I can see where most everyone (the disgruntled) are coming from, but I am unsure whether or not the term "retroactive " (which fans the flames of hell) is applicable in this situation.
The change may really suck for some, but it just may well be just the way things go in business-land.
When aff programs change a policy overall, and apply it to all delivered players, I'm not sure if the term "retroactive" is really the term that should be used here.
"Retroactive" in my opinion is when let's say, I increase my rates for xyzcasino - beginning next month, and they also owe me the difference for the past six months they've been on board. That's retroactive. Anyone would go ballistic if I were to do this.
"Retroactive" is also when joe player signs up at xyzcasino on 1 June, and the terms state BJ is allowed for bonus play. He cashes out his winnings on the 30th (after playing BJ) and the casino says sorry, we changed our rules yesterday - no BJ - here's your deposit back. That's retroactive.
But here we may only be seeing a change of policy that covers all players that an affiliate delivers. Try to follow me here - don't let your eyeballs glaze over.
Let's say I'm xyzcasino affiliate manager, and I decide to raise the affiliate payout from 25% to 35% next month for ALL delivered players - to include any additional revenue generated from player accounts that have been delivered in the past. In a sense
that is retroactive since it applies to earlier delivered players, but it's really only a change in policy.
This has been going on for years as affiliate programs have become quite competitive. When I first signed up at Intercasino seven years ago, I was given 10% - now it's 35% - and the 35% applies to the older accounts as well. When I entered into a contract with Intercasino/Partnerlogic years ago, we agreed on 10%. They've made changes over the years adjusting this and I never saw this as breaking a contract.
Now we have FA lumping all the signed up players into one big happy group. Well that may suck for some, but I'm not sure it's all that evil it's spelled out to be.
If there are certain casinos that are not producing revenue for an affiliate, the affiliate has a choice to discontinue promoting that casino. Simple as that. There is a trickle down effect here. The casinos that are not profitable begin to get dropped and the more profitable ones get more player action from happy affiliates.
Another thing, I don't see this as dissing anyone (affiliates and what-not). Dom seems to be under the impression that affiliates are the red-headed step-child of the industry - but I don't think they are. I think good affs are pursued and wined and dined more than in any other industry. Do you think Amazon.com invites their affs for Caribbean cruises?
And the last time I checked, amazon.com was still shelling out 5% revenue for a $10.99 book - whoopdee friggin' do!
Anyone who owns their own business is responsible for their own wellbeing - health insurance, vacation, overtime. That's life in a free market society. I wouldn't have it any other way.
But back to the issue at hand. Yeah, I can see where a lot of webmasters feel this sucks. But I don't see it as being a scandalous retroactive move.
Disclaimer - I'm not an affiliate of FA or VPL and they didn't pay me to say that
Not met one yet.
Eh? I may have lost you there. From what I've read and heard, it seems to me that FA's business model was short sighted and needed to be overhauled. Is it a sham, or a way of restructuring one's business?
