Kindred affiliates at it now, adding quotas

[bonustreak]

Why is Kindred getting a free pass on this, while other programs were rogued here when they implemented retroactive changes?

I am wondering the same thing! So many other programs that did really shady things to affiliates in the past and we all stuck together and voiced our opinion.
Skybet for example, Affiliate Edge another example. What Kindred is doing is no better than the other programs who have gone down this path.
AGD has done the right thing by putting 32 in the Rogue house and marking them as predatory.

 

[colinsunderland]

Guys,

If you allow Kindred to get away with retroactive changes, you are opening the door for other programs to follow suit.

Why is Kindred getting a free pass on this, while other programs were rogued here when they implemented retroactive changes?

Is it because the beloved 32Red is involved? Newsflash: They aren't owned and operated by the same nice people anymore. Now it's just another brand in a big stable of brands, owned by a company with questionable ethical standards and a flippant attitude toward their affiliates.

Sure, you might be able to make friends with the new management if you have enough traffic or influence, and they might look the other way if you don't meet their quota -- for now.

But one day, without a doubt, that term will be enforced on your account. If they didn't plan to use it one day, they wouldn't have plopped it into the T&Cs.

They are already enforcing it on several affiliates who posted earlier in this thread, despite them trying to reach out and work something out.

By the way, AGD has rogued the

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

because of this.

I completely agree with this, and don't understand at all why they are still accredited and not in the pit. They aren't removing the quotas for every affiliate and even for the ones they do, aren't saying they won't enforce them ever, and its clearly against what the rules on here state for being accredited.

 

[Dave]

Has Bryan see the latest posts in this thread? I know he was on vacation until recently.

In the posts above, you can see that Kindred is enforcing retroactive T&Cs on their affiliates. All brands in the group are affected, including 32Red, Roxy Palace, and Unibet, which are currently Accredited.

However:

Affiliate marketing Standards

1. Must not cross promote to other properties without giving proper credit to affiliates and/or their advertisers.
2. Must not implement retroactive terms and conditions to their affiliate programs without explicit permission and agreement from the affiliate.

Earlier in the thread, there was some off-topic discussion about compliance, which is important, but not really the main point here.

The point is, Kindred is forcing retroactive T&Cs on their affiliates.

For those of you who made phone calls and got your own situation worked out -- did you get the exception in writing as well, after the call? If not, the technical reality is that your own situation is not any different that it was before the phone chat.

Getting a verbal agreement over the phone doesn't do anything to change the fact that the written contract has been unfavorably changed, and your commissions are just as much at risk as Christine's or any other affiliate.

Let's please continue the discussion. This is important, and I think it would be a mistake to allow any affiliate program to enforce retroactive T&Cs -- even 32Red.

 

[Dave]

Bryan -- PM sent. Did you receive it?

 

[Webzcas]

Hi Dave,

I will nudge Bryan on Skype regards this thread, after I have finished this post

For those of you who made phone calls and got your own situation worked out -- did you get the exception in writing as well, after the call? If not, the technical reality is that your own situation is not any different that it was before the phone chat.

I asked Mark a couple of weeks ago to put me in touch with the team at Kindred, which he kindly did. I myself have no special deals etc, but I am willing to do what they require of me as a webmaster promoting their brands from a compliance point of view. I have been working with 32Red since 2005 and indeed Ed Ware was my Managing Director at Ladbrokes, before he left at the end of 2001. To set up 32Red in 2002.

So from purely a history point of view, I want to keep working with them. I also welcome the opportunity to work with the brands in the Kindred stable which I currently do not promote.

I am of the view that now is the time to make informed decisions moving forward as to who to work with. Indeed, I have had several of my UK affiliate accounts unceremoniously closed down. It sucks, it really does. As does the proposed retroactive quotas.

These changes however are giving me an opportunity to freshen up my site ( s ) and generate closer ties to the people running the programs that I decide to continue to work with.

