The slow death of the online casino bonus

[dionysus]

Paul i'm not sure I agree entirely with you here.Competition is obviously good for the consumer but surely too much of it has a negative affect?. You don't see 10 McDonalds opening in a small town for that very reason.

Try visiting any small Ontarian city. You'll find a Tim Horton's a stone's throw from the next one.

 

[thebigs]

My own personnel view is that i do like to play with a bonus simply because i play the higher variance games as those are the ones i enjoy and as a low roller it is great to have a little bit extra to play with.When i deposit i know my chances of winning are slim but sometimes the bonus can give you that bit of extra time playing.If the bonuses that casino's offered vanished then it wouldnt bother me and i would still deposit and play but the fact is there are a serious amount of casino's out there and like any business they are looking for custom and it is human nature to look for something the customer might want as an extra.
Maybe the likes of 32 Red offer too many bonuses but i am sure they have a massive share of the market due to that.
As i have said in the past the 32 group do get most of my deposits and their offer attracts the likes of me.
I think if Casino's looked at offering better Loyalty schemes instead of bonuses maybe that is the way forward.
Lets face it to receive 10 euro worth of loyalty points on a MG you have been more than loyal to them as it does take some time to earn that and also maybe the loyalty cash should be wager free as an incentive.

 

[bluebirdy]

I definitely wouldn't miss SUB's high WR and to many T&CS. i like to see my balance and know i can withdraw any time i want with no hassle. ok they can give you extra chance off winning and extra play time but can also lose you money with the high WR, win 400 or more and knowing you need to wager another 1200 before you can withdraw and then loseing all of it or most of it, not for me if i win 400 ( or fingers crossed a really nice high amount) i want to know thats all mine no T&C'S no WR.

instead of SUB's

like others have said Cashback would be ok different amount depending on loyalty level.

or

chance of accumulating free spins every month (amount could depend on deposits or money staked)

 

[mac72]

Try visiting any small Ontarian city. You'll find a Tim Horton's a stone's throw from the next one.

Just cause they allow it doesn't make it right. Somebody else open's 1 large Tom Sorton's (just a wordplay) around them offering better quality food,service and prices and all those Tim Horton's are gonna be pretty empty.If that operation then at some stage in the future goes downhill that then opens the door for someone new to try.The people in Ontario can only eat so much of the same thing.

 

[paul@bgo]

Paul i'm not sure I agree entirely with you here.Competition is obviously good for the consumer but surely too much of it has a negative affect?. You don't see 10 McDonalds opening in a small town for that very reason.
With only limited quality content available for operators surely the content providers should put some limit on the amount of licence's they grant for operators within a given market and then try and hold those operator's to a higher quality standard of service which should inevitably lead to more market share and a better experience for the consumer, in the full knowledge that there are dozen's waiting to take their place should standards fall.
I think if I were an operator i'd be continually pissed off with having to up my marketing budget to keep fending off start up's that my business partner, the content provider was working with and in essence against me?

A valid point but sadly one that will never catch on. We're operating in a digital market place where there is no feasible boundaries to how far you can reach. What's to say the next operator to ask for a platform won't be focused on a territory the supplier doesn't currently have the majority market share? They'll give them the platform because it means more money for them with zero financial investment. The more licensees they have, the more money they make.

 

[mac72]

A valid point but sadly one that will never catch on. We're operating in a digital market place where there is no feasible boundaries to how far you can reach. What's to say the next operator to ask for a platform won't be focused on a territory the supplier doesn't currently have the majority market share? They'll give them the platform because it means more money for them with zero financial investment. The more licensees they have, the more money they make.

If the platform is currently in that marketplace and doesn't have the majority market share then either the platform isn't as good as it's competitors and therefore doesn't warrant having the lions share or it's licence holders (which the platform has decided are sufficient to service that marketplace) aren't doing their job right,it's really that simple.
The answer then is either for the platform to improve it's product or if they feel one or more of their licence holder's isn't doing theirs to end their agreement and give it to someone hungrier.
All I see is everyone cutting each others throat cause theirs still some meat on the bone but that situation only ends up with everyone including the consumer losing.

 

[hedgehok]

Thank you Casinomeister and Simmo for sharing your opinion in your blogs. I think we have to extend the discussion: The problem is not just the SUB, it's also the reload bonuses and in general: incentives to the players.

"There are other ways to promote your casino. There have been a number of casinos that created special promos in our forum that had nothing to do with bonuses: scavenger hunts with cash prizes, raffles and drawings, free give-aways. Players really enjoy these sorts of promos."

