New Terms at Fulltilt - your players have only 60 days to deposit

[Graham]

BTW... FTP dropped to 4th on my site and most banners removed (will take time to get them all)... after monday if there is no positive response from FTP, probably gone completely. I may be a small fish in their overall picture, but every voice counts!

[PPP]

I'm taking their "side"????

You might want to reread a bit!

First, I don't think as "us versus them", so it probably is a bad idea to put your mindset on me.

Affiliates are getting a bad name directly as a result of the stupid idea known as rakeback, and Full Tilt is the only major room that offers it. This is a bad thing. But I'm not them. They can do stupid stuff, though I wish they didn't.

The bad reputation you are talking about is almost entirely due to affiliates of all kinds taking MGR, which is also, in my opinion, a horribly inappropriate method of marketing compensation in the poker niche. Full Tilt did not force any affiliate to take MGR, and thus create this adversarial relationship with players. MGR, rakeback and business models thought up by the casino side of the business back in 1996 are the problems that the industry has to shrug off before it can mature more sensibly, including relationships with players.

If we have a difference it seems you think you are entitled to something from full Tilt. I think they can run their business how they want, even when they make stupid decisions. They haven't used weapons of mass destruction here. They have decided to take a larger share of income for themselves, and they have done it in a way that is in line with their terms and conditions.

[Prenut]

I've never been a fan of rakeback and never will. I used to take revenue share and I don't any longer with the exception of a smaller room that I just haven't bother to switch with.

The main issue here is obviously money. Full Tilt wants to give affiliates a paycut in order to give themselves a raise, which is ultimately their decision which of course will come with it's own set of consequences. Affiliates are of course going to fight against this because no one likes getting a pay cut. I quit my last job as a Cage Manager because I was told I had to take a pay cut. Before quitting I tried to negotiate something that would be agreeable to both parties. We couldn't agree so I made the decision to leave. The same set of decisions will happen here with lots of different people. At first you try to fight the pay cut, and then if unsuccessful you have your decision as to whether or not you are going to stop your full tilt promotions.

The more troubling thing to me in the whole scenario is how Full Tilt tried to spin this, both in their email and via the AM in this forum. The email attempted to spin this as being some sort of good thing for affiliates. The AM brushed it off as no big deal that wouldn't really make a difference. Both of these are showing a gross lack of respect for their partners.

Originally Posted by PPP

I'm taking their "side"????

You might want to reread a bit!

First, I don't think as "us versus them", so it probably is a bad idea to put your mindset on me.

Affiliates are getting a bad name directly as a result of the stupid idea known as rakeback, and Full Tilt is the only major room that offers it. This is a bad thing. But I'm not them. They can do stupid stuff, though I wish they didn't.

The bad reputation you are talking about is almost entirely due to affiliates of all kinds taking MGR, which is also, in my opinion, a horribly inappropriate method of marketing compensation in the poker niche. Full Tilt did not force any affiliate to take MGR, and thus create this adversarial relationship with players. MGR, rakeback and business models thought up by the casino side of the business back in 1996 are the problems that the industry has to shrug off before it can mature more sensibly, including relationships with players.

If we have a difference it seems you think you are entitled to something from full Tilt. I think they can run their business how they want, even when they make stupid decisions. They haven't used weapons of mass destruction here. They have decided to take a larger share of income for themselves, and they have done it in a way that is in line with their terms and conditions.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by PPP

I'm taking their "side"????

You might want to reread a bit!

First, I don't think as "us versus them", so it probably is a bad idea to put your mindset on me.

Affiliates are getting a bad name directly as a result of the stupid idea known as rakeback, and Full Tilt is the only major room that offers it. This is a bad thing. But I'm not them. They can do stupid stuff, though I wish they didn't.

The bad reputation you are talking about is almost entirely due to affiliates of all kinds taking MGR, which is also, in my opinion, a horribly inappropriate method of marketing compensation in the poker niche. Full Tilt did not force any affiliate to take MGR, and thus create this adversarial relationship with players. MGR, rakeback and business models thought up by the casino side of the business back in 1996 are the problems that the industry has to shrug off before it can mature more sensibly, including relationships with players.

If we have a difference it seems you think you are entitled to something from full Tilt. I think they can run their business how they want, even when they make stupid decisions. They haven't used weapons of mass destruction here. They have decided to take a larger share of income for themselves, and they have done it in a way that is in line with their terms and conditions.

Obviously there is no sense in arguing with you. I am not on MGR with them, and I hardly make a dime off them to begin with, but many of the people that I would consider my friends in this industry do, and I think what they are doing is not right. If they want to be the affiliate, then they shouldn't have an affiliate program, thats more of a conflict of interest. As for taking their side... yes, all your responses indicate you agree with everything they have done.

[PPP]

Originally Posted by Graham

yes, all your responses indicate you agree with everything they have done.

This would be the first time I've heard that calling stuff they do "stupid" is agreeing with somebody!

Prenut makes a very good point. The worst part is the "greater fool" spin, especially originally. Take a better parking space, but don't tell the other guy the longer walk will do him good.

