Your Input Please Should affiliates have 'advantage play'?

[Nicola]

I believe that every player who decides to gamble online should have the same chance of winning and/or making a withdrawal as the next player - a level playing field so to say. However, looking at recent YouTube videos and the increasing number of streamers, if you are an affiliate you get several advantages...

1. You get 100% bonus (no risk parachute bonus) on nearly every deposit - this effectively doubles the chance of winning (Majority of streaming/video affiliates get this)

2. Increased maximum bet on slots - when combined with the above, gives you the chance of bigger wins (Around half of streaming/video affiliates get this)

3. Allowed to play restricted games - which takes advantage of slots with higher RTP like DoA, 1429 Uncharted Seas (Few streaming/video affiliates receive this, mostly non-MGA/UKGC casinos)

On top of this, because of the increased turnover on the player's account from 1. and 2. above, they receive higher cashback/free spins/rewards (weekend booster / Wheel of Rizk / Casumo rewards / Calzone Tokens etc)

It was also pointed out the other day (by Dunover IIRC) that streamers show an unrealistic view of what is achievable and may break current ASA rules. When you open a video on YouTube they will often say I have deposited 300 pounds and got a 300 pound bonus - anyone unfamiliar with affiliate terms may think they will receive the same on every deposit.

This thread/poll is not attacking any individual casino streamer or YouTube affiliate, just something which I want to see how others on Casinomeister feel. After all, wouldn't we all like to receive a second chance parachute bonus once our deposit runs dry?

 

[Jono777]

The bonuses they get are unfair to the average 'Mr X' such as myself and a part of the reason I reckon along with UKGC tightening we in the UK see virtually none these days, well no fair or realistic ones anyway.

As for streamers I have mixed feelings, chappies like JGslots and Interlog, Geoff and back in the day Casino Twitcher etc were great, realistic, honest and also entertaining.

Idiots (and I shall refrain from names here) who have 4-5 figure balances, spin at crazy stakes, dress like fools, chat shit spoil it not only for other streamers but regular players and also up and coming sign ups, RG goes out the window and how will UKGC react? - By punishing the 'Mr X' I speak of indirectly with more OTT rules and regs!

Casinos seems to ignore the "small fish are sweet" thoughts these days sadly and us humble low rollers with (very) limited budgets are up against it before we make a single spin!

 

[goatwack]

Obviously not as they're quite clearly set up to entice viewers into trying the same, i.e make unaffordable bets.

It's blatant advertising for the casino and all rather cynical, if we're talking anything above £2 bets really

 

[interlog]

The reason most of the streamers get 100% deposit match bonuses on each and every deposit (if they so want) is because it otherwise is not financially sustainable to stream most days of the week.

I don't agree with streamers on top of those deposit match bonuses getting additional benefits such as an increase of the max bet rule and being able to play otherwise restricted games. It may lead viewers to believe they can do the same in the event that they get a deposit match bonus.

The purposes of the videos / streams is to get customers through the door and these deals for the streamers are negotiated with both parties benefitting.

For information only: I stream without deposit match bonuses, raw money only

 

[brianmon]

The whole industry should be looking at the way affiliation is run.
Casinos are constantly complaining about higher taxes, yet they'll pay an affiliate a percentage of the lifetime's losses for each and every customer which that affiliate brought them.

I can't think of any other industry which will pay, year in - year out, to someone, just because they once introduced a new customer to them.

It wouldn't be so bad if, like other businesses, they paid a 'finders fee', a one-off commission. If they did, then they'd be able to afford their taxes, and afford to be more generous to their loyal players.

I know it all started 'back in the day' when online casinos were new, customers were scarce, advertising wasn't so easy/cheap, and there weren't so many internet users.

But in this day and age, you'd think the casinos would have dug themselves out of the the hole they dug themselves into, all those years ago

 

[slotmaster]

The whole industry should be looking at the way affiliation is run.
Casinos are constantly complaining about higher taxes, yet they'll pay an affiliate a percentage of the lifetime's losses for each and every customer which that affiliate brought them.

I can't think of any other industry which will pay, year in - year out, to someone, just because they once introduced a new customer to them.

It wouldn't be so bad if, like other businesses, they paid a 'finders fee', a one-off commission. If they did, then they'd be able to afford their taxes, and afford to be more generous to their loyal players.

I know it all started 'back in the day' when online casinos were new, customers were scarce, advertising wasn't so easy/cheap, and there weren't so many internet users.

