Fortune Affiliates Retroactive Terms

[dominique]

What's done is done, and what they say now is unlikely to make a difference,

Well, I tend to be more optimistic than that.

I think a solution can very well be found. FA could hire an independent business analysis service and see if they can find another way. FA could talk with the IGC and try to arrive at a solution.

Just coming out and communicating instead of playing at being a brick wall would be nice and beneficial for affiliate relations.

At this point nobody is happy - not affiliates, not FA and not FL either.

Some good will all around could go a long way. I for one would love to get off this soap box and back to promoting places I can trust. FL could still be among those.

 

[Dave]

Hi everyone,

I finally decided to crawl out of the woodwork over here, after lurking for a few months. Some of you know me as Engineer on the CAP forums. Howdy.

Now, down to business. Basically, this topic is what forced me to de-lurk. I feel very strongly about this, and I believe I have an obligation to speak up and be heard before it's too late.

What is happening right now with VP and FA is extremely important to the future of this industry. If we stand by and allow one program to make retroactive changes, there will be nothing to stop other programs from following suit. Why wouldn't they follow suit? When the other programs realize it's possible to change the terms retroactively in their favor -- without any repercussions -- it becomes a simple business decision at that point.

That's why it is so important for us to stop this from happening, right now.

VP and FA may be in financial trouble, but that doesn't give them the right to screw over the affiliates to make ends meet. That really is something they should have thought of earlier. If the terms were too good to be true, then maybe they shouldn't have offered them in the first place. They created this mess, and now they're trying to dig themselves out of it by screwing over the affiliates.

Unacceptable.

And really, as far as I know Vegas Partner has never actually admitted to having financial troubles -- only Fortune Affiliates has -- and yet, VP went and bought a few new casinos recently. WTF??

When I look for a program to promote, I look at several things:

a) commission percentage
b) whether or not the casinos are "bundled"
c) clauses that require me to deliver a player every 3 months to keep receiving commissions from previous players
d) overall reputation based on forum discussions

Now, after I take everything into account, I can make a reasonably educated decision as to which program would be the best to promote. If I don't like the terms of one program, I can either choose not to promote them, or I can promote them knowing well ahead of time what I'm getting myself into.

I signed up with Fortune Affiliates based on the terms and conditions that were listed on their website. There were other programs available to me as well, which were equally good (and still are today) in terms of commission percentage, etc. But at the time, people were raving about FA, about how well the casinos were converting, yadda, yadda, yadda. The choice was pretty obvious. The FA T&Cs were as good as the other big programs, but FA was receiving the most praise. Hmmm... I think I'll sign up with the program that's getting more praise, all else being equal....

Now here I am, 6 months later, and I'm getting slapped in the face. Now, the FA and VP casinos will be bundled together (they weren't bundled before). Essentially, my monthly income has been reduced by this change. And, I now have to refer one new player within a 3 month time period, or else face reduced/suspended commissions until I refer another player.

Not exactly what I agreed to when I signed up! No longer is this the "best" program of the few I was considering. In fact, if I was making the choice again today, I would have scratched FA off my list almost immediately.

Do you see what I mean? I was lied to. I was tricked into signing up, sending valuable players, only to be told later that our agreement was no longer valid. Instead, VP keeps more of the money (apparently so they can go and buy more casinos), and I have to work harder to make sure I keep sending players, otherwise I won't get paid for the previous players I delivered to them. It's completely unfair, and it is not at all what I agreed to. If I had known this from the start, I would have steered clear of these properties.

Had I chosen a different program 6 months ago instead of FA, I wouldn't be in this situation.

Does it suck for me? Yes.

Is it a retroactive change? Yes again.

Please don't say that this isn't a big deal. This is a huge, huge deal. If we don't speak up NOW, then we can expect this to happen again, and again, and again. If we do nothing -- if we let VP and FA get away with this -- then we are essentially giving every other affiliate program a green light to make retroactive changes in the future. As I said earlier, once these programs realize how easy it is, it becomes a simple business decision to them.

Please, I strongly urge those with "power" to take this very seriously, look into it, contact the people you know, etc. This could be a major turning point in this industry.