(And why would you want to "argue" anyway? This is something just to discuss to try to come to figure the best way to proceed.)

[Graham]

Originally Posted by PPP

This would be the first time I've heard that calling stuff they do "stupid" is agreeing with somebody!

Prenut makes a very good point. The worst part is the "greater fool" spin, especially originally. Take a better parking space, but don't tell the other guy the longer walk will do him good.

(And why would you want to "argue" anyway? This is something just to discuss to try to come to figure the best way to proceed.)

So does that mean you will be removing them or their banners from your site? Actions speak louder than words.

I agree, Prenut, that is a VERY good point!

[PPP]

Originally Posted by Graham

So does that mean you will be removing them or their banners from your site? Actions speak louder than words.

This really goes to the heart of the matter. Like I said above, I deal with them on MY terms, or more accurately, on terms we both agree to. My deal with them doesn't have any 60 day issues. Now just to be clear, I'm not saying I negotiated a deal with them that said "the 60 day thing doesn't apply to me" (although that is something people can do). My deal with them is a paid in advance, fixed time (months) deal. I don't even know how many players they get from me, let alone when they deposit or how much they play, etc.

[TheDonk]

Originally Posted by Prenut

are showing a gross lack of respect for their partners.

Please, please, please stop using the word 'partners'. We are not partners with FTP, we are their player bitches. We send them players, they treat us like bitches. Partners are not treated like they treat us, and this term is getting used way too often lately. Don't let these people fool you into thinking we're partners.

God, I'd love to be a fly on the wall when they have their meetings on how to cut affiliate revenues and take more for themselves. With policies like the ones they've put into place lately do you think they use terms like 'partners' when they're referring to affiliates??? Of course they don't and I guarantee you that the way they talk about us is in a very negative way. Poker room managers who see their affiliates as a positive source of revenue do not do to their affiliates what FT is doing to theirs. We are nothing more than player bitches to FT, the sooner people realize this truth, the better off all of us will be.

[Notspot]

This whole thing has been very badly handled (but we should be used to that by now), but there are somes bigger issues going on here.

The vast majority of players are gonna be very unhappy when they realise most of the people at the table are getting direct cashback even though they signed up ages ago just like them - this is the real issue here, the 60 day rule is just a red herring to keep up talking about that while the whole cashback system changes under our feet and affiliates are squeezed out. We need to wake up to it now.

Something has got to give here and I think if we all step back for a moment we'll see that the current system of a player being locked under an affiliate and not being on a level playing field with other players who have signed up independently is ridiculous and is very bad for us as affiliates in the long run. Just wait until word gets out down the pub and in forums that it's a bad idea to sign up through an affiliate and to make sure you sign up direct if you want to receive the full range of long-term offers. Lots of players don't trust the rakeback sites - but getting it direct is a whole new ball game.

Quite frankly some of the figures affiliates have made out of individual players over the years is obscene - even more obscene when you realise that the player themselves could have received a good proportion of it. I know I'm in the minority here - but I'd rather the players got a better deal - professionally and personally.

I've been reading the threads at 2+2, and find myself on the players' side. Pokerstars are the only room who have got this right IMO, (whether it was through ineptitude or design), because they only offer CPA they are now in a strong position to offer players some great cashback deals across the board.

I, for one, want my players to be offered in-house rakeback too, I'll be pushing for it. But then I understand that for me it's easier as I'm on CPA anyway. I'm also going through PAW who may not want to give up their share. But there's nothing stopping me going back to FTP direct - in fact being able to guarantee players in-house cashback may be a better marketing tool than freerolls anyway.

I would like to see FTP introduce a fair CPA system (no 60 days rule) with all players being offered rakeback once they collect a certain number of FTP's a month. Plus a choice of MGR for those who prefer it with the proviso that if the player claims cashback that a proportion comes out of the affiliates MGR - it's only fair if you're receiving divvies on that player for life.

Those of you who have armies of players signed up under you on MGR - would you rather have 40% of a dwindling player base with new sign ups few and far between, or 10-15% of a tidy sum from happy players who you aren't gonna lose to rakeback as soon as the player catches on? Forum owners - how many of your loyal members will feel good about using your forum / links if they feel you're deliberately trying to get them to sign up to a deal which is not as good as a direct deal in the long run?

I know some people aren't gonna like what I've said and it's a very emotive issue for some who have large sums of money at stake. This isn't meant as a personal attack on you - I'm just saying it as I see it. We need to look at the bigger picture here.

[scottmc]

Originally Posted by PPP

They have decided to take a larger share of income for themselves, and they have done it in a way that is in line with their terms and conditions.

That may be so but it doesn't make it right or any less of a screwing. It is ignorant to say that this sort of behaviour is ethical and legal because it isn't. Like I said previously if this ever went to a court of law, which it won't, FTP would unable to enforce this condition due to the legal doctrine of equitable estoppel.

What FTP should have done is enforce this rule from the start. What they should not have done is wait until affiliates had built up their business and then decided to enforce it. Most people here can see this correctly due to common sense, some people can not.