s wasted time. I think I use this time to delete all RB links on my domains:
I cannot agree with 20 %, I cannot agree to loose my players after 6 months, I cannot agree to be not paid for the first deposit and I do not agree with you new terms and conditions, as these are not the conditions, I signed up before.
In my opinion meet with the Casino Reward team and take some consultations to see what are well conditions for each party.
Now see me as “lapsed” affiliate – if I like to “re-acquire” customers I sign up with some adult programs.
Best regards and many success for the future for RB! I´m sure, you make your way!
Hi all,
well the way I understand it; is that Zane is asking us what we want?
Is that not correct?
ifso; then that is fine. I can go thru the process of voting if RB really thinks it is necessary. personally I have yet to talk to any affiliate, big, small, current or otherwise; who is happy with any of the new terms.
in fact; I think I am probably the most pro-RB person left around, and I damn sure cannot work with some of the new terms.
With that in mind please tread carefully as I think intelligence has been insulted enough if there is to be any kind of relationship to save.
be “re-acquired” by ANY affiliate. So please understand that there is a glass half full view to this too.
a long time ago when I signed up at RB, I thought that the fact that once we signed a player at one casino; we had them at all casinos … was a bad thing because I was new and it didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that under those terms; it would mean a lot of people I sent to RB would have no chance at ever being mine.
I accepted that with the knowledge in mind that someday…. someday I would be that older affiliate who’s players couldn’t be taken away from me.
And now this?
see it from our side Zane. that is a real slap in the face.
dance with the one who brung ya. And same goes for stay with the same terms you started with.
thanks for listening
S.
1. Agreed revenue share for the Lifetime of the player as promised/contracted.
2. No 6 months or 6 years, honor your contract.
3. No 20% if no new players, honor your contract.
If you want to change things going forward that is your choice and I have no issues but my mantra is “honor your contract”.
Brian
At least you have a polite mantra, Brian
I typically skip the formalities… LOL… it’s not like we’re dancing together for the first time, for crying out loud… :fencing: … if you can call this dancing…
Ok, maybe I’m seeing boogie men in the closet, but Zane please answer me this. How is the ‘lapsed’ customer put back into the pool? He still has his account number. He knows he is allowed one account per casino. He pulls up the software and enters the account number he still has OR he contacts RB and retrieves his account number. Does his original account ID still work? If he logs in with the original account number and makes a deposit, who gets the credit for that deposit? Now, affiliates will make this new rule known to players so that they can retrieve these poor misguided players and place them in their pool, so knowledge of this rule will be wide spread. If they are fished by a new affiliate, then they have to meet the 2 deposit rule again? and drop again? and be retrieved by another affiliate again? And y’all are going to track all this action accurately? I can see all kinds of major abuse related to this type of action on both sides. Why would you bring this on yourselves and your affiliates? This is piracy in high gear. Record keeping wise, it does not make any sense UNLESS only the first part of the lapsed customer were actually being carried out. The part where you get the player after 6 months of inactivity. The rest would be too much to track and I’m not sure you would even make the attempt.
Please clarify this.
Sue
1. The term “Players lapsed after 6 month” is viewed as predatory.
This can also be interpreted in a highly positive way for all affiliates. I say this because, once players have been marked as “lapsed” and removed off the ReferBack database it means that these players can be “re-acquired” by ANY affiliate. So please understand that there is a glass half full view to this too.We need to AFFIRM the way forward by polling ALL our Affiliates on which is the preferred way:
a) Leave rule as it stands, effective as from 1 August 2005 allowing all affiliates to benefit from the lapsed player opportunity on any of the Referback commission options.
b) For all players acquired affiliates earn revenue on the lifetime of that customer.[/quote]Lifetime, lifetime, lifetime. I should never have to re-acquire players. Nor would I feel comfortable “stealing” someone elses players. I choose option “B” without hesitation.
Quote:We need to ascertain which option would be preferred by the majority of our affiliates. We intend doing this poll via our website AND via this forum next week.I’m looking forward to heading to the the polls next week. However, I do hope your polling software works better than your stats software. :p
Quote:2. The term “A player is accounted only on 2nd successful purchase” is viewed as predatory.This rule has a two-fold reason for existence:
a) To ensure that the CPA is paid only on legitimate traffic from affiliates and not traffic that is simply designed to gain the affiliate CPA revenue with no value to the casino. This would be highly damaging to Referback’s client’s and is not be a viable business model.
b) An attempt to reduce the risk of abuse to ReferBack by Affiliates sending poor or fraudulent traffic to our merchant sites. That said, in a revenue share scenario that risk is lower and some affiliates may lose small levels of income as a result of not being attributed commission from the 1st successful purchase.