Thanks for letting me put in my 2 cents.

-- Dave

 

[The Dude]

You guys don't have these problems - it's easy for you to talk.

WTF is that supposed to mean? Who are you referring to - me? Or anyone not having the same perspective as you? Or is this media buyer vs affiliate talk?

Fine, I'll just keep my mouth shut then. I'll just go back to the pool relaxing and eating bon-bons.

 

[Webzcas]

What is happening right now with VP and FA is extremely important to the future of this industry. If we stand by and allow one program to make retroactive changes, there will be nothing to stop other programs from following suit. Why wouldn't they follow suit? When the other programs realize it's possible to change the terms retroactively in their favor -- without any repercussions -- it becomes a simple business decision at that point.

Dave you have hit the nail firmly and squarely on the head.

 

[dominique]

WTF is that supposed to mean? Who are you referring to - me? Or anyone not having the same perspective as you? Or is this media buyer vs affiliate talk?

Fine, I'll just keep my mouth shut then. I'll just go back to the pool relaxing and eating bon-bons.

Now now, don't get mad.

Bon-bons? If you make that pink drinks with umbrellas I'll try to come join you. Standing on a soap box sucks.

I really feel that affiliates are misunderstood. I guess that is what prompted my statement. A great frustration at never being able to communicate to anyone what it is really like. People look at the handful of affiliates that show up on exclusive cruises etc provided by programs, or even the ones who pay their own way to conferences and think of all the $$$ these affiliates make.

Perhaps a description of the affiliate situation is what I need to write about - maybe just for my own need to clarify.

Well, 2% of affiliates make 70% of the money. 10% make 90% of the money. The great majority of affiliates does not make a living. And there is what you may call "the middle class" who makes just enough to survive and feed their families. For those, a breach of contract spells possible bancruptcy. Oftentimes these are the ones with the good sites that screen casinos, keep up with the player side of things and contribute something useful to the industry.They want to be in it for the long haul, they are building something useful.

And actually, the times of banner farms are pretty much over. If you see any today, you know that they are either an attempt by some newbie to put something together without having a clue, or a black hat seo person who is hurting all in the industry and affs in particular. Since the PPCs do not accept gambling ads anymore, quality content is king again and most affiliates work their butts off seven days a week to get it going.

There is no cheaper marketing vehicle than an affiliate. You don't pay them a dime unless they make you money, Then you pay them a percentage of your profits. Damn, I wish I could get people to work for me on that basis. I would build up a huge network of people to promote my site in every conceivable way. oops - that is exactly what the casinos have done.

Everything in the affiliate world is so iffy and so fragile, being able to trust the programs we work for will actually pay as agreed is extremely important.

I am not sure I can properly communicate what it is like to be an affiliate. I think I failed again at it - I read it over and it just doesn't make it. If I were to list all the obstacles it would make a small book.

Anyway, let's not bristle at each other's statements here. I felt a bit hurt by a couple too, but I think we have some important things to discuss here. And this post is kind of off topic and rambling - so I apologize.

 

[spearmaster]

Greedygirl and Casinomeister -

It is FA themselves who have been insinuating financial troubles, not for the casinos but for themselves. No affiliate that I know of has said otherwise (but of course I've only seen/spoken with a few).

You are missing the point, however. You say we should be looking for solutions, when I (at least) am pointing out that they HAVE ALREADY BREACHED THEIR CONTRACT.

I don't give a rat's ass if they put themselves in this position. If they cannot take responsibility for their own actions then they should not be in business. They cannot just breach a contract at their own discretion and be allowed to get away with it.

Any other discussion is moot, and I will not enter into it, until this point is addressed.

And BTW, with respect to Vegas Partner Lounge (the affiliate program) and the casinos, they are one and the same and represented by the same person. This discussion is even more ridiculous when applied to them.

 

[dominique]

You are missing the point, however. You say we should be looking for solutions, when I (at least) am pointing out that they HAVE ALREADY BREACHED THEIR CONTRACT.

Yes, they have. But so did money Mechanics, and they found a different solution.

I am all for solutions, and I suggested a couple. Bringing in outside help for an unbiased analysis or talking it over with the IGC are two possible ways to get a solution.