But in this day and age, you'd think the casinos would have dug themselves out of the the hole they dug themselves into, all those years ago

Pretty well said and brian I have contacted casino's in regards to doing a different way in terms of streamers or for advertising as I had a couple of ideas that I don't think any other streamer is doing but I could be wrong but not 1 has responded (yet).

 

[Balthazar]

It's probably just me but when I read people complaining about affiliates making a cut of a casino's profits it sounds like people who'd complain of a car salesman making a cut of the dealership's profits.

 

[dunover]

The issue with streaming is that generally the channels are merely indicative of what a new player could get rather than representative and they do little in the way of disabusing viewers of the belief their experience will be similar. Therein lies the issue as far as advertising goes.

 

[Balthazar]

I can't think of any other industry which will pay, year in - year out, to someone, just because they once introduced a new customer to them.

I'm no affiliate but The Bandit made a video a while ago explaining why it's crap for affiliates to take that route. IIRC he chose to take a flat £30 per customer once they reached a certain level of deposit instead of this. The "infinite earnings" idea is mostly just smoke and mirror. If a couple of your affiliates win big, it takes all the "profit" from the others...then they deduct all kinds of administrative/licensing/server cost/miscellaneous fees and give you a percentage of what's left which is extremely arbitrary. They can also stop paying whenever they feel like for whatever reason. It's not as good as it sounds.

 

[slotmaster]

I'm no affiliate but The Bandit made a video a while ago explaining why it's crap for affiliates to take that route. IIRC he chose to take a flat £30 per customer once they reached a certain level of deposit instead of this. The "infinite earnings" idea is mostly just smoke and mirror. If a couple of your affiliates win big, it takes all the "profit" from the others...then they deduct all kinds of administrative/licensing/server cost/miscellaneous fees and give you a percentage of what's left which is extremely arbitrary. They can also stop paying whenever they feel like for whatever reason. It's not as good as it sounds.

Very well said again. That's actually one of the things I said to the casinos in terms of just a flat rate which is still much cheaper than advertising on t.v. for example and they won't lose any money as just one viewer has to do a deposit and they made their money back.

 

[dunover]

The whole industry should be looking at the way affiliation is run.
Casinos are constantly complaining about higher taxes, yet they'll pay an affiliate a percentage of the lifetime's losses for each and every customer which that affiliate brought them.

I can't think of any other industry which will pay, year in - year out, to someone, just because they once introduced a new customer to them.

It wouldn't be so bad if, like other businesses, they paid a 'finders fee', a one-off commission. If they did, then they'd be able to afford their taxes, and afford to be more generous to their loyal players.

I know it all started 'back in the day' when online casinos were new, customers were scarce, advertising wasn't so easy/cheap, and there weren't so many internet users.

But in this day and age, you'd think the casinos would have dug themselves out of the the hole they dug themselves into, all those years ago

There's so much wrong with that post I don't know where to start!

Paying a percentage of lifetime losses is a perfect way of paying advertisers for the following reasons:

1. The casino only has to pay you those shares if the player loses first, i.e. the affiliate only gets paid if the casino does, also after the casino gets the money thus is good for cash flow.
2. The winning players will greatly reduce or wipe out the commission they are due to pay you on behalf of the losing players.
3. The average depositing lifetime of a new player at most casinos is 3-4 months.
4. If the affiliates are too successful and are earning a big amount off of historic players, the casino simply screws them over and closes the affiliate programme, viz-a-viz SkyVegas who fleeced tens of thousands a month off of some long-time partners.

There are a couple of big issues with 'one off payments' (CPA) too.

1. The advertiser/affiliate will generally have a deal whereby he or she receives far more than the qualifying new deposit amount, i.e. £100 for a FTD of £25.
2. The above is fine as long as the FTD ends up covering the CPA cost, which they may or may not eventually do. If they do over a few months, the casino has already paid you the £100 so are in arrears until if and when they get enough revenue to break even.
3. The kind of players these CPA deals bring in are often poor value due to the way affiliates will advertise them - this occurred on streaming channels where the viewers were encouraged to enter raffles or simply help fund the channels by being asked to sign up and make say a £20 deposit only. The end result is the casino paid the streamer (based on a £100 CPA) 10k for his 100 FTD's virtually all of which deposited the minimum £20 then shut the accounts or never came back.

The affiliation system was and is fine and is not responsible for poorer bonuses, which have occurred since the GGR taxes have risen - that is what has changed, along with higher regulatory costs. Affiliate deals haven't got more costly, in fact they are tighter than they were in many cases.

