Fortune Affiliates Retroactive Terms

Status
Not open for further replies.
Simmo! said:
I think you're entirely missing the point as to why we are upset here: The *whole reason* we feel this way is that we sent you players on the understanding you would do (A) and now you've turned around and done (B).

Thats 100% misleading, and if its not a breach of agreement, then what is?
Exactly. Like the saying goes, "Don't make promises you can't keep." Doing so really trashes your reputation. Making contradictory statements doesn't help either....

On June 7, "FA Operations" posted this on CAP:
Since this is a change out of necessity we need to look at the economic realities of each scenario. It would be great to apply this only to new players moving forward but that would not address the bulk of the profitability issues we are having. Since most earnings are paid on existing players this is where the change needs to occur. A change to new players only would just not be enough to make this a sustainable business.
...
We are hurting at Fortune Affiliates but unfortunately it is not only from last month. This has been hurting us for many months already and is not dependant on client performance but rather a formula that leaves us with almost nothing at the end. If this was a 1 month case we would not have changed the formula yet, but the reality is we changed the formula to create a sustainable business.
On July 20, "fortune" posted this here on CM:
Fortune Lounge and Fortune Affiliates are 2 separate companies.
Neither of us are in serious financial trouble.
So then, if there aren't any money problems, why doesn't Fortune Lounge help Fortune Affiliates out during their time of need? Why do the affiliates have to pay for your money problems? Furthermore, is it absolutely necessary to make the changes retroactive? Why can't you simply have the new terms take effect after a certain date?

The fact is, many affiliates sent depositing players your way because of the old terms and conditions. We fully expect the old T&Cs to apply to all of the players that were sent in the past. If you want to modify the agreement to affect future referrals, fine... affiliates can decide at that point whether or not to continue sending traffic your way. But for you to apply the new terms to the players that were referred in the past... that isn't right. It's like a "bait and switch."

If you can make retroactive changes like this, and claim that it's necessary to remain profitable, what is stopping every other program out there from doing the same thing? For most of us, it is impossible to know whether or not a program is having real financial difficulties, or if they're just snowballing us to inflate profits. We learn to trust you and believe what you say when you keep your promises. Now, by retroactively changing the terms, you have shattered that trust.

I'm sorry, but if these changes remain retroactive, I simply can't promote your casinos anymore. I do care about the players I send to your casinos. You made retroactive changes once -- it's entirely possible that you may one day decide to change the player requirements retroactively as well. Then my site visitors lose trust in me, because I sent them to a place that screwed them over. Do you see my point?

I remain optimistic that a solution can be found here. I really do like the FL properties, but I (along with many other affiliates) will not quietly accept the changes you've made.

I ask that you please reconsider the changes and apply them to players sent after a specific date (e.g. August 1).

Thanks for listening.

Dave
 
Hi all.

first for my first post I'd like to thank CM for letting me in. And second a big thanks to Spearmaster for all that he has been kind enough to do for me, including his helping me to find my way in here.

now that the butt kissin' is done;

Ok everyone...give me 100, and I will give you 200. But i'm allowed to change my mind after you've given me the money. PM me if you're interested. C'mon its a great deal.

snicker. great one mate!

****************************

Mary, you're a woman after my own heart. If I didn't know I'd be giving you the bad end of the deal, I'd be asking for marriage, cause you see it the way it is.

**************************

Here is a post I'd made at another forum in which I muddle my way thru all the points that have been raised; (I think).

From what I'm understanding in reading your post; that they told you they are claiming the affiliate side of their businesses is .... can this be right? ... costing them money to the point they'd rather shut down the aff side of the business altogether; rather than keep honoring the agreements they originally formulated themselves and had us agree to.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

See that just doesn't make sense to me at all.

affiliate programs were designed with an almost fail-safe model IMHO, one which I can't see a way to lose on, ... unless you're already so deprived of actual money-making affs that your aff program is basically a joke anyway.

I submit this scenario for consideration. Please note that I am not accusing Fortune of anything, but rather am just stating the way things are:

Fortune has long been known by seasoned vets as being a program which is questionable about whether it is to be trusted. At least that's my view of them and I can take you back at either CAP or here and show you threads, many of them, where affs have all but come out and said "I know you're screwing me"....

Now for arguement's sake lets put aside whether Fortune is screwing people or not; as that is not the issue here - and settle for agreeing that for some reason or another, many affs (and I fall into this category), have the belief that Fortune is not going to be profitable for me to run them in any spots where I can run something else because I know from experience that despite the fact they have the same damn software as my preferred sponsor; they will fall far short of earning me anything close to what the other place can earn.