I have got to believe that there is a solution or I am just wasting my time here.

As far as Vegas Partner goes - they aquired a group of casinos in the same breath as they breached contract with us. So who is paying for those casinos?

 

[rowmare]

What is happening right now with VP and FA is extremely important to the future of this industry. If we stand by and allow one program to make retroactive changes, there will be nothing to stop other programs from following suit. Why wouldn't they follow suit? When the other programs realize it's possible to change the terms retroactively in their favor -- without any repercussions -- it becomes a simple business decision at that point.

That's why it is so important for us to stop this from happening, right now.

...


Please don't say that this isn't a big deal. This is a huge, huge deal. If we don't speak up NOW, then we can expect this to happen again, and again, and again. If we do nothing -- if we let VP and FA get away with this -- then we are essentially giving every other affiliate program a green light to make retroactive changes in the future. As I said earlier, once these programs realize how easy it is, it becomes a simple business decision to them.

Please, I strongly urge those with "power" to take this very seriously, look into it, contact the people you know, etc. This could be a major turning point in this industry.

What Dave has said is precisely why we are taking this issue seriously. It isn't about FA per se, and it isn't even about the specific changes in the terms.


"If we don't speak up NOW, then we can expect this to happen again, and again, and again. "

 

[Simmo!]

Finished yer bon-bons yet Meister?

 

[The Dude]

Finished yer bon-bons yet Meister?

Yeah, but now I'm waiting for FA to respond to a few questions. Right now we're going around in circles.

 

[greedygirl]

Originally Posted by dominique
You guys don't have these problems - it's easy for you to talk.

Whoops! What was I thinking? And what on earth must Bryan have been thinking? After all, we're just paid media. Heaven knows, we sit on Easy Street, with nary a worry about whether we'll be paid or not, or whether a casino will try to worm out of a deal or lie to us about how a campaign is going. Of course, we've never had content stolen and nor have we fallen victim to DOS attacks, trojans or hijackings. Certainly we poo-poo the notion of SEO, because why should we bother? We don't have to worry, because we're just collecting checks for tossing up a banner here and there!

Give me a break, Dom.

My hesitation in even entering this discussion was borne of that old cloud which always seems to loom overhead--the "affiliates vs. paid media" nonsense. I was trying to be particularly sensitive to avoid this aspect, yet you felt this was a good way to take a cheap shot. I'd like to remind you that I have not expressed my feelings on the FA subject, whatsoever, only to state that I feel it is incredibly unfair to imply that players should be wary of FL due to "financial troubles." I may agree 100% with affiliates or I may agree 100% on the side of FA or somewhere in between. You simply don't know how I feel on this, yet you chose to take a swipe, anyhow.

Originally Posted by spearmaster
You are missing the point, however. You say we should be looking for solutions, when I (at least) am pointing out that they HAVE ALREADY BREACHED THEIR CONTRACT.

No...I haven't missed this point. I never said you should be looking for solutions--what I DID ask is that if you were in the shoes of FA, what would you have done? Please don't twist my words around.

Originally Posted by dominique
But so did money Mechanics, and they found a different solution.

I don't see how you can fairly judge Money Mechanics against FA. MM has been in existence only a couple years (in its current form). MM has 4 brands and substantially fewer players and affiliates, while FA has been in existence since the early days, with a player base and an affiliate roster that MM cannot come close to. MM can bow to the pressure far easier than FA can afford to.

Originally Posted by dominique
And there is what you may call "the middle class" who makes just enough to survive and feed their families. For those, a breach of contract spells possible bancruptcy.

This really seems a bit melodramatic. Will you lose a substantial amount of money? This remains to be seen. Yes, there is a very good chance that you will have a decrease in earnings--no question. However to infer that bankruptcy could loom as a result of this, is a bit over-the-top, IMO. As an affiliate, you know full well that you can never predict your earnings for the months ahead. You may have a sense of future earnings, but (pardon the pun), it will always be a gamble.

Originally Posted by casinomeister
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!).