I took part in a couple of those promotions and the prices are also bonuses if you are pedantic (x1 WR). The winnings from the free spin prizes where also bonus-money which you have to play through before withdrawing. Just face it as it is - every player wants cash! Money! Why would we gamble otherwise. We don't want raffle entries or tangible prizes where we have a minuscule winning chance. We want something to count on!

Your main-critique covers the missing flexibility of the bonuses. You are refering to the classical top-up bonus which converts your entire balance into bonus money until the WR are met. Since 2-3 years we are following a shift into another direction specially the inovative multi-platform casinos (betat, MrGreen, Thrills to name a few) offer more then the traditional top-up bonuses.

I've many times suggested to offer (wager-free) free spins, cashbacks and if you offer a bonus then apply the MrGreen, VJ, LeoVegas bonus structure meaning playing with your cash first and have the flexibility to withdraw everytime. If you are unlucky you fall back to the bonus balance which has a playthrough - very straightforward.

And here's the crux of the problem. When you dish up "something for nothing", or more accurately in this instance you create the perception that you are dishing up something for nothing, you are going find yourself with lots of friends. Very quickly. Superficial friends obviously: they really just want what you've got. And of course the more people that want what you've got, the faster you're not going to have it. But everyone needs friends, right? Or customers. Or better still, friendly customers! So you still intimate that you can give them "something for nothing", only now they have to work for it.

Players that take bonuses are not necessarily greedy. Often you get the bonus automatically - and well if you get offered something for free - you take it! If I go to a land based casino and get a room or a dinner comped - sure I take it!

Incentives is what the casino distinguishes. Games, support, payment speed is close to equal at many casinos anyway.
Incentives are the way casinos can differ from each other!

I speak from a player perspective. I acknowledge that affiliates have a different perspective into the situation. And I agree that some things have to change. Let's bury the classical SUB (specially the x6 deposit max. withdrawal nonesense) and creat some innovative incentives. I strongly encourage the casinos to offer incentives that don't have the potential to trap unsavvy/new players. Cashbacks, free spins the next day, cash-drops, races to name a few.

 

[ugaboga]

I only deposit when I'm offered a bonus tbh. It's got to be 50% at least. I'm a member of many casinos, so I basically wait for their emails and decide who to reload with.

I like the challenge of passing wagering requirements, it adds to the suspense. As long as the requirements are reasonable.

I particularly like the approach Slotsmillion, Vera John, Betat and others have taken, where you play your bonus last and you're entitled to cash out the winnings from your real money. The more casinos that take this approach the better.

Bonuses for me is why I opt to play online rather than at the casino, club or pub. In Australia, you can access slots within 2-3km radius.

I don't care much for free spin offers because they're worthless (too low amount per spin) or loyalty programs because I'm always playing at a different casino.

 

[shewoff]

Always Authorization Forms

I have never seen a casino that did not cover its butt with out authorization forms this is mandatory to access funds with over seas processor,s. I have had to fill out and front and back all of my cards CC and debit. No way around it bother,s me is the only one way to withdraw that some casino,s have? This suck,s big time and I stay away from them like the plague.There is a difference between a authorization form and a faxback. one is often not color and the other is. I have stated on another post that i had my card hacked recently when i had to send my cc front and back even thou it was in a PDF format the hydra got me anyway!
I think in today,s internet there are to many crook,s and they are watching casino,s because they know we are playing and the site,s can,t keep up. It a appear,s that just about every one here is pretty much aware of what,s out there. Good crowd I lover it here!Peace Out!Out Of The Mist!shewoff

 

[bart1981]

When I play I dont take bonusses, I hate wagering..
Theres actually a casino that focusses on players like me, no bonus casino.

They always give you 10 percent cashback when you loose. You get it the next day, and you can even withdrawal it.

 

[Mouche12]

Perhaps this has already been mentioned: no deposit bonus but free spins only, depending on the amount you deposit, and only the winnings from the free spins subject to a reasonable WR, like 5x or so. This format is already being used by some casinos, sometimes as an alternative for a SUB and often as a promo for existing players.

 

[Simmo!]

Players that take bonuses are not necessarily greedy. Often you get the bonus automatically - and well if you get offered something for free - you take it!

No but as you say, human nature is to take something for nothing when we are offered it and that's what the bonus is designed to exploit. Most of us know it's not really free but it's often advertised to make it look like it is. As Bryan mentions, the industry has done itself no favours here.

 

[JackMack]

Good articles and an interesting subject although the evidence suggests the sign up bonus has not even been given the last rights yet, let alone gone to see its maker.
There is nothing wrong with the premise that there will come a tipping point but apparently we have not reached that yet and when we do how will the cycle actually be broken anyway?