Therefore they are shoved to the back of my sites or gone completely. However I still do have the players I did manage to sign there; and rightfully so; and I will continue (or should anyway) to make money off these signups. Fortune doesn't like the idea that now the table is somewhat turned: that instead of my sending potential player after player after player - all the while knowing I'd do much better sending them somewhere else - and therefore I AM, WE ARE; losing money on the deal... That Fortune doesn't like it that now all of the sudden they are the ones who are working harder than I: in order to keep the money rolling in.

But the point they fail to see; is that is exactly the deal I signed up for. They aren't losing money if I don't send any further new players; but my old players are generating ... say $10k a month in income.

Somebody please tell me where they are losing money on that? They're still getting 75% of the income - which I remind you would NEVER have been there had I not sent the players!

Now that's a scenario that is believable to me.



now to tackle the "The move towards writing off negative balances which most programs followed in order to stay competitive":

to that I have but a question to ask. Could everyone who has had a big winner that wiped out their earnings for a month; and then had that big winner come back and lose the majority of that previous month's winnings back to the casino, thus putting 25% of that into the affs pocket; please now step up and shout out so that you can be counted.

I was just talking about this the other day with some peers. The very last time I heard of anyone getting that lucky was myself, back in 2003, ... might have even been late 2002.

And I sang to anybody that would listen about my good fortune (this was with Casino Rewards).

I find it funny nobody else has come forward to speak of their good luck in all that time since (that I know about).

I'm sure it has happened, but I seriously doubt it has happened so often as to be a serious concern to any program.

again, please correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps a bunch of you will come forward to say that you had a player win a 100 grand and the following month came back and lost it back, therefore the casino is out 25 grand. Still take a lot of those scenarios to happen before it becomes a concern. Don't you think?

*******************************

Oh, and finally. Dom is 100% correct. The players are everything and the sooner those that don't know that; learn that; they too will enjoy the kind of success and loyalty from surfers that I have come to know.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad there are some people who have a cooler head about this issue than I do. Dave and Mary and Steve, nice job.

I am frustrated because I don't like dealing with stubborn donkeys. Bad enough when I have to do it on behalf of a plyer. But when a big bad donkey tries to pull a stunt like this that instantly affects all of the people that have made them who they are, I just start frothing at the mouth.

Don't make yourselves out to be angels - you're much closer to weasels than anything else.
 
spearmaster said:
I just start frothing at the mouth.

I'm normally very optimistic & laid back in life and generally take a "laissez faire" attitude to most things. But i know exactly where you are coming from Spear. I've been running businesses for 10 years and its a long long time since the hackles on my back have been raised to this extent.
 
Well, if Fortune Lounge is really concerned with fairness, they could give the players back.

After all, if they decided not to pay their rent anymore at the same rates as their lease terms, they'd be evicted.

The "lifetime commission" model is one of paying in installments proportionate to the lifetime value of the player. If they don't want to do that, they should go to another model. If they want to renegotiate terms on new players, they can.

It's just that in the real world, we don't get to decide that we think lower rent would be fair, or lower car payments, or credit card interest rates. Real businesses sign contracts and keep them.

It sure is looking like they were "pleading poverty" to make this move more palatable...until they realized it would bite them in the ass because players are going to avoid any casino that can't or won't pay its bills.
 
Mary,

Great posts. All we are asking from Fortune is to actually treat us with fairness. They know full well, many of us would not have signed up with them under a revenue share system if we had known these changes were to be implemented retroactively. This is the bottom line and this is why we are riled up so much.

If Fortune Affiliates thinks this issue is going to quietly disappear then they are mistaken. For many of us, our websites are our income stream.

Furthermore I feel Fortune Affiliates have broken our trust by making these changes. Fortune Affiliates have caused this damage, the ball is now in their court to repair it.
 
Hi All,

In case you're wondering why Mary is posting in the Webmaster's section - it's because she (and a few select others) have free reign in Casinomeister's forum. I have known her personally for a number of years, and I value her insight and comments. We don't always agree 100% of the time - but I feel that comments like hers give an additional and valuable perspective.

There seems to be some questions on the legitmacy of the contract or the changing of/breaching of - or whatever you want to call it. My question for Fortune is "Did they have their legal team look over this change before it was implemented? If so, what is their (the legal team's) take on contractual agreements?"

I think this is an important question that should be answered. Thanks!
 
casinomeister said:
Hi All,

In case you're wondering why Mary is posting in the Webmaster's section - it's because she (and a few select others) have free reign in Casinomeister's forum. I have known her personally for a number of years, and I value her insight and comments. We don't always agree 100% of the time - but I feel that comments like hers give an additional and valuable perspective.