Agreed. And if you really want to panic over something, I'd say site-scraping and content theft will have a much greater effect on earnings than the changes being made at FA. Just ask Harry at allonlineslots.com or Peralis or Mito at reviewed-casinos.com. They've fallen victim to this activity, losing tremendous traffic and having to literally re-write their sites, in an effort to prove themselves to the search engines.

I'd like to make one last emphatic point...

I am not anti-affiliate, whatsoever. Affiliates operate on a different pay objective than the environment I work in. However, when all is said and done, we all market online gambling sites and deliver traffic. It's almost a certainty that when affiliates are going through industry changes or any sort of difficulties, paid media will be going through similar scenarios, as well. It may not be in the exact same form, but it certainly will be parallel. It is for these very reasons that comments like, "it's easy for you to talk," are so completely offensive.

 

[Webzcas]

It's almost a certainty that when affiliates are going through industry changes or any sort of difficulties, paid media will be going through similar scenarios, as well. It may not be in the exact same form, but it certainly will be parallel. It is for these very reasons that comments like, "it's easy for you to talk," are so completely offensive.

GreedyGirl - no one is disputing this at all. I also believe no offense was intended by Dom and we are now as CM said going round in circles. Also fighting amongst ourselves is not the way forward.

What do I want?

Well dialogue with Fortune Affiliates for starters, in particular with one of the individuals responsible for implementing these changes - It is pointless discussing this with my RM because his hands are tied.

It would be to their ( FA ) credit if they actually responded in this thread - We might not like what they have to say and their position may not change - But they will get a lot more respect from me and many other casino portal webmasters if they actually acknowledged our concerns - and more importantly addressed our issues we currently have.

I would like nothing more than promote FA casinos and poker rooms again ( I personally rate their casinos/poker rooms highly ) - but their silence on this matter which I deem very important, leaves me no choice at present but to keep their presence off my sites - furthermore it is why I have taken the stance to advise any propective casino portal webmaster not to promote them in the current climate - should they encounter my casino webmasters page.

 

[The Dude]

It would be to their ( FA ) credit if they actually responded in this thread - We might not like what they have to say and their position may not change - But they will get a lot more respect from me and many other casino portal webmasters if they actually acknowledged our concerns - and more importantly addressed our issues we currently have.

They're planning to respond - don't fret

 

[dominique]

Wow! Where did all that come from? There must be a lot of hurt feelings around from the past yet. I never bought into this media buy versus affiliate shit. If in doubt, read the old soap boxes I stood on at bet2gamble years ago. Please be assured, I have no such ideas. I am actually myself with one foot in each category.

Anyway, this is all totally off the issue.

The issue is very simple, and none of the surrounding circumstances really matter in this regard.

Fortune breached contract with affiliates.

3 other programs have already followed.

Thus, contracts with online casinos are meaningless.

That is very alarming and makes the working environment completely unsafe.

 

[fortune]

Hi All

There were a few points raised in this thread and I would like to make a few things clear where there seems to be misunderstanding.
I think it best to clarify these issues before we use up all of CM's thread space!

Fortune Lounge and Fortune Affiliates are 2 separate companies.
Neither of us are in serious financial trouble.
Fortune Affiliates (not Fortune Lounge) was having profitability issues with our model for commissions and so we updated this.
This was only done to correct a profitability issue.

As correctly pointed out by CM there is a big difference between "financially viable" and in "financial trouble".
We may not have expressed ourselves that well in earlier messages but we are NOT in financial trouble just trying to correct an unbalanced commission formula.
We are not reducing commissions for Affiliates but rather sharing profits and losses where applicable.
We did NOT breach contract in anyway, this was perfectly according to the agreement you signed, and I struggle to believe that you would have kicked up as much of a fuss if the change had benefited you.
So this is actually a case of "we don't like the change" rather than "Fortune Affiliates breached contract".
Many Affiliates were consulted and asked for input, the fact that you may not have been does not mean no one else was asked.
We are not "shafting" anyone and have never and do not take kindly to being called names, when we are trying to be honest and ensure the most profitable future for all of us.
Many of the analogies raised here are also flawed in that the comparisons are between apples and oranges.
We are not changing how much we pay or which products we pay for.
We are changing the way commissions are added up which speaks to the way in which risk is absorbed.
For the longest time we have been absorbing the bulk of the risk and now that we want to share it more evenly Affiliates are saying it is not fair.
Even with the change Affiliates still get the lion's share of the profit.
The assumption that Fortune Lounge must have pressured us into this or be in financial trouble themselves is very wrong.
This is not to say that we were not pressured to correct this but our clients have no real interest or say in how much money Fortune Affiliates takes home.
There are too many assumptions, too little info and too many misunderstandings.