The only incentive for casinos to come up with a better alternative is when they are losing players to their competition who have, erm well, come up with a better alternative because they are losing players...
The player already has the choice to not take the bonus and so for players who do not enjoy the sign up bonus it will not have impact upon where they play.

Without playing the blame game, corrupt punters/corrupt casinos (both are bad for business and the genuine player) the onus is absolutely on Casinos to change things for the better and not the player.
Firstly because of the reasons above the casino offers are driven by the industry and not the player as we might imagine with other industries that offer goods and secondly because the bonus offer is driven from a profitability POV by the casinos because they are a business that is driven by profit while the genuine punter is driven by different criteria - sure they want free stuff and benefits but ultimately they not driven by profit incentive but entertainment value.
Yes there are advantage players, fraudsters and the delusional players who believe they have a system but the vast majority play for entertainment and the "hope" of winning and the way you lose them is by pissing them off.

Simmo outlined his preferences and the things that annoy him and I think most players would be in general agreement but I would also add low returns because without bringing any conspiracy theory into this some casinos seem to truly have the games set to lower RTP than others and we might genuinely ask how some Casinos can consistently offer 100% bonuses or better with reasonable WR and yet still be profitable while others cannot.
(Now this is my experience only - casinos that offer very regular match deposit bonuses play much worse than those that don't. Is it possible that the software can be set to a different RTP on bonus play to regular play? Well of course it is possible but does it actually happen? Either way knocking match bonuses on the head would do away with any suspicions.)

The most obvious alternative for casinos is to offer a cashback bonus for a busted deposit but if that became so popular it was replacing the sign up/match bonus we would soon be in the same cycle, casinos would start placing restrictions on the cashback such as, cannot be cashed out before being turned over 5 times and so the cycle begins again...

So having concluded that any change will need to be driven by the casinos and that a cashback alternative will likely suffer the same fate what are we left with?
Much, much better loyalty programs.
This benefits both the casino (those that are prepared to go that extra mile for their customers at least) and the player.
The current loyalty point schemes that exist offer no incentive for loyalty at all - they are mostly irrelevant for the casino and player. Granted they are just a convoluted cashback scheme but they would have the advantage of any wagering being taken account of in the points award system so we wouldn't get the attached T&C arms race. (hopefully)
As things stand though they are generally the equivalent of a 0.01% cashback offer which isn't that enticing and certainly doesn't generate loyalty.
If they were improved dramatically and replaced the disingenuous match bonuses that might change and casinos should be aware that even though points are awarded for all wagering and not just losses, a very good reward system will encourage a player to continue playing even while winning.
Otherwise it could be tweaked to offer loyalty rewards only on losing bets.

The main problem is marketing it in a way that makes it obvious to players, new players especially, that a casino which offers a genuinely rewarding loyalty program is better than one that offers a flashy headline grabbing, "Double your money!" match bonus and craptacular loyalty program.
That is what marketing departments are for though right? Yeah you guys should actually earn your money by being, wait for it, original!
I can think of a few ways off the bat but it's not my line of expertise.

I can think of a couple of genuinely original replacements for match bonuses as well that would seem to fulfill the criteria of promoting the better customer oriented casinos to players which would also help the responsible affiliates market the best casinos for their players too. win, win, win.

In that regard I think an initiative between top brands and top affiliates (and by top I mean those who want to earn a good living but not screw the pooch) would be the best way to get the ball rolling.
It takes balls to throw out something that has become industry standard and is tried and tested though, so we may have to sink a little further into mire before people realise they are wading through s**t.

 

[conker]

My big annoyance with bonuses is that they are very often added automatically. The casino is just assuming you will take it, regardless of WR or minimum cashout policies. If you don't want it you are then forced to contact support and get it removed, a totally uneccessary action.

I have read both Simmo's and Bryan's articles and thought both put their points across very well. However, both these guys have to endure the endless PAB's and flaming threads that are started up by disgruntled players who didn't understand what they were actually getting.

As some posters on this thread have pointed out, sometimes a bonus can be a good thing, especially if you are looking to extend playing time or want to try out some games before wagering your own money. Personally, I think there is a place for a bonus, but there needs to be a rethink from the casinos about how the bonus is presented and most importantly what terms come with it.

 

[rena35]

I, personally do not like deposit bonuses and hardly ever take them. Most of the complaints i have seen is when a player wins big, then gets caught in the terms of the bonus and not get paid. I do play cash back and the occasional free spins. The WR could be lower and the max cash out higher. I would rather take my chances on my money without the bonus attached. Trap . Just my 2 cents anyway.

