Fortune Affiliates Retroactive Terms

[caruso]

As an affiliate myself, it would be morally wrong for me to recommend a casino to players who I know cannot be trusted to hold an agreement.

I understood there to have a been maybe a retroactive application of a downgraded affiliate commission. Dominique's reply showed this to be not the case - all they've done is made it harder for you to make money, correct? This isn't a breach of agreement, just an unpleasant turn of events.

All this is a little hard on Fortune Lounge. When players suffer disadvanageous rule changes, as long as they're not applied retroactively, we just bite the bullet and move on. Why does the same not apply here? All it means is you'll be making less money.

[Simmo!]

I understood there to have a been maybe a retroactive application of a downgraded affiliate commission. Dominique's reply showed this to be not the case - all they've done is made it harder for you to make money, correct? This isn't a breach of agreement, just an unpleasant turn of events.

All this is a little hard on Fortune Lounge. When players suffer disadvanageous rule changes, as long as they're not applied retroactively, we just bite the bullet and move on. Why does the same not apply here? All it means is you'll be making less money.

No thats not quite right Caruso. They have basically said that a winner at one of their casinos will now have a negative impact across your players in the whole group. So if you are up at 6, and a big winner hits casino 7, you could get totally wiped out.

Now thats perfectly reasonable - if they want to do that its fine so long as an affiliate understands that, they know what they are getting into. However, they have stated this affects *all* players you sent since year dot, *previous* to the change. So effectively, you sent them players on certain terms, only to have them changed when its too late to do anything about it.

Its like, say a casino says "play out £1000, well give you £1,000" to a player. You sign up, play the money through, go to ask for the bonus then they say "oh no we changed our mind since then".

[dominique]

Its like, say a casino says "play out £1000, well give you £1,000" to a player. You sign up, play the money through, go to ask for the bonus then they say "oh no we changed our mind since then".

That is exactly what it is like.

Moreover, it is like you are hired by a company to help increase their customer base. When you were hired you signed a contract with the company. The company stated they would pay you such and such a percentage of the profits made from customers you bring in.

Now, you get no salary, no insurance, no retirement, nothing. You are responsible for building the store (site) on your time and with your resources. You are responsible for paying for advertising. You are responsible for looking out for the customers you do bring in because you never know when your employer may not fill his obligations. And you only get paid when this customer spends money at this place. It's a dream employee for any company!!! Completely free, the company only pays when they make a profit. There are literally thousands of websites out there that were built by affiliates who never saw one penny for their trouble. It take a lot of hard work and devotion, and you have to work 7 days a week for like 10 hours a day to even start making money. Most affiliates just build what amounts to free billboards for the casinos.

You spend years bringing in customers and now you have quite a few of them regularly patronizing this company. After years of working to establish enough accounts to be able to make money for your work (and you worked FOR FREE all that time, plus paid for advertising, just to achieve the number of customers needed to make money in the future).

Now the company decides you are becoming expensive, you actually have enough customers so they feel the payments to you.

What to do? Change the way you get paid. Make you gamble your entire income every month.

You have worked FOR FREE or peanuts for years to achieve the promised income, and now they bend you over and.........

[Casinomeister]

I can see where most everyone (the disgruntled) are coming from, but I am unsure whether or not the term "retroactive " (which fans the flames of hell) is applicable in this situation.

The change may really suck for some, but it just may well be just the way things go in business-land.

When aff programs change a policy overall, and apply it to all delivered players, I'm not sure if the term "retroactive" is really the term that should be used here.

"Retroactive" in my opinion is when let's say, I increase my rates for xyzcasino - beginning next month, and they also owe me the difference for the past six months they've been on board. That's retroactive. Anyone would go ballistic if I were to do this.

"Retroactive" is also when joe player signs up at xyzcasino on 1 June, and the terms state BJ is allowed for bonus play. He cashes out his winnings on the 30th (after playing BJ) and the casino says sorry, we changed our rules yesterday - no BJ - here's your deposit back. That's retroactive.

But here we may only be seeing a change of policy that covers all players that an affiliate delivers. Try to follow me here - don't let your eyeballs glaze over.

Let's say I'm xyzcasino affiliate manager, and I decide to raise the affiliate payout from 25% to 35% next month for ALL delivered players - to include any additional revenue generated from player accounts that have been delivered in the past. In a sense that is retroactive since it applies to earlier delivered players, but it's really only a change in policy.