The overriding point is that as costs in the industry have increased Affiliates have enjoyed the same arrangement all along (which was designed around a lower cost of business).
Now as we try to address this (as this is a partnership even if some Affiliates in this thread would like to argue otherwise) and share some of these costs, some Affiliates are not prepared to accept this.
We have always helped our partners out when they have had profitability issues in the past and been more than understanding.
The idea that this is the biggest thing ever in the industry is both flattering and insulting!
In other words these Affiliates have no problem with us making changes or the split being unfair as long as it is in their favor.
In terms of bringing the players into this, as some of you seem to want, this is a strange request at best.
Since when did you rely on player's opinions to make decisions about your business?
Do you always try and involve players when there are disagreements with an Affiliate program?
Bad mouthing our clients to get us to react is not appreciated.
There is no breach, no moral issue or any other emotive word like this.
Everything we did was 100% legal and in accordance with the agreement you signed when registering.
Instead of assuming, perhaps read over the agreement you signed and check into the law before accusing us of illegal activity.

This point has been raised and addressed in many threads and our standpoint has been made clear.
We have not done anything illegal or against our original terms and conditions.
The point raised about increases in commission not being viewed as a "unacceptable change" rings very true.
The idea that the same Affiliate can post saying he/she "figures" FL is in trouble based on feelings and words and then post that they can't think of a solution because they don't have enough info shows their true colors - someone who is trying to fight and prove they are right without concern for the facts or actually being right.
And in terms of giving back players or e-mail addresses will Affiliates then pay us back commissions?

Please do not post in player section about this; this is ultimately a player forum.
CM did the right thing by moving into a separate thread.
Moving this thread back into a public player thread is a bad idea because this is not a player issue and players are likely to confuse Fortune Lounge and Fortune Affiliates as many Affiliates have already.
The requests to move the thread as well as some of the posts here seem more out of a sense of revenge or spite than actually trying to address, understand and resolve an issue.

This is getting ridiculous.
We do not want to keep this thread going in circles but rather to address these points and end this here and now.
Rehashing of these points will not help to create a resolve only taint the issue further and escalate emotions.

Please feel free to mail us any queries you may have on this.
Please feel free to use either [email protected] or [email protected] address.

Thanks.

 

[spearmaster]

No...I haven't missed this point. I never said you should be looking for solutions--what I DID ask is that if you were in the shoes of FA, what would you have done? Please don't twist my words around.

I wasn't meaning to twist your words around, since I didn't quote anything - I did mean to imply however that you suggested looking for solutions.

Anyhow, let me point out the following:

If FA knew they were getting into financial difficulty, why did they take so long to address this issue? Why did they not individually notify each affiliate that they would require their assistance in modifying the contract? Why did they NOT just implement it going forward from this point on without affecting players delivered in the past?

That's just for starters. I gave both FA and VPL a hell of a lot of stick in Montreal and both of them kept mouthing off about partnerships and financial difficulty - you would have sworn they were parrotting each other.

Again - I repeat - they HAVE already breached the contract, knowingly, and acknowledge that they do not intend to go back on this.

No one is arguing about this policy going forward. NO one. We are only upset because they have applied this to all the players that we have delivered under the agreement they made with us.

Fortune Lounge and Fortune Affiliates are 2 separate companies.
Neither of us are in serious financial trouble.
Fortune Affiliates (not Fortune Lounge) was having profitability issues with our model for commissions and so we updated this.
This was only done to correct a profitability issue.

BULLSHIT.

I was told VERY firmly that FA was in financial trouble and would have to consider closing if they did not make this change. This lie of yours is absolutely unacceptable.

