Fortune Affiliates Retroactive Terms

Status
Not open for further replies.

dominique

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Location
The Boonies
Boy, I wish someone from Fortune Lounge would address the breach of contract Fortune Affiliates comitted with its affiliates.

I guess affiliates should be seen but not heard.

The changes in T&C are perfectly acceptable - it is your right to do so. Applying these changes to previously entered contracts is - well - in most places in this world it's a criminal act.

Yet you do this to your affiliates without any type of consultation, communication or discussion.

It is not a show of good character.
 

spearmaster

RIP Ted
Joined
Jan 12, 2001
Location
Heaven
dominique said:
Boy, I wish someone from Fortune Lounge would address the breach of contract Fortune Affiliates comitted with its affiliates.

I guess affiliates should be seen but not heard.

The changes in T&C are perfectly acceptable - it is your right to do so. Applying these changes to previously entered contracts is - well - in most places in this world it's a criminal act.

Yet you do this to your affiliates without any type of consultation, communication or discussion.

It is not a show of good character.

What Dom said. And I don't want to hear the flimsy excuse that Fortune Affiliates is a separate entity and losing money. And don't even mention the word "partner" in there until you are willing to admit that we were bent over and you are willing to address the problem.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Y'know. I'm guilty of not remembering what this is all about. I know Simmo! and Spear explained this to me - but I live in Bierland - so I forgot :D

How about spelling out exactly what was made retroactive and how FA addressed this issue. Didn't someone rag on them in Miami?
 

Vesuvio

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Location
UK
dominique said:
Boy, I wish someone from Fortune Lounge would address the breach of contract Fortune Affiliates comitted with its affiliates.
I've been away so might have missed it, but what did Fortune Affiliates do?
fortunelounge said:
Again, we have always followed the philosophy of offering our valued players the benefit of the doubt, as we will in this case also.
Was this the philosophy in place when you decided upon a policy of simply removing the bonus funds from cash-ins if a player made the slightest error (say wagering $1 too little) instead of returning the cash-in to the casino balance for wagering to be completed, as all reputable casinos do? I think you might finally have abandoned the policy, but it was a very nasty (and no doubt lucrative) trick.
 

spearmaster

RIP Ted
Joined
Jan 12, 2001
Location
Heaven
I will leave it to Fortune Lounge to spell out in very precise terms their relationship with Fortune Affiliates - and then let them describe what happened.

But to put it in player terms, it is similar to promising you a bonus, later changing their terms and conditions and applying it to all your past play retroactively.

I'd also like to ask Vegas Partner Lounge why they are also implementing this policy - at the same time - yet they deny being in concert.
 
Last edited:

dominique

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Location
The Boonies
Well, we also have Partner Logic and Wager Junction jumping on board that train.

I have thought long and hard about this - this industry does not need to increase it's stigma of being seedy and such. That is a bad image - and especially in the States we need to be sqeaky clean if we are ever going to achieve regulation. Which we will soon have a good chance of doing if we don't blow it.

I just cannot sit still and watch this behavior - which is nothing short of criminal by any interpretation of the law.

I propose Fortune et al. change these new imposed T&Cs to where they are not retroacive and therefor legal.

I have always been one to support Fortune regarding all kinds of issues, for years. Just to make clear that I like the folks at Fortune Affiliates and definitely have no axe to grind.

This recent development is just way out of line. And admit it - it hasn't helped your revenues one bit so far. You are losing some valuable affiliates - and you are surely not gaining any sympathies among players either.
 

fortunelounge

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 7, 2003
Location
South Africa
Hi

We have been in discussion with Fortune Affiliates regarding the postings of Dominique and Spear Master. We understand that Fortune Affiliates have already responded to similar posts on other bulletin boards. Fortune Affiliates regard this matter as having been tabled, discussed and resolved.

We will continue to make use of this thread to reply to the original post by Adamruns.

Regards,
Jeremy
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
QUOTE: Fortune Affiliates regard this matter as having been tabled, discussed and resolved.UNQUOTE

"Tabled, discussed and resolved?" Perhaps the word "unilaterally" should be inserted somewhere in there if the reports I have heard are correct.

I don't work in the affiliate sector, but I am told by several people I respect who do that there was very little if any consultation here.

The tone of that response suggests that Fortune Affiliates is entirely seperate from Fortune Lounge, which in terms of top management control I am not entirely certain is correct.
 

dominique

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Location
The Boonies
fortunelounge said:
Fortune Affiliates regard this matter as having been tabled, discussed and resolved.
Jeremy

Yes, I am sure that's true. Tabled, discussed and resolved amongst each other.

I did have the opportunity to speak with Fortune Affiliates in Miami. There was nothing really discussed - I was told that there was a monetary necessity for this, there was no other way. When I suggested that there may be ways to do this without cutting marketing, I was asked what I would suggest as an alternative. I would have been all too happy to make a suggestion, but since I had no facts and figures that wasn't possible.

Regarding the legality of this - I got no reply. Because we all know what it is.

Resolved? Hardly. I did file a complaint with the IGC about this. Perhaps the issue can still be tabled, discussed and resolved. I would be very interested in tabling, discussing and resolving it. I would like to be able to recommend Fortune Affiliates to other affiliates as I have done for so many years. I feel badly telling affiliates to stay away from Fortune because they do not honor their contracts. I feel like I am disloyal to a group of people I have grown to like over the years.

I know that the folks at Fortune Affiliates are good people and they try to run a good program. They have made such enormous progress, have some of the best stats in the biz, and their support has been great.

How disappointing to find them in a criminal act.

Yes, I would very much love to resolve this. Until such a time, with a heavy heart, I have to caution: Stay away from Fortune. Fortune does not honor it's contracts.
 