This has been going on for years as affiliate programs have become quite competitive. When I first signed up at Intercasino seven years ago, I was given 10% - now it's 35% - and the 35% applies to the older accounts as well. When I entered into a contract with Intercasino/Partnerlogic years ago, we agreed on 10%. They've made changes over the years adjusting this and I never saw this as breaking a contract.

Now we have FA lumping all the signed up players into one big happy group. Well that may suck for some, but I'm not sure it's all that evil it's spelled out to be.

If there are certain casinos that are not producing revenue for an affiliate, the affiliate has a choice to discontinue promoting that casino. Simple as that. There is a trickle down effect here. The casinos that are not profitable begin to get dropped and the more profitable ones get more player action from happy affiliates.

Another thing, I don't see this as dissing anyone (affiliates and what-not). Dom seems to be under the impression that affiliates are the red-headed step-child of the industry - but I don't think they are. I think good affs are pursued and wined and dined more than in any other industry. Do you think Amazon.com invites their affs for Caribbean cruises?

And the last time I checked, amazon.com was still shelling out 5% revenue for a $10.99 book - whoopdee friggin' do!

Anyone who owns their own business is responsible for their own wellbeing - health insurance, vacation, overtime. That's life in a free market society. I wouldn't have it any other way.

But back to the issue at hand. Yeah, I can see where a lot of webmasters feel this sucks. But I don't see it as being a scandalous retroactive move.

Disclaimer - I'm not an affiliate of FA or VPL and they didn't pay me to say that

[dominique]

Retroactive = affecting players you brought in under different terms.

What is done now or in the future is irrelevant, I can just stop sending players.

But I can't take back the ones I sent that they now have and refuse to pay for as agreed.

[Simmo!]

But back to the issue at hand. Yeah, I can see where a lot of webmasters feel this sucks. But I don't see it as being a scandalous retroactive move.

I have to disgaree CM, but whether the term "retroactive" is relevant or not, the fact remains that they did one or all of the following:

a) Deceived affiliates
b) Acted unethically
c) Went back on an existing business arrangement
d) Lied

Question Meister: if one of your casinos promised you $x,000 for a banner on CM for 3 months, then said after the event they weren't going to pay that much after all, would you accept that no questions asked on the basis they throw a good party? (you dont have to answer that by the way, i know the answer )

Cheers,

Simmo!

But I can't take back the ones I sent that they now have and refuse to pay for as agreed.

Excellently put

[Casinomeister]

Ehh - I knew I'd get flack as soon as I opened my mouth

I have to disgaree CM, but whether the term "retroactive" is relevant or not,

Buuut, this is a term that has been used a lot when this comes up in discussion. I'm just not sure if it's an appropriate term since whenever there is a policy change - it usually covers all players regardless whether they were sent in yesterday or five years ago.

But again, perhaps we're getting caught up in semantics.

a) Deceived affiliates
b) Acted unethically
c) Went back on an existing business arrangement
d) Lied

Do you mean deceived as in you didn't know thay would make a policy change in the future or did they come up with a BS scheme later and tried to pitch it as something else? I'm still working with pretty much the info I have from Spear and you all. I've spoken with David S. and VPL as well.

Question Meister: if one of your casinos promised you $x,000 for a banner on CM for 3 months, then said after the event they weren't going to pay that much after all, would you accept that no questions asked on the basis they throw a good party? (you dont have to answer that by the way, i know the answer

That doesn't apply too well since most sponsors pay up front. If there was disatisfaction, we'd talk about it and work something out - so yeah there would be plenty of questions on what's up.

Let me be clear here, I'm not choosing sides - I'm trying to hash some of these things out to get a better understanding on what's going on. When I first heard "retroactive!" while I was at the GIGSE, I thought oh hell, wtf's going on, and then I forgot about it. I'm also trying to point out that there are examples of these sorts of things in the past, but these sorts of things happen as positives (increasing of revenue %) instead of negatives.

Are there any affiliates who like the change??

[Simmo!]

Ehh - I knew I'd get flack as soon as I opened my mouth

Quite right too

Do you mean deceived as in you didn't know thay would make a policy change in the future or did they come up with a BS scheme later and tried to pitch it as something else? I'm still working with pretty much the info I have from Spear and you all. I've spoken with David S. and VPL as well.

A bit of both, but mainly the former. I can't remember which of the groups it was, but one posted inferring that they'd had discussions with affiliates and that the affiliates they'd spoken to thought it was a good idea! Probably wasn't me, Dom or Ted...we're blaming you

That doesn't apply too well since most sponsors pay up front. If there was disatisfaction, we'd talk about it and work something out - so yeah there would be plenty of questions on what's up.