NOTE! We have worked on a scenario that pays out from 1st successful purchase for revenue share deals ONLY. I will clarify this on Tuesday.
Looking forward to the clarification. Even without seeing it, though, I can say that I will never promote a group where there is a 2nd deposit requirement on the revenue share option. There are many great Microgaming affiliate programs that don’t have such a clause, so the decision to promote the other group (and not RB) would be a simple one.
3. The term “Customers must be new to the Belle Rock Gaming group of casinos” is NOT seen as predatory.
We are asking affiliates to undergo a paradigm shift with us. We are saying that we need affiliates to find us new customers.
Belle Rock Gaming has a proven cross sell marketing team that can convert customers across the various brands. This means we only give benefit to Affiliates for new customers they bring us. That said, please NOTE, if you bring in a new customer and have chosen a commission based model, you enjoy the revenue off that customer regardless of which brand they play at. They are YOURS across all of Belle Rock Gaming.
I think this is fair, if it applies from a certain date forward (it cannot be retroactive).
Quote:I hope Affiliates see this as good news and that we have listened and acted on your feedback. I am sure there may still be many questions and concerns which will will clarify during the course of next week.It is good to know that our feedback isn’t falling on deaf ears. Thank you for addressing these important issues. Please also don’t forget to address the point raised by Spearmaster:
You forgot one MAJOR point from the LAST stunt you tried to pull – requiring a minimum delivery of 1 customer per month or else percentage reverts back to 20%. This DIRECTLY breaches the contract I have with you to pay me 25% over the LIFETIME of the player.
Yes, this retroactive clause must be addressed. If an affiliate signed up under the old T&Cs, you are obligated to pay his commissions based on the old terms. If this affiliate doesn’t send you 1 new player each month, Referback cannot reduce his commissions to 20% (for those players that were referred under the old terms). Why? Because the “Refer 1 player per month or we’ll lower your commissions” clause was not present when the affiliate signed up with your program, under the old T&Cs.
All players referred in the past must be tracked under the old T&Cs. If they continue to deposit for years and years, the original referrer must continue to be paid at least 25%, even if he no longer sends new players to your casinos. Lifetime means lifetime — that was the deal under the old T&Cs. Past deals cannot simply be ripped up because you feel like. This is a major sticking point, and this issue absolutely must be addressed and resolved.
Sue is absolutly right, from a tech point this is just total BS. What RB is doing is after 6 months of no activity they are moving the player account from the Aff’s account into a house account.
In todays world if a player joins another casino or opens a new account that goes to the new aff that caused this to take place and that is fair so RB is not giving anything back to the pool they are just taking from the Aff and putting it into their account.
Lets list the FACTS so we can see what is taking place:
1. RB changes the original contract to take back inactive players.
2. RB reduces payouts percentage to 20%.
3. RB does not pay out on first deposit thereby stealling from AFF.
4. RB increases it’s direct marketing campaign by sendining out their own magazines thereby sidestepping any aff payments.
5. RB has presence at SEO show during all this upheaval further showing their desire to be their own marketing company rather than using the AFFs that got them here.
6. RB increases direct mail campaign to players to get them under a house account now that the 6 month rule is in place.Add it up and RB wants to side step the affs and run their own marketing department. Take down your banners folks, and let’s see how well they do on our side of the fence.
Sorry but this just pisses me off, although I like that Zane used the phrase “paradigm shift” I don’t know if that has ever been used on this board.
Brian
islandmaan wrote:1. Agreed revenue share for the Lifetime of the player as promised/contracted.2. No 6 months or 6 years, honor your contract.
3. No 20% if no new players, honor your contract.
If you want to change things going forward that is your choice and I have no issues but my mantra is “honor your contract”.
Brian
I second that. That’s it in a nutshell.
1. b.- Lifetime of players! I also agree “honor your contract”
I don’t see any benefit for an affiliate when you remove a player after
6 months of inactivity. We spend money to bring in players to your
casinos, and therefore we should have those players for life. The 1st
deposit should be given to affiliates through a revenue share, since
it has been that way for years. Also, you need to remove that 20%
commission level, and go back to what we all had agreed to when
we started with the program. If these changes can’t be made, I
don’t see why affiliates would continue to promote your program.