What I am trying to say is, that no matter how loud we shout and scream on a forum or forums, change doesn't and will not happen. Hence moving forward, I am too tired to fight. But I am eyes wide open, making informed decisions as to who I continue to work with.

 

[Dave]

Thanks Dave.

I have no problem with compliance. I'm happy to comply with the latest UK rules.

But when it comes to retroactive changes to our commission deals, we should never just accept it. If you accept it for 32Red/Kindred, then you accept it for the dozens of other companies that will want to follow suit after seeing how easily 32Red/Kindred got away with it.

I outlined a straightforward solution to this earlier in the thread: ring fence the existing player base, and apply the new T&Cs only to players sent from this point forward. Anyone with some database skills could set this up in a matter of hours. This is the only fair way to implement a new quota.

Does anyone else agree with this idea?

Of course, the very best solution would be to eliminate the quota altogether. If the brands are so great, affiliates will want to promote them anyway -- no blackmail necessary. You know, the whole "catch more flies with honey instead of vinegar" thing.

If 32Red, Roxy, Unibet, etc. are allowed to remain accredited, I think it lessens the value of accreditation for the other brands that went through the lengthy review and BBF process. They worked hard to become accredited, and if I was an operator, I would be wondering why my company is held to one standard, while 32Red/Kindred is held to a lower standard.

I think change can and will happen if we stay the course and continue speaking out against things like this -- by complaining about unfair one-sided changes, by reducing exposure, by removing highly regarded "statuses" (such as accreditation), and finally by roguing, if no progress is made in the earlier steps.

Will we win them all? No. AE and Sky are perfect examples. But if we do nothing at all, or worse -- actually increase exposure in response to retroactive T&Cs -- then we are opening Pandora's Box, and we will certainly not like what the landscape looks like in a few years.

 

[Webzcas]

Mentioned over on AGD, but the idea of a Union as mooted by @ThePOGG is becoming more of a necessity.

 

[Biti]

The proposed solution - only appy the new t&c on new players - is exactly what they're not doing.

Basically, they're giving themself a carte blanche to lower your commission, change your deal or close your account when they want. All the bla-bla of their affiliate managers to dodge the issue is worth nothing. I'm doing business with KIndred, not with an affiliate manager that has absolutely zero decision power internally and they perhaps will be working for another program next month.

And accreditation? Players don't care if you or I will see their account closed at Kindred or if we're left with a 5% commission deal because the brand is completely saturated in a market. In the end, it's an opinion of webmasters. I see brands being top at one website, while being blacklisted at another website and visa versa. Very few webmasters are going to blacklist their top partners. Leave alone when they're not hit themselves, neither their players. Leave alone 2 when it's one of the key players in almost every regulated market.

I think in the end this kind of terms are kind of a reality. There's no way dat affiliate programs make any profit on accounts that do not deliver (anymore) a substant amount of players and NGR, while they have to check the websites if they're compliant, have GDPR rules, have KYC rules and many time have also insane deals including many times NNCO. I've seen data behind the screen of some programs and it's shocking sometimes what they're losing on deals they've made once. They're losing on insane fees on bigger websites and on high RS deals on non-performing websites. And we all know, that some day they want to make profit out of their deals and if not, they will try what they can to do so.

I am totally in favour of an union. So far I didn't spend a minute in organization of it and I am not one of the super affiliates in this affiliate world, so perhaps I have not any right to speak, but my opinion is that it would be a false start if the Kindred case will not be the first one. Like I wrote here before, it's a key player in every regulated market. Within 5 years there will be two kind of affiliate websites and casinos: those operating in regulated markets and those operating in non-regulated markets or illegal on regulated markets. I don't think the Union is a vehicle for the last group. It makes no sense to spend scarce and hard-earned resources in chasing programs that cannot even get caught by authorities.