I can see why :thumbsup:

CM said:
There seems to be some questions on the legitmacy of the contract or the changing of/breaching of - or whatever you want to call it. My question for Fortune is "Did they have their legal team look over this change before it was implemented? If so, what is their (the legal team's) take on contractual agreements?"

I think this is an important question that should be answered. Thanks!

Very much agreed.

CM said:
And please Ted, no more comments about weasels. Thanks!

Thats a bit harsh. He wont be able to participate in my planned thread about the wheres and wherefores of keeping Freets and Weasels as pets :( Sorry Ted.
 
I think, I hope, I believe that we can still fix this.

Fortune, Vegas Partners, Wager Junction and Partnerlogic (and everytime the name Fortune comes up here, the other three should be attached) can still amend the changes.

No one says you cannot decide on a program change that will be more beneficial for your company's future.

We only want you to stick by your word and fulfill the terms of the contracts we signed with you.

Perhaps this was an oversight, and I think each of these programs underestimated the way such retoactive changes would impact the industry.

If it was just me and either one of these programs, I would likely sit down with them and probably accept some retroactive changes upon discussing it. But that would be a private negotiation and agreement.

Your decisions impact hundreds of people, and they impact the entire industry. If Vegas Partners, Fortune, Wager Junction and Partnerlogic can just ignore the contracts they entered because they want more profit, so can all the other programs and casinos.

This sets a legal precedent in the industry.

I think perhaps some of the programs who breached contract didn't think of it in such a way. Maybe you didn't think of the overall impact of such a decision.

But now you know. So perhaps now it's time to reconsider and change the way you administer your desired payment model. I am sure you can come up with a solution that makes both partners happy. It's time to mend the fences and refresh partnerships.

If you have problems figuring a way to accomodate both partners, why not contact Keith from the IGC for a legal opinion? To help you define the boundaries?

Afterall, the IGC is there to help settle these kinds of disputes. eCOGRA has made it clear that they will only get involved with players, but the IGC is willing to deal with operators and - yes - the marketing sector.
 
Last edited:
I have heard from the IGC that this matter is being looked into.

I think it is best if we give them a little time.

I hope that Vegas Partners, Fortune, Partnerlogic and Wager Junction will be cooperative with this well established and respected body. I suggest all of you contact Keith and help settle this as quickly as possible.

Let's all take a breather and a short pause to allow the IGC to try to deal with this.
 
Personally I find it very hard to find the flaw in the aff set up they have. Seems pretty simple to me. I send a player. Player loses $100. I get $25.

Am I to be expected to believe that my partner cannot show a profit after taking out the costs of administration on the remaining $75?

come on.

I think the fact why we're all here is getting lost. Money. Business. Nobody is doing anything for anybody else that isn't in some way beneficial to themselves. If a better offer was made to you; it was made to LURE you over. Not as a favor. Not as anything you owe them for in return - except to meet the obligations of the deal you entered into.

It really is so simple.

Regardless of whether it was a sound formula/agreement to enter into - the fact remains that it WAS entered into; and therefore is a legally binding contract.

While I thank CM for pointing out an angle to me that I had previously not seen - in respect to retroactive changes, the fact remains that if I enter an agreement where I'm told that if I send a player - that I will recieve 25% of the losses for lifetime of account.

That's it. there's nothing left to discuss. Change all you want to about what you want to pay me for future players, and I will consider the offer; as I did the previous one; and if it is acceptable, then I will continue to send players.

But what's done is done and twisting around what you want to term the fact that you're not meeting the agreed upon terms for players I already sent - changes nothing. call it "absorbing costs differently" or whatever you want to call it; ain't fooling nobody.

There have been many times in my past where i entered into an agreement that I later found to be unappealing - but I always still met my obligations because that was the deal I made; regardless of whether it was still proftable to do so.

Now if found that the deal was one that was so stifling that I could forsee the writing on the wall and knew that if I kept the current rate up - that it would mean the end of my business - thus meaning the end of any kind of income at all for my partners- then I would go to these partners (yes one at a time, I think they deserve that much considering what i'm about to ask of them) and then I'd ASK THEM. NOT TELL THEM: that I needed help in figuring out a working situation that will satisfy all involved, while still making it possible for my company to operate out of the red.


****************

no negative carry-over.

And I ask anyone who's benefited financially from having a player win big one month; then log back in the next month and lose it all back, thus dropping 25% of that into the affs pocket to speak up? Frankly I don't think it happens so often its a huge issue to the sponsors.

Sure its huge to one of us when that happens. We're not set up to be able to absorb the losses the way a casino is set up; where it is expected every single month to have a certain amount of players win big.

and even that's a mute point. But one I mentioned because they gave that as a reason for all this and I don't think it holds water.
 
