Affiliate Lounge going with retroactive changes to TC

**Anthony** · 1 November 2009, 6:53 am

I was hoping for some positive dialog at this point.

**jarvi** · 1 November 2009, 10:45 am

Originally Posted by kwblue

I like the last 2 listings in your second image

At least, if an affiliate searches, they will see the the program is dishonest.

Breach of contract is a serious problem. Non-communication is also very serious. I just don't understand these people

If you read the review at Wager Partners (first link in the first image) you will also see some less than flattering comments about them.

**MichaelCorfman** · 1 November 2009, 5:39 pm

A quick status report.

I first sent a pm to Affiliate Lounge about discussing matters late on Wednesday the 21st of October. Since pm messages are not always the most effective way of reaching folks, I followed up on Sunday evening October 25th with an e-mail message.

While I don't want to reproduce my entire message here, I have included the first half of it below so the general nature of my communication is clear to folks here:

Stuart,

I sent you the message below via a private message on the GPWA website at the end of last week. However, given that I have not received a reply to that pm I thought I would also send the message to you via e-mail in case you have not received the pm.

I would appreciate it if you acknowledge when you have received this e-mail.

Thanks,

Michael

================================================== ======================================

Stuart,

You may have seen that I made a post in the thread about Affiliate Lounge terms changes.

As stated in that thread, we have marked that AGD has rated Affiliate Lounge as predatory. I hope you can appreciate from the posts in that thread that such an action is required because otherwise members of the GPWA consider that the GPWA is part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Obviously we would like you to be part of the solution too. But right now the situation is very serious, and the path of making no adjustments to your recently announced term changes is one that I sincerely believe is not in the best interests of your program.

A particularly serious issue is that your program has marketed itself by explicitly stating on the page https://www.affiliatelounge.com/Why_join/ "We offer our affilite partners a lifetime revenue share on all players."

If you change the terms of lifetime earnings for players referred prior to your term changes, then this is a clear deceptive marketing practice.

In my message I went on in more detail about the issues, and ended with an offer to discuss the situation in more detail with the objective of facilitating a better understanding of the choices they face and their consequences with the goal that such a discussion would help them make better informed decisions.

Stuart did acknowledge receipt of my e-mail message within a day of my sending it. However, the reply went into my spam e-mail area so I did not actually see it at that time. On Wednesday October 28th Steven followed-up and received confirmation on Thursday. It is at that time I realized Stewart had actually acknowledged receipt of my original e-mail message quite promptly.

At the present time I am working on making arrangements with Stuart as to when we can actually talk with one another.

Michael

**jarvi** · 1 November 2009, 6:47 pm

Thanks Michael. While you have Stuart's attention, can you perhaps mention the term about the sub-affiliates as well. All the gory details are in a thread in the private area. If you read the term yourself, I'm sure you will come to the same conclusion that I have. That is, as written it is impossible to comply with. Thanks.

**Puma** · 3 November 2009, 4:52 am

more bullshit of course. Even if they change their terms I will never touch them again. Arses like this program will probably return the original terms ( to keep us happy ) and just remove some players from the affiliates earning to save some money. Whatever way you look at it, these guys are done and that is such a shame.

**pgaming** · 3 November 2009, 7:54 am

Originally Posted by pumacat

more bullshit of course. Even if they change their terms I will never touch them again. Arses like this program will probably return the original terms ( to keep us happy ) and just remove some players from the affiliates earning to save some money. Whatever way you look at it, these guys are done and that is such a shame.

Yup, more BS. Sure more programs will begin to follow their sick business model.

greek39

**arkyt** · 3 November 2009, 11:17 am

Originally Posted by greek39

Yup, more BS. Sure more programs will begin to follow their sick business model.

Yet they still sit proudly as a GPWA Silver level sponsor.... money talks and their bs walks out the door and into the gpwa recruitment center with a free pass.

**kwblue** · 3 November 2009, 11:22 am

Originally Posted by arkyt

Yet they still sit proudly as a GPWA Silver level sponsor.... money talks and their bs walks out the door and into the gpwa recruitment center with a free pass.