 

[Cassaon-casino]

''Simmo outlined his preferences and the things that annoy him and I think most players would be in general agreement but I would also add low returns because without bringing any conspiracy theory into this some casinos seem to truly have the games set to lower RTP than others and we might genuinely ask how some Casinos can consistently offer 100% bonuses or better with reasonable WR and yet still be profitable while others cannot.

(Now this is my experience only - casinos that offer very regular match deposit bonuses play much worse than those that don't. Is it possible that the software can be set to a different RTP on bonus play to regular play? Well of course it is possible but does it actually happen? Either way knocking match bonuses on the head would do away with any suspicions.)''


Very valid point and interesting observation. And yet most operators would let you believe that their softwares aren't rigged. I guess there's two types of RTP's at play: One for bonuses and the other for non bonus players. Take the free spins for example. I often get free spins as an incentive since I'm a returning player at the sites I play at. Got 100 free spins at CasinoLuck once, think I won $20. I definitely think most operators place a winning cap on the amount that could be won from the free spins (non bonus). Then again it might differ from operator to operator.

 

[Simmo!]

I guess there's two types of RTP's at play: One for bonuses and the other for non bonus players.

Bear in mind that it's the individual games that are certified for the RTP, not the casino. So if for example, a casino takes an IGT game that has it's certificate issued for an RTP range between 91% and 95% then it will always be in that range and the software provider will control it. Most Microgaming games are advertised with a fixed RTP (ie: Thunderstruck is 96.1%) and there has never been any evidence or documentation to suggest anything other than that RTP is in play, although I would expect them to have submitted a range for licensing so they have flexibility. There are a few exceptions: Immortal Romance advertises a range of between 96.01% and 96.86% but I'd be amazed if any accredited casino had one game with 2 RTP settings for different scenarios, except maybe for slot tournaments.

 

[kavaman]

I have quite an opposite view on the signup bonuses then simmo and casinomeister. I think its a valuable tool for the casino to attract new players to the casino. It is very valuable for small(ish) casinos who don't have huge ass companies behind them to back them up financially for advertising etc. It attracts new players. True some of these might be bonus seekers/abusers, but if there is only a deposit bonus, not a no deposit bonus, it should keep atleast half of the abusers away.

The reason the bonuses are the reason of the complaints is because the casino's do not know how to implement the bonuses. They have so many restrictions in place and the terms spread vaguely across the casino website, that the players are not able to follow the rules. There are a few casino's out there who post the terms on one page, and the terms are maybe around 10 sentences long. It is pretty easy to follow such rules.

The max bet rule is the cancer of the industry , not the bonuses. The max bet rule must be the reason of around 50% of the complaints, atleast it seems so when reading the complaints here on casinomeister and on a few other websites.

I think there are some players who wouldn't sign up for any casino unless the casino gave them something for the trouble of just signing up. Most players wouldn't even try different casinos, they would just stick to the one casino they always play at that pays the winnings promptly etc.

 

[Jono777]

Something else has sprung to mind regarding SUB's and reloads bonuses after reading this thread and piecing parts together which can be VERY off putting for more experienced players.

1) You have to be careful of bet size and not exceeding max bet
2) You can't vary your bets too much even if sticking below max rule as you still can get hammered for this
3) You bet 'too' small and your accused of grinding!!

So any which way but lose we could be had over a barrel with our kegs down if the casino got out of the wrong side of the bed that day!!!!

 

[luckee7]

Don't forget where we came from

Did a little write-up on bonuses, and why their days are numbered:
https://www.casinomeister.com/bonus-offers/

This was inspired by Simmo!'s opinion piece on his site "The Funeral Of The Casino Signup Bonus". You can read this here:

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

I've never liked SUBs, and I am absolutely convinced that they need to be laid to rest. I'll be doing my part in asking Accred Casino reps to put on their thinking caps and try to steer away from this method of marketing. We're going to be looking at other positive aspects of gaming - focusing more on the games and other attributes that casinos can offer than offering a SUB. At this point in time, bonuses and their convoluted rules have just gotten a bit too much.

I'd like to hear from the community about any creative solutions that would replace the SUB.

