New quotas at Affiliatehub (Skybet)

JackTenOff

Webmaster
webmeister
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Location
uk
New terms have been introduced which mean you need to refer a minimum of 6 (!!!!) players in a month otherwise you get dropped to 5% commission. This applies retroactively to all players.

I urge everyone to drop this sham of a program
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Location
Bexhill on sea, England
I urge everyone to drop this sham of a program
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
For the vast majority of their affiliates there is no need to "urge" - they have no choice.

There is no way I can ever meet this quota - my average is ONE new depositor every 2 months.
They are applying this RETROACTIVELY - which means it WILL apply to all 650+ registered players that I referred there over the last 7 years and the 55+ depositors who collectively deposited over £115,000.
It must be very nice to be rich enough to just dump 100's of affiliates bringing in those sorts of figures at the drop of a hat...

Just like Ladbrokes before them - they have stabbed their loyal affiliates in the back.
It's just not worth trying to work with ANY of the "big boys" any longer :mad:

KK
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Applying quotas to affiliates retroactively is not only misguided, it's highly unethical. I would urge all affiliates to remove their links. At Casinomeister, all of their properties are pending roguedom due to association.
 

Simmo!

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
Shame - they used to be a top product and program but reneging on contracts is at the very least unethical, possibly even unlawful. They did this to encourage affiliates to send more traffic but then what will they do down the line when they want even more? Once bitten! Sensible option is to get out now rather than get in deeper and get hurt even harder.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Shame - they used to be a top product and program but reneging on contracts is at the very least unethical, possibly even unlawful. They did this to encourage affiliates to send more traffic but then what will they do down the line when they want even more? Once bitten! Sensible option is to get out now rather than get in deeper and get hurt even harder.

We have about 270 identifiable affiliates in the forum, and 670 subscribers to the Webmeister Wire - they are all being notified with a request to remove these properties from their sites.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
A big problem with such changes and quotas is it pushes affiliates into unethical marketing in order to hit the quotas. When you are brining people into gambling, quotas should be outlawed on the grounds of promotion of responsible gambling. Only those players able and willing to risk money should play, and forcing affiliates into meeting quotas means that they have to be more creative in marketing, which in turn could mean attracting players who can't really afford to play. It could also lead to an increase in spam, as this is a very easy means to mass market and pick up one or two extra players to make a quota that month.
 

Simmo!

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
A big problem with such changes and quotas is it pushes affiliates into unethical marketing in order to hit the quotas. When you are brining people into gambling, quotas should be outlawed on the grounds of promotion of responsible gambling. Only those players able and willing to risk money should play, and forcing affiliates into meeting quotas means that they have to be more creative in marketing, which in turn could mean attracting players who can't really afford to play. It could also lead to an increase in spam, as this is a very easy means to mass market and pick up one or two extra players to make a quota that month.

Good points.
 

Wild Reels

Meister Member
webmeister
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
I'm not sure it pushes affiliates into anything unethical, if you were an ethical affiliate in the first place you would and should drop them like a hot potato, i was looking into adding them simply because ive played there and had no issues and they have a range of different slots which you cant find elswhere - specifically the blueprint slots.

But its simply not worth the headache, or spending the time and effort to try and establish some organic search presence with these new terms in place, for the big brands its hard enough to rank anywhere near the top for any range of keywords, so to set limits per month is an instant turn off for the small fry :).

I do feel sorry for the affiliates that have already spent months and years promoting them to then have the rug literally pulled from under their feet though.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I'm not sure it pushes affiliates into anything unethical, if you were an ethical affiliate in the first place you would and should drop them like a hot potato, i was looking into adding them simply because ive played there and had no issues and they have a range of different slots which you cant find elswhere - specifically the blueprint slots.

But its simply not worth the headache, or spending the time and effort to try and establish some organic search presence with these new terms in place, for the big brands its hard enough to rank anywhere near the top for any range of keywords, so to set limits per month is an instant turn off for the small fry :).

I do feel sorry for the affiliates that have already spent months and years promoting them to then have the rug literally pulled from under their feet though.

Many schemes have countered this by threatening affiliates with a retrospective loss of income, or even of all their players. If they pursue this for a living, they may not be in a position to fight back by "dropping them like a hot potato", so will then have a battle of conscience between doing the right thing or seeing their family on the streets. If they are close to their quota, they will probably do what it takes and hope things improve next month. They will not do anything illegal, but will just do what the average business would do in such a situation, push the boundaries.

The only way to counter this is for enough affiliates to act as one, and ensure that such nasty changes are met with a mass "dropped like a hot potato" response whereby the money saved from not having to pay further commissions on existing players is outweighed by the money lost through even the sub quota traffic that they were not satisfied with. Affiliates should also explain to visitors of their site WHY they have dropped such a group, but in a way that cannot leave them open to a libel suit from the casino.
 

Simmo!

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
I do feel sorry for the affiliates that have already spent months and years promoting them to then have the rug literally pulled from under their feet though.

I've chatted to around a dozen or so colleagues on this issue and it seems converting sports betting customers is a lot easier than it is casino/games players at Sky. All the casino/games affiliates I have spoken to, including some prominent ones, are replacing Sky with brands like bet365 while the sports affiliates believe they can easily sustain the required numbers. The concensus seems to be that it's been hard to convert casino players there, largely because of saturation and a limited geographic market I suspect. Consequently, most casino affiliates don't have a lot to lose and feel it's best to get out now than get in deeper and open themselves up to a bigger risk.

I've concluded that the new owners of Sky Betting & Gaming (CVC Capital) have taken a calculated risk to scale down affiliate operations and reduce overheads, focusing on sports.
 
Top