Almost every affiliate in the first group will have to deal with Kindred. Especially in smaller, regulated markets, almost every program is what we now call predatory, rogue, etc. And honestly, a decent amount of the programs that are now awesome, will be out of business or also will have to face some new realities.

Like many things, also here it has to come from both sides. Kindred should not be able to get away with this one-sides action. That's for sure. But just blacklisting programs makes that in the end in regulated markets you will not have a program left to work with. It's a good moment to make deals that are more fair with programs. That means that we have to get rid off programs that are very one-sides made by the legal team of programs, but it also means that affiliates have to accept some (new) realities.

In a war it's sometimes better to keep your capital, harbours, airports and give up some remote middle of nowhere lands, instead of trying to defend and all and lose all in the end.

 

[colinsunderland]

So just got an email letting me know this will be enforced from the 22nd June, despite what they have said.
As I haven't agreed to the new terms, that will be interesting.
In my view they are rogue and dishonest, not sure how anyone can say different.

 

[Casinomeister]

Sorry this has taken so long to get back to. A perfect storm so to speak - I was out for a bit (not a vacation - but in the States on personal business), then loads of stuff waiting for me to include prepping for and initiating all this hooey for the GDPR. And now...

It's not right - the retroactive terms. Kindred should be giving affiliates an option, and this may be what they are doing between affiliates and themselves. When this first surfaced, I was alarmed and raised this issue to their attention. I have not had the chance to follow up on this or decide on how to deal with these issues since we know that affiliates will work this situations out on their own. These sorts of things should not be dictated but negotiated unless of course this is coming from their regulator - which they usually will have no say in the matter.

I'll have more to say about this next week when things are not so damn busy.

 

[Biti]

They have a new GDPR update. I'm asked to accept that changes. I am ok with those GDRP changes but not with the changes before. Changes that I didn't accept. I guess that if I accept the GDPR update, I accept all?

 

[Dave]

Thanks Bryan.

It seems like Kindred/32Red doesn't really care about their affiliates anymore, so I went ahead and tossed all of their brands in Old URL (the rogue area at Moolah Casino).

Having everyone agree to the new compliance rules, I understand, but they took it a step further and used "compliance" as an excuse to add quotas to their terms, which has nothing at all to do with compliance.

It's a sneaky, dick move, and they are enforcing the new quota terms on affiliates who tried to negotiate with them. (See bonustreak's posts earlier in the thread.)

Once again, affiliates take it up the ass, and if we don't do something about it, we can look forward to future abuse from other programs looking to line their pockets or appease shareholders at our expense.

So, now 32Red, Roxy Palace, Unibet, and all the other brands are rogued on my sites, and all of their reviews have been changed to warn players not to play at the brands. I have always believed that if a company screws their affiliates, they will screw their players, too (and vice versa).

If 32Red/Kindred decides to drop the retroactive aspect of the new quota policy, leaving our existing player bases unaffected by any sort of quota, I will consider changing their status on my sites. But it will depend on how much longer they drag their feet and give us the "talk to the hand" treatment.

 

[bonustreak]

Great job Dave and I am in total agreement with everything you said. Kindred is getting a free pass to screw over affiliates!

 

[bonustreak]

Now this news... They will come into the US market with the same rogue ass terms for affiliates unless the new soon to be US regulation will stop them from behaving badly towards affiliates.
DraftKings A Target Of Acquisition? Sources: Kindred Group Kicking Tires On Fantasy Sports Company
xxw.legalsportsreport.com/20900/kindred-group-kicking-tires-draftkings/

 

[Biti]

They simply do not seem to care.

I didn't drop them yet, but made clear I do not agree with the terms. In some markets I would have literally nothing to promote left if I would drop every program that has retro-actively changed the rules or did other dodgy things. How's that? Every licensed brand would be in the dodgy corner and the table at the front page would be empty.