I think the key here is the math of the "no negative carryover".

If there were negative carryover, then the lifetime rate of 25% would be exactly that-- affiliates get 25%, casino gets 75% of all revenues. Everybody would know how much money they were making and the affiliates would be sharing in the risks of fluctuation equally with the casinos.

Zeroing out the negatives effectively raises the affiliates' % above 25%. I'm not sure by how much. More than some programs want to pay I guess. I agree that any one casino is in a better position to weather fluctuation than is any one affiliate--the casino is bigger.

Affiliates could pool information to try to figure out how much fluctuation affects their effective payment percentage. If affiliates are winding up getting 35% instead of 25% I could see how a casino would winge about that split and want to change it. Keep in mind that they have to pay 35% out of their 75% to the software providers. If 35% is going to the software provider and 35% is going to affiliates that leaves 30% for prepaid advertising, staff, cash processing, hosting etc. etc.
 
Slotland has payed a flat percentage of deposits for years. They are profitable and affs are happy.

There are many, many ways to make this equation work. There are a lot of other factors - who pays for bonuses, who pays for progressives, who pays for licencing fees etc etc. Each program has it's own formula. There are almost as many formulas as there are programs.
 
Yes, I've seen some of the discussions...seems pretty goofy to me from the outside.

A lot of it appears to be the casino aff program juggling terms so that the all-important commission percentage number can be high. Then they subtract out stuff (royalties? bonus amounts) that (in my humble opinion) since the affiliates have no control over shouldn't have been in that percentage in the first place. Royalties, for example, that's just nuts.

Heck, why not advertise 100% commission and then subtract out all the costs of running the casino + ownership percentage in addition to royalties and bonuses?

A very similar dynamic to that of the all-important bonus percentage offered to players...

this industry is turning us all into armchair lawyers. It's educational, I guess!
 
:lolup: :lolup: :lolup:

Yep. It can actually get mind boggling.

subtract out all the costs of running the casino + ownership percentage in addition to royalties and bonuses?

Don't forget the licencing fee. That is actually done by some. All of the above can be deducted.

Just today I looked at a post about the calculations of some Playtechs where the player bonus and deposit has to be played through a certain number of times and then the player can withdraw any amount above the bonus and the bonus then gets removed from the player's account.

Guess who pays for the bonus that is never paid out?

You got it - affs pay for the bonus. When the bonus gets taken out of the account of the player - the affs don't get reimbursed. So the poor player has played all these times through a bonus s/he never gets to cash out and the affiliate pays for it. Then the casino enjoys the bonus as profit. :eek2:

Affs also pay for the manager bonuses RTG casinos give out. The casino gets the kudos and we get to pay for it, but are the money grabbing bad guys. :(

One program I list got exactly one player last month from me. The player deposited exactly $100 and went ahead and lost it. I received exactly $10. That is a program paying 27%. This is a respectable casino, not some rogue joint. :p
 
Last edited:
dominique said:
You got it - affs pay for the bonus. When the bonus gets taken out of the account of the player - the affs don't get reimbursed. So the poor player has played all these times through a bonus s/he never gets to cash out and the affiliate pays for it. Then the casino enjoys the bonus as profit. :eek2:

You mean...bonuses that affiliates have no control over issuing and that players wind up not cashing in go to the casino?

Playtech is eeeevil. Plus, even when a player does win, they are limited to withdrawing $5k a month. Are you going to tell me that the entirety of that win gets deducted from the aff's earnings?

Playtech as very pretty slot machines. They look at lot like the game designs of Silicon Gaming (ahem) now Wagerworks.
 
mary said:
Plus, even when a player does win, they are limited to withdrawing $5k a month. Are you going to tell me that the entirety of that win gets deducted from the aff's earnings?

When a player wins the affiliate pays his/her percentage of the win.

Many playtechs will leave that negative in there until the affiliate has worked it off. If the win is high enough that is like - never. So hopefully the affiliate knows to drop the casino at that point. Some programs will manually remove the debt at month's end. The same goes for RTG. Only most Microsoft will automatically remove it at month's end.

Many programs will apply the win to the casino where it happened, wiping out income there but leaving other casinos they may offer for promotion untouched. Some "bundle", that means if you have a winner in one casino, your income in all of them gets wiped out.

When you have a program with 13 casinos and the aff advertises them all, this likely wipes them out completely. No soup for you!

I don't mind paying a share of expenses - we are supposed to be partners.