If you were correcting a profitability issue, you SHOULD NOT have done it at the expense of the affiliates. This is also unacceptable.

Don't give me that crap about not expressing yourselves clearly - you were repeatedly asked at the table for clarification - any other assertion is an outright lie. You knew damn well I was not going to let you go that easily.

Please do not insult us with this response. You deserve what you have coming to you - and then you want to shovel that shit at us too?

If you want to take off the gloves with these outright untruths, then fine. I will put my word directly up against yours and the loser gets the hell out of the industry. Take your choice. I know I can sleep comfortably at night. Can you?

 

[dominique]

Since when did you rely on player's opinions to make decisions about your business?

As a matter of fact I always have. If the players ain't happy, ain't nobody happy. I value players opinions above all else. That is why I make such frequent use of Bryan's hospitality and spend time daily reading player's opinions.

It really doesn't matter much in this situation if you are profitable ot not, or any of the other circumstances, they are not what is upsetting.

What is upsetting is this:

Fortune breached contract with affiliates.

3 other programs have already followed.

Thus, contracts with online casinos are meaningless.

That is very alarming and makes the working environment completely unsafe.



David - you do know how to reach me at any time.

 

[Webzcas]

Fortune,

Thankyou for finally posting it is appreciated, but alas you have not addressed the issue at hand.

Did you honestly think you could make these sweeping changes without causing a stir within the affiliate community?

Furthermore your objection to us using CM's forum for voicing publically our outrage at these changes you introduced to our commission structure without consultation or consideration is off base and I think you know it too.

I would do the same if a player had been slighted by a casino as well. Also this issue concerns the industry as a whole of which players play a very important part.

The issue at hand is quite simple. You know full well many of us would not have signed up with Fortune Affiliates on a revenue share basis if we knew with power of hindsight, you would have changed the commission structure 6 months or a year down the line.

You have not been open to meaningful dialogue, instead you made the change retroactively, fully well knowing the broohaha this would cause - yet still made the changes in the hope it would die down quickly.

Unlike Money Mechanic, who listened to affiliates concerns and came up with a fair compromise by not applying their changes retroactively.

This solution is and was open to you - yet I was told by my RM and indeed it was also posted in CAP - that these changes had to be retroactive for Fortune Affiliates to remain financially viable.

You could have even considered only applying these changes to any new players put through - that way many of us would have changed to CPA - knowing full well any players previously introduced to your group of casinos would not be affected by these unfair changes.

So we are at an impasse it seems. You appear to be unwilling to address our concerns and reach a compromise. We on the other hand are unwilling to accept these changes lying down. Therefore whilst this status quo remains, I will have no choice along with many other affiliates, but to ensure any prospective webmasters are informed before choosing who to affiliate with.

 

[greedygirl]

With the help of the Wayback Machine, I've hunted down the original contract. I've pasted the portion of the contract which would apply directly to this situation, however, anyone can go and pull up the contract in it's entirety.


We may modify any of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement, at any time and in our sole discretion, by posting a change notice or a new agreement on our site. Modifications may include, for example, changes in the scope of available referral fees, fee schedules, payment procedures, and referral program rules. IF ANY MODIFICATION IS UNACCEPTABLE TO YOU, YOUR ONLY RECOURSE IS TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAM FOLLOWING OUR POSTING OF A CHANGE NOTICE OR NEW AGREEMENT ON OUR SITE WILL CONSTITUTE BINDING ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHANGE

From the beginning, my only interest was to assess this debate fairly. While I'm sincerely empathetic towards the affiliates on this, given the content of the contract, I cannot see where FA has breached the agreement.

For those wanting to see the contract in its entirery, you can go here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I pulled up several different dates, going back as far as March 2002--I also pulled up other dates more recent, and the contract was consistent. To view the actual contract, once on the FA page, go to the sign up page, scroll down and click on the terms link.

 

[dominique]

That clause is in every contract I have ever seen.

It does'nt free anyone from the obligation to pay for received services as previously agreed.

It only says that it can be changed anytime - which no one disputes.

It is the refusal to pay for players already received that is the problem.