 

[colinsunderland]

Sorry this has taken so long to get back to. A perfect storm so to speak - I was out for a bit (not a vacation - but in the States on personal business), then loads of stuff waiting for me to include prepping for and initiating all this hooey for the GDPR. And now...

It's not right - the retroactive terms. Kindred should be giving affiliates an option, and this may be what they are doing between affiliates and themselves. When this first surfaced, I was alarmed and raised this issue to their attention. I have not had the chance to follow up on this or decide on how to deal with these issues since we know that affiliates will work this situations out on their own. These sorts of things should not be dictated but negotiated unless of course this is coming from their regulator - which they usually will have no say in the matter.

I'll have more to say about this next week when things are not so damn busy.

Any update on this @Casinomeister

 

[bonustreak]

Any updates on this?

 

[Dave]

I've been wondering about this, too.

 

[Casinomeister]

Any updates on this?

I've been wondering about this, too.

Yeah - me too.

As I mentioned before, retroactive terms - especially predatory ones like this (the quotas and threats of reducing the agreed upon rev share) is not conductive to a balanced and fair review for players. Affiliates will praise properties not for their worthiness, but because the affiliate is afraid not to send the casino any players. How is this conductive to an honest review? It's not right, and it's not fair.

Reportedly, some of these affiliate programs like Kindred are giving affiliates a chance to make individual agreements, but it is still not fair to the small time one-man-show affiliate - or to those who don't go out of their way to contact them.

And I don't get it. Why the BS quotas? I have been in this business longer than most, and I have yet to meet an affiliate manager who could justify quotas except that they want more traffic. Really? How about relying on the brand's reputation and what they have to offer. And as if it costs anything to have a low performing affiliate in their database - quotas are exploitative towards affiliates.

I am really hoping that Kindred will revisit the way they are creating these terms. It makes me feel that they are totally out of touch with the affiliate community, and are taking a page from the book of Playtech Tactics that Screw Affiliates.

 

[dionysus]

Yeah - me too.

As I mentioned before, retroactive terms - especially predatory ones like this (the quotas and threats of reducing the agreed upon rev share) is not conductive to a balanced and fair review for players.

.

Please educate my Bryan.
Besides fairness, are aff agreements (emails, discussions etc ) not contracts, and therefore enforeceable by law?

 

[Casinomeister]

Please educate my Bryan.
Besides fairness, are aff agreements (emails, discussions etc ) not contracts, and therefore enforeceable by law?

It's pretty much "enforceable by termination" of the contract or agreement. The affiliate program has traditionally held the upper hand. Affiliates are bound by the agreements, but most if not all of the agreements have a clause that states that it can be terminated without cause or reason. I'm not a lawyer, but I am not sure if this could be considered a valid term in contract in the EU or UK. Not saying that Kindred has these sorts of terms, but I'm just making a point that affiliate programs will change agreements at their whim and it's "take it or leave it". It's never been fair.

 

[colinsunderland]

It's pretty much "enforceable by termination" of the contract or agreement. The affiliate program has traditionally held the upper hand. Affiliates are bound by the agreements, but most if not all of the agreements have a clause that states that it can be terminated without cause or reason. I'm not a lawyer, but I am not sure if this could be considered a valid term in contract in the EU or UK. Not saying that Kindred has these sorts of terms, but I'm just making a point that affiliate programs will change agreements at their whim and it's "take it or leave it". It's never been fair.

It would be 50-50 if a termination clause would be fair or not in the UK, however I wouldn't like to argue it in court as, ultimately, the affiliate agreed to it. What wouldn't be upheld would be if it were added after the initial agreement, and the affiliate had no choice but to accept it.

Where the casino would most certainly lose would be where there was prior agreement (either in contract or in advertising) that it was lifetime revenue, then adding terms such as Skybet did and now Kindred. Skybet, as far as I can see, never actually stated revenue was lifetime. If I could find any evidence they did, then I would be in court with them by now.