However, most affs are not as prepared to absorb big wins as casinos are. One large win can wipe you out. Whether you survive depends on the volume you do. And with bundling, if you don't do a high volume, just a few small winners can wipe you out.

Overall, most programs try to be fair. And there are so many out there, one really can choose and pick who to promote.

Keeping track of which casinos have decent T&Cs for both players and affiliates, and keeping track of which ones treat both parties well can take up a whole lot of time. But staying on top of that and picking the right places to promote is one of the things that make the difference between success and failure.
 
spearmaster said:
:notworthy I guess we're not worthy of a reply. Oh well... like I expected any more...

This dispute is being handled by the IGC. They appreciate being given a little bit of time.....
 
I am not aware of the IGC looking into anything, nor am I aware that their code of conduct covers such things as affiliate issues.

I can check with them on that but frankly I have no intention of stopping any posting about this issue unless the IGC would like to give me a good reason to let the issue die down.

I do have faith that they will look into the issue, if they are doing so, and as I know that prominent members include certain software manufacturers I will hope for a positive outcome. But I have no intention of shutting up until the issue is resolved - that's like asking the patient to shut up until the doctor finishes surgery.
 
Where there is smoke, there is fire.

spearmaster said:
Snakes. Buzzards. Whatever. :D
LoL

On a more serious note: I have so many winners that these conditions will put me in the poor house. It isn't uncommon for a $100 deposit to turn into a $2500 withdrawal. There isn't a month that goes by that I don't have a big winner at almost every group I promote.

FA and VP read my lips: No more real estate for you on my sites until you backtrack. Wait - even if you backtrack I won't trust you, so pffffffffft!!!

This is a slippery slope and I won't encourage other programs to follow suite by promoting programs who already have skid marks on agreements.
 
I lurk the various webmaster portals, because even though I'm not a webmaster, I do invest in publically trade gaming stocks and it's important to monitor how they treat their partners. Party Poker is a good example--I'm not going to invest in a company that reaches a certain level of success and then turns around and unravels the mechanisms that got them there.

Anyway, it may be that webmasters are being circumspect in the interest of preserving their relationships with casino marketing programs and in the hopes of an appropriate resolution to this contratemps, but I don't have to be.

I've given it some thought and the casino affiliate programs who are reneging on their legal obligations to pay for services rendered are being really, really stupid. I also think that IGC should get involved speedily and without any equivocation.

Because here's the thing. Every dollar a player continues to spend at a rogue casino is a dollar that player is not spending at a casino that pays its debts to partners. Portal operators now have an incentive to *take those players back*. To *actively discourage them from playing at certain places.*

Portal operators are being handed a perfectly *unactionable* reason to create blacklists and inform players of the truth--"This place ripped me off. You probably don't want to play there."

The casinos are creating the most educated, the most motivated, the most effectively and justifiably hostile lobbying force imaginable. If they persist in this course, they will deserve everything they get. There are enough honestly run, truly regulated casinos and cardrooms out there that portal operaters have something to gain by warning players away from dishonest operators and moving that revenue stream to the honest operators.

Affiliates can also lodge complaints with the licensing agencies. In land jurisdictions, casino and cardroom operators are required to pay their bills and to not have criminal records; they can lose their licenses if they pile up a record of stiffing creditors. Some of the online jurisdictions may have (better have!) similar requirements. Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath on Antigua, Belize, Curacao, Kahnawake, or Costa Rica--but Isle of Man or Gibraltar are possibilities.

Affiliates don't have to just settle for removing banners. There's more that they have every right to do and the honest casino operators should support them in this in the interests of maintaining a level playing field for *all* operators. Just as underpaying players gives a rogue casino an undeserved competitive edge, so too does underpaying for marketing. A hands-off, don't-make-waves reaction is actively detrimental to those operators who have no intention of cheating their partners.

Affiliates may want to contact the programs that are honoring their contracts to remind them of this all impacts them too--this is not "just an affiliate problem". It is a management problem, a shareholder problem, a player problem, a regulator problem and a political problem. It speaks to the integrity of the industry and affects all participants in the industry.
 
Last edited:
There are some very good posts in this thread, and I am glad to see Mary post here.

She is not looking at this like a player or an affiliate, but as an investor.

Your contributions here are very valuable, Mary!

Well, negotiations have come to a halt - Fortune insists that it's actions are legal.

It is no rocket science to see that they are not. They seem to be quite sure that no one will sue them.

I am very disappointed.

I am going to start the process of removing and replacing all the programs that are in breach of contract - Fortune, Partnerlogic, Wager Junction and Vegas Partners.

If I do it for players all the time, I can do it for affiliates too.

Last not least I will do it for myself - I don't like dealing with people I can't trust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top