 

[krystall]

Please do not post in player section about this; this is ultimately a player forum.
CM did the right thing by moving into a separate thread.
Moving this thread back into a public player thread is a bad idea because this is not a player issue and players are likely to confuse Fortune Lounge and Fortune Affiliates as many Affiliates have already.

I agree that players should never be involved in marketing issues.

Player are being paid.. So until that were to happen, then don't think informing players of possible issues is right.

 

[spearmaster]

We may modify any of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement, at any time and in our sole discretion, by posting a change notice or a new agreement on our site. Modifications may include, for example, changes in the scope of available referral fees, fee schedules, payment procedures, and referral program rules. IF ANY MODIFICATION IS UNACCEPTABLE TO YOU, YOUR ONLY RECOURSE IS TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAM FOLLOWING OUR POSTING OF A CHANGE NOTICE OR NEW AGREEMENT ON OUR SITE WILL CONSTITUTE BINDING ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHANGE

This says that they can modify the agreement. It says that if we don't like it we can terminate the agreement.

It does not say that they can change the agreement and apply it to any players delivered prior to that point - ie. retroactively. The presence, or lack thereof, a statement indicating that they may apply a new condition to any players delivered under the pre-existing agreement does not grant them any right to do so.

I repeat yet again - NO one disagrees with the action they claim they need to take, as long as it is applied to players from July 1st onwards. Under no circumstances does the above clause give them the right to take such action against any deliverables under the old agreement.

 

[Simmo!]

This says that they can modify the agreement. It says that if we don't like it we can terminate the agreement.

It does not say that they can change the agreement and apply it to any players delivered prior to that point - ie. retroactively.

...and Dom is right, its a standard business clause, nothing new there, every lawyer will put it in there for you. But Spear's right - it does not mean the cahnges are effective on business already conducted under the agreement, otherwise what is the point of having a contract in the first place?

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.

In other words these Affiliates have no problem with us making changes or the split being unfair as long as it is in their favor

We'd also have had no problem with you changing the terms as you did - as long as, as Spear says, it was from the 1st July.

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?

 

[Simmo!]

Moving this thread back into a public player thread is a bad idea because this is not a player issue and players are likely to confuse Fortune Lounge and Fortune Affiliates as many Affiliates have already.

On the assumption they are seperate businesses, thats fair enough IMHO.

.

Rehashing of these points will not help to create a resolve only taint the issue further and escalate emotions.

This is encouraging...are we working towards finding a resolution after all? I assumed it was cut-and-dried.

.

Since when did you rely on player's opinions to make decisions about your business?

Just spotted the above on a re-read! I won't comment other than to say player opinions are fundamental to the business (for both of us I'd have thought).

.

And in terms of giving back players or e-mail addresses will Affiliates then pay us back commissions?

Obviously not meant to be taken seriously, but flawed in that you made 75% from them already in our original agreement, which admittedly you have now nullified.

 

[mary]

I'm not an affiliate, but I want to be clear on the situation.

Now, as I understand it, casinos promise affiliates a percentage of a player's loss for the lifetime of the player. That's the contract: "We will pay you X percentage of a player's losses for the lifetime of the player."

For this statement to make any sense at all, several terms have to be defined and mutually understood between the two parties:

*how the percentage is calculated
*what is a "lifetime"

Some casinos do it simply: all the winnings paid to that affiliate's players and all the losses collected are added together per casino. If it's a positive amount, the affiliate gets a percentage of that total. If it's a negative amount, that is a negative balance carried over into following months.

In contrast, some casinos "zeroed out" the negative balances every month, essentially paying affiiates more for the same player action and percentage than the above casinos that carried over negative balances.

This means more money for the same percentage figure and affiliates liked it. It was under the second scenario that affiliates sent players to Fortune Lounge casinos.

Now the program wants to lower the effective payouts to affiliates by changing how they calculate player losses and wins by combining the results of all players in a group of casinos, offsetting the effects of "zeroing out" losses.

So, we can see that they are changing the very terms of the contract by changing how percentage is calculated.