I think it was discussed earlier in this thread that GPWA is in discussions with Stuart - and I can verify that is taking place.

I don't think a free pass is given.

**thepokerkeep** · 5 November 2009, 7:06 am

Hi Michael/Stuart,

Could we have an update? How are the discussions going?

**arkyt** · 5 November 2009, 2:30 pm

Originally Posted by kwblue

I don't think a free pass is given.

They are still listed in the Silver Sponsor forums next to other reputable programs - with no indication that they are in violation of GPWA code of conduct.

Further, the following page provides little indication that they are in violation of GPWA code of conduct.

https://www.wmcash24.com/affiliate-program/affiliate-lounge ...

Wouldn't it be very simple to add an annoucement (sub-forum) or note in the above forum and to the advertisement page, detailing the status of this program?

I find it odd that the recent forum threads shows > "High Customer Lifetime Value, Low Churn, great conversion" yet doesn't show "Affiliate Lounge going with retroactive changes to TC" ... I think it would be very easy for affiliates to be led astray by these endorsements.

I understand communication might be ongoing, but IMO a lot more could be done in the mean time to more thoroughly educate the community.

**kwblue** · 5 November 2009, 2:33 pm

What about this?

Name: AffiliateLounge.png
Views: 612
Size: 19.8 KB

**arkyt** · 5 November 2009, 2:52 pm

Originally Posted by kwblue

What about this?

Name: AffiliateLounge.png
Views: 612
Size: 19.8 KB

Thats why I said "the following page provides little indication that they are in violation of GPWA code of conduct."

What AGD has done and/or is doing and what GPWA has/is doing should be considered independently of one another. One is doing a lot of commendable work to identify programs which might not be worthy of promotion, while the other is simply looking to cash in.

I found Michaels comment "members of the GPWA consider that the GPWA is part of the problem and not part of the solution." very interesting - if GPWA wants to be part of the solution they need to do a lot more communication in cases like this; not only behind the scenes but out in the public as well.

Maybe its just me, but I don't think bad programs should be given the same avenues for recruitment as the good programs are just because they are willing to pay for the opportunity. Obviously, I'm not in a position to make any calls, but IMO, for starters they should create seperate forums for programs like Affiliate Lounge and any other sponsors, or otherwise, who are not in good standing.

**MichaelCorfman** · 5 November 2009, 2:53 pm

Originally Posted by arkyt

I find it odd that the recent forum threads shows > "High Customer Lifetime Value, Low Churn, great conversion" yet doesn't show "Affiliate Lounge going with retroactive changes to TC" ... I think it would be very easy for affiliates to be led astray by these endorsements.

The site infrastructure determines recent forum threads for a program by looking in the forum for the program. This seems to be an unusual case in that although there are lots of negative comments in this thread, there is not a single negative thread for them recently in their own forum here. When folks have comments about a program, either positive or negative, I would encourage folks to post at least some of those comments in the forum for a program so they can be seen by other webmasters looking in a particular program's forum area.

Michael

**MichaelCorfman** · 5 November 2009, 5:43 pm

Originally Posted by arkyt

I found Michaels comment "members of the GPWA consider that the GPWA is part of the problem and not part of the solution." very interesting - if GPWA wants to be part of the solution they need to do a lot more communication in cases like this; not only behind the scenes but out in the public as well.

You have truncated what I said and taken it out of context. Let me try to explain things a little more clearly.

When I discuss relationship issues between affiliates and affiliate programs with an affiliate program I always take the position of trying to explain how affiliates feel and what the consequences of those feelings are. I generally do not take on positions as my own because such a stance results in an affiliate program trying to argue with me about why I should change my mind, and it becomes a personal discussion about what I think. That approach is generally not very effective. The only approach I have found that works for me in terms of helping to make changes is one where I am trying to get across how the community feels and advising a program about the choices they can make and the implications of those choices. I always take the position that the actions taken by the GPWA are taken because the membership requires it, not because I made a personal decision to do so. Only when I take that position and operate on that basis does what I say carry any real weight.