I titled this response "Don't forget where we came from" because I like may others I can only assume, were very hesitant to put hard earned money into an obviously risky online gambling site that 1. is illegal in many parts of the world and 2. is for the most part UN-policed by any reputable authority. Though I totally agree that we should not and I do not, ever take the bonuses, they were for me a carrot to entice me to begin online gambling. I did win some money early on and with a no restriction bonuses so I was sold on the idea that I could actually come out ahead. I also agree with both your posts that the bonus concept is widely different from casino to casino, sometimes hard to understand and open to error both on the casinos part and on the part of the player and leads to mus-understandings, bad reviews and eventually many casinos being put in the rogue category.
I for one have played, won and been paid many times by some of the rogue casinos, even way back when I took bonuses. I took the time to understand them and play by the rules, and finally, yes did get paid.
I think the problem is two fold:
1. It's now become a way for (fill in the blank) "shady, clever, rogue" casinos to trick people.
2. People in general don't want to take the time to do the research (a. where to go b. how to play and c. to read all the terms)

So what do I suggest casinos can do to entice people to play at their casinos?
1. If you're going to offer a bonus it must be very simple with easy to understand terms stated right under the bonus, Like 100% cash-able 1st time deposit bonus. Then on the next line an example (deposit $50 play with $100, minimum play $100) If people need to read a full page of text regarding play-through, which games they can play, etc etc. it's an open invitation for mus-understandings.
In the business world there's a saying: KISS (keep it simple stupid) or get rid of it.
2. Improve the play experience by paying out quickly

The last part of the fix is online education. Sites like this help to educate those of us to are smart enough to take the time to read. Eventually we can get the message across loud and clear to those smart enough to read: "DON'T TAKE BONUSES" unless you're willing to invest some time to educate yourself on when, where, how and why.

Sincerely: luckee7

 

[dunover]

OK, my two penn'orth:

Bonuses fool new players. They have unrealistic wagering, limited stakes and excluded games. And now in the disgusting Lucky247 terms (plus numerous other MG viper sites) we have the scum term regarding limiting winnings to 6 x D.

OK, the era of something-for-nothing is sliding away. Good riddance.

The only thing I'll miss is the numerous times (mainly at MG downloads) that the bonus saved my a$$ and enabled decent cash-outs. But aside from Spam Rewards and 32red group, you have the 6xD BS. How things have changed.

When a bonus is so EV-- i.e. with 35x D+B WR, it becomes the point where a player chance has simply transformed to 'buy some fun credits with your deposit'.

As the terms have become increasingly bad/complex/hidden/exclusive then I won't miss the SUB.

There are exceptions, you still have good 20x WR offers at sites like Grosvenor/Virgin plus you still have 'ethical' bonuses where cash can be freely withdrawn if you don't touch the bonus like Bet-at.

The majority though are simply entrapment.

Just give me a site that appreciates me and drops a chip in occasionally, or has a low WR. Otherwise the SUB can go in Room 101.

 

[Alfran]

I've done so in the past, but now i stick to the few casinos i trust. Regret signing up to so many before. I guess live and learn. The casinos i stick with have almost nothing to do with any bonuses just trustworthy and good cs.
I guess sign-up bonuses are for newbies? I mean how many casinos can you keep joining?

 

[vinylweatherman]

I have noticed that casinos don't compete on service. The trend has been to take LONGER to process withdrawals, even at the very best brand. There has also been a decline in the quality of CS, and an unwillingness of casino management to stand by decisions made in error by CS that has disadvantaged players. The deal for players who don't use bonuses has gotten worse over time, lower loyalty rewards, slower payments, it's as though they are being PUNISHED by casinos for not taking the bonuses like they are supposed to.

Above all, we have numerous instances of players who have played WITHOUT a bonus having their winnings confiscated for ever more bizarre reasons like "fooling the RNG into producing wins", "manipulating the game by changing stakes, playing fewer lines, etc". It is therefore NOT the case that not taking bonuses means that players can just deposit and play without having to worry about getting caught by obscure terms.

The KYC process also leaves much to be desired. CS are often deliberately unhelpful when players are doing their best, but are getting things wrong through not really understanding the requirements nor the limitations of the technology they have used in complying. The generic "your ID is blurred" is one example, and is really down to the technology being used to render the image, rather than the player necessarily being obstructive. It's also too generic for many players to figure out just what they need to do in order to produce a clearer image. It ends up leaving players feeling that the KYC process was merely a sham that they are supposed to fail so that the casino can justify non payment.

 

[halibaker]

SUB'S

i just hate when casino's advertise a ndb with minimal t&cs then find some way of not crediting it. i never ever ever deposit at a casino if that is my how my first experience with them turns out.
though there are so so so many online casinos, i think its important to offer something tempting (and legit) to keep up in a very competitive market.

 

[goatwack]

Never let it be said that the industry isn't keeping up with current trends!