Going forward, applying the new calculation method to all players, including those previously sent is certainly a change of the term "lifetime" and it is this aspect of it that leads people to use the term "retroactive". This also makes it a different situation than the model of paying for advertising--advertising revenue isn't dependent on calculations of player value over a lifetime.

I have to address some of the following remarks that are just so typical of evil casino thinking that players so often encounter.

We are not reducing commissions for Affiliates but rather sharing profits and losses where applicable.

It's reducing commissions. Get real. It has the effect of sending a smaller check out than previously, that's called "reducing".

We did NOT breach contract in anyway, this was perfectly according to the agreement you signed, and I struggle to believe that you would have kicked up as much of a fuss if the change had benefited you.

A change in how values are calculated may or may not be a change in the contract: if it was a soundly written contract, it had that formula in it.

So this is actually a case of "we don't like the change" rather than "Fortune Affiliates breached contract".

No, it's a case of FA breached contract.

...when we are trying to be honest and ensure the most profitable future for all of us.

"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." These are changes to effectively pay affiliates less money going forward then was promised.

Many of the analogies raised here are also flawed in that the comparisons are between apples and oranges.
We are not changing how much we pay or which products we pay for.
We are changing the way commissions are added up which speaks to the way in which risk is absorbed.

You are changing how much you pay. When you created the contract, it contained statements of the allocation of risk mutually agreeable to you and your partners.

For the longest time we have been absorbing the bulk of the risk and now that we want to share it more evenly Affiliates are saying it is not fair.

OK, so you are changing your allocation of risk. That's a change and it means less money for affiliates. You wrote the original terms and now you don't like them. Too bad; ethically it's wrong to just change them because you want to make more money.

...The overriding point is that as costs in the industry have increased Affiliates have enjoyed the same arrangement all along (which was designed around a lower cost of business).
Now as we try to address this (as this is a partnership even if some Affiliates in this thread would like to argue otherwise) and share some of these costs, some Affiliates are not prepared to accept this.

Talking to *some* affiliates doesn't change the ethics of any of this. What, they are telepathically linked? The Borg market online casinos? My mind boggles at the idiocy of this statement.

We have always helped our partners out when they have had profitability issues in the past and been more than understanding.

Giving this the most charitable construction possible--that they actually gave more money to some affiliates--or made loans to cover their mortgages-- it's still back to the argument that we helped some out so all of them can suffer now.

In other words these Affiliates have no problem with us making changes or the split being unfair as long as it is in their favor.

Newsflash: business contracts are not written to be fair. They are written to be mutually agreeable to both parties.

In terms of bringing the players into this, as some of you seem to want, this is a strange request at best.
Since when did you rely on player's opinions to make decisions about your business?
Do you always try and involve players when there are disagreements with an Affiliate program?

Well, if you can't be honest and honor contracts with your business partners, players appreciate knowing that. After all, your business partners make you profitable; players who win are pure liabilities. They didn't "assume enough risk" and you reserve the right to not pay because it "isn't fair."

...There is no breach, no moral issue or any other emotive word like this.
Everything we did was 100% legal and in accordance with the agreement you signed when registering.
Instead of assuming, perhaps read over the agreement you signed and check into the law before accusing us of illegal activity.

If the formula for calculating the above values was in the contract, changing those terms is 100% illegal.

Fortune Affiliates have done a good job of damning themselves with their own words here.

 

[Dave]

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

 

[bb1webs]

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.

 

[spearmaster]

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.

 

[Simmo!]

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.

 

[mary]

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.

 

[Webzcas]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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!

 

[The Dude]

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

 

[Simmo!]

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

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.

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.

 

[spearmaster]

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

Snakes. Buzzards. Whatever.

 

[dominique]

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.

 

[dominique]

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.

 

[bb1webs]

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.

 

[mary]

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.

 

[dominique]

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.

 

[mary]

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!

 

[dominique]

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.

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.

 

[mary]

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.

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.

 

[dominique]

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]

:notworthy I guess we're not worthy of a reply. Oh well... like I expected any more...

 

[dominique]

: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.....

 

[spearmaster]

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.

 

[rowmare]

Where there is smoke, there is fire.

Snakes. Buzzards. Whatever.

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.

 

[mary]

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.

 

[dominique]

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.