I figured that was the case, but hypothetically, I'm sure we'd agree that its generally unacceptable. Goes back to my other example which is perhaps more pertinent:

"Like, say a casino says "play out £1000, well give you £1,000" to a player. You sign up, play the money through, go to ask for the bonus then they say "oh no we changed our mind since then".

Yes?

Let me be clear here, I'm not choosing sides

...yet

Seriously though, and this isn't a personal dig CM, there are "gateway" people in this industry who are well-known on either side. These are ultimately the people who gain most respect. People like myself have yet to achieve that position and consequently can only make ripples. But where ethics are concerned, it's important IMHO, that people state what they think is right. I appreciate that - and again, I'm not getting at you 'cos i know you will say what you feel - money plays a part in all this, but people have to look long-term at the repercussions this type of thing can have on the industry, not just fianancially but in terms of profile.

I had a chat on the phone with FA and stated my position very clearly, and why i have removed all their properties from my sites, but I'm just one of many who needs to be doing this to make the message clear, that we won't be treated like this. It's not sour grapes, although perhaps tinged with the bittersweet taste thereof, but an issue of trust. If I don't make a stand myself, I can't complain when they, or others following suit, do it again.

I'm trying to hash some of these things out to get a better understanding on what's going on. When I first heard "retroactive!" while I was at the GIGSE, I thought oh hell, wtf's going on, and then I forgot about it. I'm also trying to point out that there are examples of these sorts of things in the past, but these sorts of things happen as positives (increasing of revenue %) instead of negatives.

No-one's likely to complain in ANY agreement if one party decides they have an unfair advantage and looks to make amends. After all, balancing the expectations of each party fairly is standard business practice. Correction, *should* be standard business practice.

Are there any affiliates who like the change??

Not met one yet.


Just to re-iterate, I (and most others) have no problem with them lumping casinos together as a group. I'd simply choose the best IMHO and promote that, if it was worthy. What we have a problem with, as Dom points out, is applying it to players we've already sent and cannot have any influence over anymore. That surely deserves the term "retroactive" ?

[peralis]

Question to all....

Example: Before the change, you sent a player to Royal Vegas and this player only played for fun, then stopped. It seemed like he was never going to sign up for whatever reason. So, Fortune jumps in and cross promotes that player and actually convinces him to sign up at 7 Sultans. Now, although you never promoted 7 Sultans, you still earned money for that player. This was never their obligation, yet they did it. If that player lost, you were not affected. So for us it was a win/win situation - not for fortune.

Now they have lumped the casinos, so you can still earn from the rest even if you do not promote the others, but will have to bear the cost if the player wins.

Before everybody jumps up and down saying that you never asked for this, I have spoken to Fortune and you can request them to switch the cross promotion off. ( I wouldn't - I would rather take my chances at earning extra - which happens most of the time)

So, if I need to carry the "burden" of a player that won for a month, I will do that, since they still not have any carry over.

Fortune have always treated their affiliates well and because of this change I am not about to jump up and down screaming blue murder.

So, at the end of the day it is pretty simple.. either think about how well they have treated us in the past and think about how this REALLY affects us - or stop promoting them and move on.

just my 2 cents....

PS. I am an affiliate of FL but they also did not pay me to say this

[Simmo!]

Fortune have always treated their affiliates well and because of this change I am not about to jump up and down screaming blue murder.

Peralis. I take your points regarding x-promotion, but surely if i send a customer to buy a U2 CD at Amazon and they buy Britney's latest instead, I should get my % as whichever way you look at it, I gave Amazon a new customer, and without me they wouldn't be shopping there.

Regarding the Quote above, how can you say this when you've just had your agreement ripped up and changed so you earn less without your consent? You're not telling us something IMHO. Once bitten , go back for more??

If someone's been nice to me in the past, then does me up like a kipper, I want to learn from that, not just accept it 'cos "i like them". Sorry if that sounds condescending, it's not meant to be but i can't think of an alternative way to phrase it

or stop promoting them and move on.

And put a big banner on my site that says "You can shaft me, i like it!" (no its not a gay site btw). If we don't express our feelings on this, we'll get it over and over and over again. If we make a stand and get our point over, you'll benefit too while you continue to promote them who shaft! I really think you ought to think about your stance on this Peralis. Really I do.