spearmaster said:
Casinomeister, you have now been exposed to the BS arguments by both parties - you have heard exactly the same shit I have heard for a month, and you are now being snowballed by these programs even though you are not an affiliate..
You mean people are BSing me?
spearmaster said:
In short - you are now no longer a partner as far as they are concerned, because they have to present the same arguments to you without acknowledging the fact that they:
* Breached their agreement with affiliates
* Are NOT in financial trouble
* Are NOT in partnership with affiliates
This is a well-rehearsed sham that you are now being exposed to..
Eh? I may have lost you there. From what I've read and heard, it seems to me that FA's business model was short sighted and needed to be overhauled. Is it a sham, or a way of restructuring one's business?
As I mentioned earlier to Webcaz, it's a dynamic industry and it should be expected that companies change policies or modify them to ensure that they remain profitable and/or competitive. With this FA situation, I still see this as a change in reporting - and yeah, it sucks for some - but what else is FA supposed to do?
In an ideal situation, it would have been nice to see FA sit down and discus options with their affiliates. But with the environment of the Internet - perhaps this wasn't plausible. I am unsure what type of consultation they dealt with concerning this situation.
greedygirl said:
Now, remembering I am not taking sides on this matter, I would like to ask of those most vocal, if they were in the shoes of FA, knowing that the old agreement would most certainly create losses for the company, what you feel would be the best remedy?
I hear Debbee on this one. I wish I would see more constructive criticism. This is a situation that no one has really offered any solution for. Most of you guys (and gals) know this business, know webmastering, and are problem solvers. So far, unless I missed it, I haven't seen any remedies offered. Faced with FA's problems, what would you have differently.
This works only if you don't think they are BSing everyone
I don't want to get into semantics on contracts or retroactivity or breaching this or that. But let's say webmaster X sells ad space to casinos. Casino Y has been on webmaster X's site for a number of years, but over time the webmaster's expenses increase forcing him to re-look at how he's financing the site. He decides to increase rates for all new casinos coming on board and applies this to the older ones too. Wouldn't this sort of be the same situation that your in (as the casino)? Here you have to pay out 20% more for the same adspace. That sucks, but in a dynamic business environment, these things should be expected.
For casino Y, was this a breach of contract or modifying a business model? What would have been fair? Not increasing casino Y's rates? That would have been unrealistic. And of course, Casino Y has the option of bailing out or biting the bullet an pay the increased rates hoping for the best. I
Isn't your situation the same sort of thing? The Aff program has introduced new terms - nothing is breached - just changed.
FA - question: Did you have your legal team look over this change before it was implemented? If so, what is their take on contractual agreements?
Finally, I understand how some of you are upset about this, but you may be making this out to be bigger than it is (OK look-out ~b). Dom mentioned that this may be the biggest thing ever to rock this industry - wasn't the biggest thing to rock it 9/11 and the US reaction? Or the loss of Paypal? Or scumware?! I'm just not convinced that it's as bad as your making it out to be (quick - duck!).
But it looks as though many of you are convinced it is.
endnote: I'm not siding with FA - I'm trying to review this situation as objectively as possible. Please don't confuse objectivity with endorsement or to concur.