Affiliation is efficient in gambling as it's done almost solely via websites with relevant gambling content and therefore conversion rates are off the scale compared to the scattergun system of general and highly costly media advertising where the money spent to 'catch' a new player is far higher on average.

The fact is that the opposite to what you surmise is true - without affiliation you wouldn't have half the casino choices and offers you do now, but just a few conglomerates providing online gambling.

 

[Scott1baird]

What annoys me so so much is the unlimited times a streamer affiliate can deposits and get a bonus, its unfair and unrealistic. They sit playing knowing that even if they loose a deposit they can just simply redeposited get a bonus and again and again and again, I can't do that, if I did take the daily trada offer everyday how long till I was bonus banned? A week?

 

[brianmon]

I'm no affiliate but The Bandit made a video a while ago explaining why it's crap for affiliates to take that route. IIRC he chose to take a flat £30 per customer once they reached a certain level of deposit instead of this. The "infinite earnings" idea is mostly just smoke and mirror. If a couple of your affiliates win big, it takes all the "profit" from the others...then they deduct all kinds of administrative/licensing/server cost/miscellaneous fees and give you a percentage of what's left which is extremely arbitrary. They can also stop paying whenever they feel like for whatever reason. It's not as good as it sounds.

Seems like a reasonable way to do things. Paying a flat £30 once a player reaches a certain level of deposit.

As it is now, each individual affiliates income may vary, month by month, due to certain players winning.
But overall, ALL the affiliate payments added together, it's still going to be a chunk of the casino's profit

 

[Balthazar]

Seems like a reasonable way to do things. Paying a flat £30 once a player reaches a certain level of deposit.

As it is now, each individual affiliates income may vary, month by month, due to certain players winning.
But overall, ALL the affiliate payments added together, it's still going to be a chunk of the casino's profit

Regardless of the business type, customer acquisition cost money. That's part of the cost of running a business. If it wasn't profitable they wouldn't do it, you should stop worrying about that.

 

[colinsunderland]

Seems like a reasonable way to do things. Paying a flat £30 once a player reaches a certain level of deposit.

As it is now, each individual affiliates income may vary, month by month, due to certain players winning.
But overall, ALL the affiliate payments added together, it's still going to be a chunk of the casino's profit

He was probably on that rate as he is a streamer and the quality of traffic is poor.

I would never promote a casino on a £30 CPA deal, especially not tied to deposit levels. I've only ever done 2 or 3 of CPA deals, and they were at least 5 times that amount, with a £10 min deposit.

CPA deals at normal rates are wide open to affiliate fraud too, plus there is a massive risk of the casino losing a lot of money.

What I can never understand though, is why casinos have no NCO. Resetting at the month end must cost them a fortune. Not that I'm complaining! My B365 account has NCO and has been in minus figures for about 3 years!

 

[ChrisNobles]

3. The average depositing lifetime of a new player at most casinos is 3-4 months.

Interesting stat. I would not have thought it to be such a short time span.

 

[colinsunderland]

Interesting stat. I would not have thought it to be such a short time span.

I'd love to know where the data came from for that stat.

It boils down to, if the retention department is good (ie skybet/vegas) then the retention can easily be years. Shit retention department you will be lucky to get a second deposit. Also the quality of the affiliate comes into it. Target shit players, you get shit retention. I promoted a couple of bookies around 8 years ago, and still have around a 65% retention from back then, of customers who still deposit at least once a month, most weekly.

 

[nikantw]

"I believe that every player who decides to gamble online should have the same chance of winning and/or making a withdrawal as the next player - a level playing field so to say...."

I believe in a fair and equal world too. But that is not the world we live in.
Some countries get to play with RTP 98% and others don't allow anything over 60%.
Some countries get all kinds of bonuses and others get nothing.
In some countries you pay 20% tax on every winning spin, in others it is tax-free.
In some countries you have choices. You have freedom.

And don't get me start on other things besides gambling.

Although I am all for equality, I was thinking that I wouldn't mind if streamers for example get better bonuses, provided that they fully explain on each and every stream what that means. How it affects their playtime and their chances to win and cashout. What RTP is and how it affects your play.

Yes, in that case the service provided to the public would well deserve the extra bonus.

 

[dunover]

I'd love to know where the data came from for that stat.

It boils down to, if the retention department is good (ie skybet/vegas) then the retention can easily be years.

Not when they arbitrarily pull their affiliate programme it won't.

 

[colinsunderland]

Not when they arbitrarily pull their affiliate programme it won't.

The affiliate program is still running for Skybet (obviously not for everyone) and I think all the other main bookies are still going aren't they?