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Location
England
Affy stuff ain't exactly my thing, but:

spearmaster said:
But to put it in player terms, it is similar to promising you a bonus, later changing their terms and conditions and applying it to all your past play retroactively.

Did they cut the commission, from, say, 30% to 20%, and apply it retrospectively, so you effectively have to "earn it back"?
 

dominique

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Location
The Boonies
That is truly nice to hear, adamruns. :)

Now if only T&Cs with affiliates could also be taken as binding and sincere...

Did they cut the commission, from, say, 30% to 20%, and apply it retrospectively, so you effectively have to "earn it back"?

No. It used to be that affiliates went to look at earning statistics at Fortune and see a mix of winning and losing players and it was a good thing to see. As aff, you want to see a nice mix, you want to see your players win.

In this industry, "if the players ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."

Since Fortune holds a lot of individual casinos, winnings and losses would be nicely spread out and affiliates could happily advertise all of the casinos, teach their players as much about winning as possible, watch a good percentage of them win, and still take home a paycheck. All was well.

If a casino had a big winner the affiliate would not make money there in that month, but s/he would still be making money at other casinos. So - it's a small price to pay for having happy players return to your website and be happy and loyal with you.

But no more. The rules were changed so that now if there is one big winner at one Fortune casino it wipes out all income from all casinos. The affiliate gets no paycheck that month at all.

Perhaps it is not immediately visible how this affects players - but it does. Maybe not the sophisticated players who have discovered message boards that truly look out for them, but the majority of players who go through affiliate sites are now in a much worse position. Now the affiliate isn't all that interested anymore in teaching how to win - it's too costly. No one is going to lose all their income voluntarily. Affiliates who allow themselves to depend on Fortune will now fear for their livelihood and not encourage smart play.

Good for the casinos, bad for players, bad for affiliates.
 

spearmaster

RIP Ted
Joined
Jan 12, 2001
Location
Heaven
Jeremy -

With all due respect, the stink is unbearable. Nothing was tabled or resolved, none of my recommendations - which were very reasonable by the way - were taken up, no changes or further announcements have been made, so I will simply assume that FA - and FL - choose to ignore the issue and hope it will go away.

Let me put it very bluntly - it will not go away, and if a reasonable solution is not found, it will become a very, very big problem.
 

Simmo!

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
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. Plus it p*ss*s me off to think of the time and effort spent testing, researching and chatting to them (although it was a free pizza to be fair) in the first instance only to have them treat me this way :(

Cheers

Simmo!
 

Webzcas

Winter is Coming!
Staff member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Location
Block S25, South Stand, Ashton Gate, BS3
I cannot believe the comment :

' Fortune Affiliates regard this matter as having been tabled, discussed and resolved. '

Unfortunately it was not tabled, discussed and resolved with your partners - the affiliates. Time will obviously be the factor to see whether by making these changes you haven't actually fallen upon your own petard.

The fact that you go back on an legal agreement with your affiliates without even consulting them beforehand, speaks volumes.
 

tim5ny

Non-Gambler
Joined
Jun 8, 2003
adamruns said:
I just hope that Fortune Lounge allows everyone in my situation to do what they have allowed me to do.

Very doubtful Adamruns! Your problem got alot of exposure here, so they naturally have to put out the small fires before they become larger. Everyone else who's fending for himself probably hasn't had the same outcome as you. I'd bet my life on that.
 

spearmaster

RIP Ted
Joined
Jan 12, 2001
Location
Heaven
I see that Jeremy has been and gone - and chosen to take the silent route.

Needless to say - what they can do to affiliates, they can do to players. Regardless of what you see in the T&Cs, if they decide to change their mind, their decision is "final" even if you performed according to the rules.

I will allow them another chance to address the issue - or else I will spell it out very clearly with a warning to all people who think that Fortune will perform according to the terms and conditions they themselves laid out.

The staff at Fortunelounge has always done their absolute best to keep our players as happy as possible, and have over the years built a reputation of fairness and interest in our customers.
I further note that this is due in large part to affiliates who work their asses off to see that you get players, and that you take care of them.

This "reputation" is about to be spoiled big-time if you do not take urgent action to redress the breach of your own terms and conditions and promises to affiliates who have faithfully served you in the past - and have also defended you in these forums. We did not set the rules - you did. We played by these rules - but you broke them.

I urge you not to ignore this warning.
 

dominique

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Location
The Boonies
At this point all the action I have taken is to inform the IGC (and their lawyer who will handle this is back at work on Monday). I have not removed the casinos who are in breach from my Casino Webmaster Program page (which ranks #3 on Google). I did add my comments to the listing. Fortune wasn't listed, but I will update and add them asap, next week sometime.

I did post about it in the announcement section there -
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
and link to that from the webmaster page.

Now, other than that I haven't taken any action because I still count on the basic honesty and business sense of Fortune. I hope that they will negotiate with the IGC if not with us affiliates. I will overlook being snubbed now and hope for this to be worked out between Fortune and the industry watchdog.

But I will not hesitate to ask players for help if it comes to that. Affiliates have helped players get paid for years, I am sure players will give some of the support back when needed.
 

Webzcas

Winter is Coming!
Staff member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Location
Block S25, South Stand, Ashton Gate, BS3
The fact that Fortune is ignoring us here and added to this we are being ignored on CAP by the FA members there, only reinforces my belief that they do not consider affiliates as partners.

Therefore if we can be treated with a lack of respect by FA, what is there to say that the casinos and poker rooms which make up FA's portfolio won't start treating their players in the same way as they are now treating their partners/affiliates.
 

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Location
England
Simmo! said:
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!

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
caruso said:
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

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Location
The Boonies
Simmo! said:
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.........
 
Last edited:

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
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? :D

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 :D
 

dominique

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Location
The Boonies
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top