Shouldn't ALL revenue share plans be 50%?

[corpfan1]

With all these sites yapping about MGR being a "partnership" etc... and wanting us to share in fees such as when a player cashes out there points, when a player plays in a freeroll, nails a jackpot, gets a bonus, trades in their sister for a mug, etc...

Shouldn't they be offering 50% revenue share to affiliates to form a TRUE partnership?

I would like to see a program that TRULY sees an affiliate as a partner and offers 50% for life and responds to emails within 24 hours and answers ALL questions asked in the sent email.

Not aiming this at anyone - but seriously people - these sites (most) are making millions if not billions and should seriously get their shit in gear to offer a STATE OF THE ART set of features, TOP NOTCH support, ENGLISH SPEAKING AMs (or multi-lingual for that matter), AMAZING BANNER GRAPHICS, and so on...

Wake me up if you are a program that can offer that...until then I am going camping - Enke gave me the itch - and it wasn't jock itch. As soon as the football pool draft is over I am outta here to go hunt some VENISON.

[Nexton]

I agree with you about Jeremy setting up a new PAW network. But 50% is just not a partnership, skins get around 70% and many of them give more than half to affiliates, plus they do all the paymebt and customer support. I think its already amazing that there are programs offering more than half there profite to affiliates.

This of course is my humble opinion.

(now Jeremy setting up a new affiliaye network would be sweet) but this will probebly by a dream, or could it become a reality, Jeremy?

[corpfan1]

Ya - but us convincing a player to play at a skin rather than Stars or Tilt is a work of magic in itself and definitely worth 50%.

Besides...some take off 50% of bonuses, etc... and then only give out 35% etc... not right.

[MJ]

Some skins and sites are literally living off of 10% corp, even if they are giving you 40%.

Where I think you are right in this thread is that affiliate programs should have honest and open practices in what we are charged for, not try to hide it or mislead you into thinking you are getting a bigger percentage.

Example:

I was promoting a small room at 35% for awhile, every month I would see I made $800 in my stats, but when they paid me to my account a couple weeks later it would be adjusted to less. I never figured it out, and never could get a clear answer.

Finally, I got one of the AM's to admit they charge a 15% "account service fee" every month unless you specifically request to opt out of it.

In the end they actually paid me my back commissions, but how dirty is that?

[Adam_1]

I used to operate a skin and at one point we where actually just breaking even off of players from affilaites.

In my opinion I would prefer to have great customer service, fast payments and friendly T/Cs.

I would gladly give up a few percent if I new that my payments would always come and always come fast and that the T/Cs are not going to change all the time.

[Tea Flow]

@MJ,

What room was that???

[Bryan]

I think 50% across the board is a pretty unreasonable expectation. That would assume that in this "partnership" the affiliates are bringing the same amount of value to the table that the poker site is. There are obviously scenarios (skins, etc.) where the balance might get closer to 50/50 or higher, but for the larger rooms (FT, Stars, etc.) you're not going to ever get to that level.

I'm not trying to trivialize the value that an affiliate brings to the table, but to compare it to the costs and work involved in setting up and running the actual poker site, there's a major difference.

A valid complaint brought up in this thread is the idea that affiliates on revenue share plans should be sharing in the player expenses to the same level that they get to share in that players revenues. i.e., if we're getting 35% revenue share, we should also only be charged for 35% of the processing fees, bonuses, etc.

[Ranna]

50% sounds great in theory, but I doubt that poker sites could survive if they paid affiliates 50%. I would assume that poker sites probably have huge overhead expenses which include paying an affiliate manager, around the clock customer service, payment processors, hosting, etc I think that most sites pay a fair percentage when you look at the overall picture.

[corpfan1]

I think that many are missing my point though.

There are so many reasons why some of these rooms fail and I think the number 1 reason is lack of players on the tables.

Affiliates boost that number and that is the INTANGIBLE effect that is worth more than anything to the room.

Sure Stars and Tilt, etc.. are going to have a huge player base and really could care less, etc...

But I am talking about smaller rooms that need the initial push.

You can't tell me that they would lost MORE MONEY with 50% rev share than a $200 CPA? I think the CPA is overpaying in one sense - because most players don't stick at these sites.

I guess my real complaint is that a lot of programs "ADVERTISE", "CLAIM", etc...loudly that it is a TRUE PARTNERSHIP when it isn't. Then fees get thrown in etc... and it can effect the bottom line rather seriously.

I often have affiliate managers telling me to "convince" my player base to MOVE to their program, etc... In this situation I think I should get MORE than 50% as they would have NEVER played there without my convincing.

[Squizzel]

TBH rooms costs are neglible compared to the money there making. Poker Rooms have to be one of the higest margin businesses in terms of what it costs to provide the service and the money they get from each client. Hence that is why they can payout over $100cpa.

Like stars has 200k people online. They can easily have a few hundred staff, a hundred servers and whatever the fuck they want. Hence why im seeing them all the freakin time on TV in the UK.