It is clearly rogue behavior to do it though and it is completely against the accreditation standards here, and I still don't understand how 32Red/Kindred are allowed to be accredited after doing this. I can't see how they are doing anything different to SkyBet, yet they were rogued for doing the exact same thing (and rightly so).

I know Mark is a good rep, and I know he has been very generous in the tournament he has ran over the years, but Kindred own them now, their RG stance was widely condemned on here a while back, something they have just got a massive penalty for, and they have ended the competition just after the kindred acquisition, and I don't see why they should be allowed to rip affiliates off while other casinos are chucked in the pit for the exact same thing. I am sure 32Red would not have done this had they not been bought out, but really, they aren't 32Red any more.

 

[dunover]

Yes, as an affiliate you usually believe it's a contract of mutual benefit - you bring the players and reliably get paid per NDP, RS or hybrid of both with honest and full tracking via the affiliate interface used. To be fair, that's how it works with most programmes. Now whether you've agreed or not, retroactive commission reduction would certainly be deemed as an 'unfair' or prejudicial term in most civil courts but most of them aren't based in say a UK or German or Dutch jurisdiction so little can be done to challenge it. You rely on mutual integrity; you promote according to their rules and they pay you by them because rest assured there'll be weasel-wording and get-out FU clauses in EVERY affiliate agreement and the reputation of the programme rests on how these are administered - or not.

You can get amateurish affiliate managers who are usually paid a percentage of what their sub-affiliates earn and will readily hassle you via e-mail if your players aren't losing enough! (stooopid) or they don't think you are pulling in enough NDP's. These are the worst type, gravy-skimmers who haven't a clue how hard you work and simply see you as commission machine for their benefit and not as a person. Bryan knows one of these as I sent him recently a ridiculous communication from one programme, but others try it too.

Some aff. managers and programmes are excellent, Metal casino, Red Queen, Cosmos, Trada, Calzone, Midaur, Genesis, Alea, Full Cream and Dazzletag stand out for me. Some are recalcitrant at paying you according to the agreement and treat payments as something to eventually get round to when they can be bothered, yes YOU! Sunbets late for the THIRD consecutive month!

Obviously some of the bigger ones like Kindred and previously Sky seem to resent continuing paying you RS for historic players especially if they don't consider you recruit enough new ones and use that as an excuse to FU, or even worse defraud deliberately like Asspower.

So it can be a battlefield but I have to say 90% of programmes behave honourably and it pays to go to the conferences and meet them - it tends to build a better trust and relationship.

 

[colinsunderland]

The only one of those you mention I've had much to do with is fullcream and they are excellent, in fact they are one of only around 5 affiliate programs I trust not to do anything dodgy at some point in the future. Downside is they seem to bonus ban people pretty quickly, and that affects revenue. Luke who oversees the Sunbets program was brilliant, however haven't dealt with him much with sunbets, and Matt used to be good at SkyBet, he was the only affiliate manager from the big bookies that would reply, usually in under a couple of hours. I don't think (up until this thread) I've had a single reply to around 10 emails sent to Kindred over the past few years, and they wonder why I don't send much traffic. Ignore me and I'll ignore your casino.

I agree with meeting people, where possible. I was watching the match with the owner of a small bookie/casino last night and after last night I trust him completely, whereas I hadn't even applied to the affiliate program before last night. Will the bookie last? I don't know, its a white label which usually puts me off, but I know he won't deliberately rip me off if I promote him.

 

[Casinomeister]

...
It is clearly rogue behavior to do it though and it is completely against the accreditation standards here, and I still don't understand how 32Red/Kindred are allowed to be accredited after doing this. I can't see how they are doing anything different to SkyBet, yet they were rogued for doing the exact same thing (and rightly so)...

It's complicated. It's not comparable to Skybet, or BetVictor for that matter since those programs gave affiliates the "talk to the hand" treatment. Kindred has been open to negotiation on a case by case basis from what I understand. But I'm still looking into this situation.