Up front v cashback

[PlexRep]

Hi all,

jstrikes recent post got me wondering, but rather than derail his thread I thought I'd ask the question in here as it's slightly different.

How would you feel about either a bonus up front or a cash back offer on any losses? For example, if you could choose between the following which would you take:

100% deposit bonus, with normal casino rules and wagering requirements.
or
15% cash back on any casino losses every month.

Of course, the amount of bonus funds you get in the second example are considerably lower BUT:
No rollover or wagering requirements
No game restrictions

I'd like to know what you think. Do the numbers need to be moved for either offer to be more attractive to you?

Thanks for any input./feedback.

[plasticnote]

I am a slots-only player.

Personally, I enjoy cash back with no string attached for players losing money.

I believe that Bonus should be available for loyal players disregard losing or winning.

[elscrabinda]

I'd take no-strings over strings, absolutely. With cashback you can relax, play the games you like without worrying that a single spin on the wrong one will break a rule, cash out when you win, and if you lose get a second chance.

I wish more casinos would switch to this kind of bonus system instead of competing with each other over who can come up with the longest list of terms and conditions

[cdomi66]

No strings would be great, as elscrabinda said, you can relax

[PlexRep]

Thanks for the feedback. So far nobody seems to be stepping up to defend up-front bonuses, so is casino cash-back the system we should all be switching across to? It certainly seems to be easier for all concerned.

I believe that Bonus should be available for loyal players disregard losing or winning.

I agree plasticnote, and loyalty should always be rewarded. I'm just trying to figure out the best ways to do just this.

[plasticnote]

I just visited Casinoplex.com, so it is a playtech casino. I looked at the promotion section, and could not find any slots-only bonus for new players.
I think it is a shortcome.

[PlexRep]

I just visited Casinoplex.com, so it is a playtech casino. I looked at the promotion section, and could not find any slots-only bonus for new players.
I think it is a shortcome.

Thanks for the feedback. Yes we are a Playtech casino, and we are in the process of updating the site and introducing a lot of new promotions and options. I'll PM you as soon as they're all up and running so you can check again and tell me what you think.

[KasinoKing]

I prefer up-front, as mentioned in numerous other threads before.
I really don't like the cash-back idea because you have to LOSE to get it.

But why don't you do something completely different to other casinos and offer a 100% match up-front (with SENSIBLE WR please!) AND also give them a 15% cash-back if they lose?
The cash-back could even have a low WR attached - no more than x4 though.
As a player I would like that as it sounds like a win-win situation!

KK

[vinylweatherman]

It's two different types of player that will respond to these offers. PLayers who want something right away, but with standard restrictions, will value the "free" money up front over a cashback ONLY if they lose.

Interestingly, you are going to offer players 15%, but your AFFILIATES are likely to be getting TWICE this level of "cashback on losses" for that player.

I don't think anyone would buy any other product if they knew MORE was being paid in "commission" to the arranger than THEY were getting as the "purchaser" from the deal.

The division of benefit would look like this:-

$1000 played and lost over the month.

$150 returned to the player
$300 goes to the arranger (the affiliate) (assumes average 30% rate).
$550 goes as nett revenue to the casino.

Whilst the distribution stays the same under the 100% bonus model, the player gets the use of DOUBLE his deposits as "bankroll", so gets $2000 to play with, thus double the chance of hitting a big payout, but with a price in WR to pay for the "rental" of the extra $1000 (it's phantom, being Playtech, and can never be withdrawn even after making WR).

The distribution NOW appears to be:-

(on $1000 deposited, bonused, and all lost in play)

$1000 to the player in "free" play money
$300 to the affiliate
$550 to the casino.

[PlexRep]

I don't think anyone would buy any other product if they knew MORE was being paid in "commission" to the arranger than THEY were getting as the "purchaser" from the deal.

Not sure if I agree with your logic here. If we're only dealing with scenarios where the player loses their deposited funds, I don't think knowing where all those funds ended up would affect their decision on whether to return or not. I could be wrong of course. Also, I'm not proposing this as our new model, just putting the feelers out to see what people generally think.

But why don't you do something completely different to other casinos and offer a 100% match up-front (with SENSIBLE WR please!) AND also give them a 15% cash-back if they lose?

You never know. I'll have someone cleverer than me crunch the numbers and see what they think. If we can't offer both combined, I don't see why we cant offer the choice to appease both camps. At what point in rollover requirements do they stop being 'sensible'? 35X..40X.. more?

Thank you both for the feedback and additional food for thought.