Well I agree that this is a problem issue and this happens in the poker world as well. I can't comment on a specific deal but I will say that there may be a clause built into the deal which permits these changes. Since you used a banking example, as a banker I can tell you that this is not that unusual in the banking world as well, for instance we increased the spread recently with all lines of credit by 1% as did all Canadian banks, and in all of these agreements it's specified that the bank reserves the right to do so as business conditions warrant. The combination of the overnight rate being reduced so low in combination with capital markets contracting due to the recession and the default rate increasing made this necessary in order to keep banks from losing money on these deals. We lent you the money, you knew or should have known about this clause and therefore you agreed to be subject to it, and indeed you are. So at least from a legal perspective there very likely isn't any breach here. In fact I'd almost bet the farm that what they are doing is perfectly legal.
This doesn't mean that it's fair though. Luckily we have a free market here, and what you're doing is exactly what needs to be done in order to reach equilibrium. People will ultimately vote with their feet in the end and affiliate programs need to take this into account which is why it's wise to try to amass some support against these changes when they are undesirable to us.
It's more correct though to see these agreements as ongoing subject to change, not the static documents that a lot of affiliates see them as, and in doing so you may be better prepared for the changes that may happen as time goes on.
In addition, one of the risks that you run when you have a revenue share based deal is that your revenue streams may be reduced by changes to the TOC, and of course you're going to be upset by that which is understandable. So it's not always as simple as just picking up and moving your business to more friendly deals, although there still may be some measure of control here. So what we would look to do here is tell the site is that with regard to the players we sent them their play is based to a large degree on our personal recommendations and if this isn't resolved we have no other option than to personally communicate our now very unfavorable recommendation toward your site and strongly suggest that our players take their business elsewhere and from our experience this will be very effective.
In the end though you really do need to first try to see it from their perspective or at least a neutral one and seek to obtain understanding of their position, and only then decide the appropriate action, which often will involve banding together and complaining, and ultimately moving your business away from them if the problem isn't resolved to your satisfaction. This doesn't necessarily mean a complete return to before the changes by the way, and you're always comparing one business situation to another and looking to take the most profitable course.
So this sort of thing that you're doing is a good idea of course but the bottom line of all of this is you want to try to avoid being too confrontational, avoid using too harsh of a tone in negotiating with them, avoid making claims of fact which may be false such as you have no legal right to do this, and and also look to see their side of it as well, which will at least set the stage for taking your collective power and channelling it properly toward their considering your position more appropriately.
We all applaud efforts such as this to at least show programs that we can't be pushed around with impunity and often a push back can be helpful, but you want to pay attention to both the quantity and quality of the push