It is also the case in terms of interacting with affiliate programs that it is almost never the case that the affiliate manager, who has to defend the actions of their company, wants the changes that are causing turmoil to occur. When this is the case the only way to effect change is to work with the affiliate manager as a partner helping to facilitate a change in the orders given by management. Contrary to what you might assume, helping to create a path to a better place is often more effective than everyone jumping on the bandwagon to rogue them at the same time. For that reason I act with more patience, particularly in the forums, than others may sometimes think is appropriate. But please understand that I act at the pace I do not because it is easiest for me or minimizes complaints (because it does not), but because I believe it maximizes the likelihood of ending up in the best place in the end.

By the same token, I fully understand that there will and should be complaints when folks are not satisfied with what is happening, and it is part of my job to accept and not stifle those complaints. It is an important right of affiliates to voice their opinions and their complaints here. And it is very important in terms of accomplishing anything that affiliate programs understand that I am trying to help them solve the issues they have created when they make changes that result in complaints being voiced.

Michael

**arkyt** · 9 November 2009, 6:19 pm

I understood the context

and while I don't play the fiddle, if I did, I might just play a really fine diddy.

Theres a BIG difference between finding the right things to say and actually doing the right things. A distinction thats obviously obscured by the presence of a sponsorship.

**MichaelCorfman** · 10 November 2009, 5:22 pm

Originally Posted by arkyt

I understood the context

and while I don't play the fiddle, if I did, I might just play a really fine diddy.

Theres a BIG difference between finding the right things to say and actually doing the right things. A distinction thats obviously obscured by the presence of a sponsorship.

I don't think it is that obscured. We do try to work toward progress, but when the progress is too slow in coming, then we agree that action is appropriate. Today we have delisted Affliliate Lounge from the sponsor affiliate program listings on the GPWA website on the grounds that they are in violation of our code of conduct. We have the right to remove select sponsor benefits for programs that are not following the code of conduct.

For the time being we will leave other sponsor benefits in place. Specifically, we believe it is appropriate to leave the forum for Affiliate Lounge open so that there remains the possibility for Affiliate Lounce to engage in dialogue with affiliates if they determine they want to do so.

Michael

**sparky1** · 10 November 2009, 5:31 pm

Micheal, very well said and I appreciate your post explaining how you manage situation such as these. It is comforting to see you applyig your experience and wisdom on these issues in manner that will assist affiliates and ensure a more effective enviroment that allows for everyone to be more profitable.

Well done to you sir and thank you for taking the action you have taken. You gained even more respect from me on this...lol...if that means anything...lol...

**thepokerkeep** · 10 November 2009, 5:32 pm

Thank you Michael. It's great to see GPWA take this stance.

**mojo** · 10 November 2009, 8:28 pm

Originally Posted by MichaelCorfman

Today we have delisted Affliliate Lounge from the sponsor affiliate program listings on the GPWA website on the grounds that they are in violation of our code of conduct. We have the right to remove select sponsor benefits for programs that are not following the code of conduct.

For the time being we will leave other sponsor benefits in place. Specifically, we believe it is appropriate to leave the forum for Affiliate Lounge open so that there remains the possibility for Affiliate Lounce to engage in dialogue with affiliates if they determine they want to do so.

Michael

I am not surprised that there are steps in place already that allows action to remove sponsors that are not following the code of conduct here at the GPWA. We can agree that the GPWA terms are very well thought out.

It would be an unfortunate example should Affiliate Lounge decide not to clear this up in their forums. While it may be a scary endeavor, I am sure that the GPWA encourages discussion and will moderate for all of our benefit.

**GCG** · 2 January 2010, 4:53 am

I see that Affiliate Lounge brands still get a lot of reward from (respected) affiliates regarding traffic....sigh......no change to the better........IMO the same as it has always been....supporting the ugly ducks in the bizz when it pays of....welcome to the wild west of OG.

Thread: Affiliate Lounge going with retroactive changes to TC

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

The Following User Says Thank You to jarvi For This Useful Post:

The silence is deafening

The Following User Says Thank You to kwblue For This Useful Post:

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to MichaelCorfman For This Useful Post:

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MichaelCorfman For This Useful Post:

Posting Permissions