Chipleader Chargeback Changes

[MJ]

I'm not actually sure how it was calculated before, so here it is for anyone who didn't get it:

Dear Mike,

Chipleader is excited to announce that we are moving to industry standards for chargeback deduction.

The method for payable revenue is as follows:

Gross Revenue – Proc. Fees – BDC - Charge backs + Returns=Payable revenue.

Gross Revenue — amount earned before deductions.

Processing Fees – deduction of all deposit fees.

BDC — Bonus Dollars.

Charge backs — amount of deposit the players has charged back. For example: If the player deposited $100, the player does a charge back on $100, the affiliate will be deducted $100.

Note: For CPA affiliates the CPA amount will be the chargeback deduction…not the amount of the deposit.

Returns — amount of chargeback recovery from players.

Payable Revenue – net payment amount.

The formula will be applied to December payments moving forward.

[Mike]

Mike,

By any chance did you ask or did they mention when this info would be available in the backend?

[MJ]

Oops I left out an important part, here you go:

The formula will be applied to December payments moving forward.

The scheduled release will be on Thursday 7th of Jan at 9:00 am EST. The Chipleader back office (manager) will be down for approximately 3 hours.

[Marcelo]

If I understand correctly, they will discount the total amount of the charge back from the affiliate?

Nice partnership!?!

Industry standard is not to discount the commission percentage?

[MJ]

They also mention 100% deduction of any processor fees, I hope this is deposit only since players are charged to cashout? I'd also like to know if that is the case, if we have a set scale of deposit fees to go buy or if it's still the standard 10% deduction off every deposit for US players only? Also, does this mean we get nailed deposit fees in every other country now where we weren't before?

Looks like it might just be CPA time over there, hate to say it.

[Ridge]

Man UB seems to be changing this stuff ever couple of months. I honestly have no idea if this is better or worse, and I've never sent many players there and only use Rakeupdate for AP/UB anyway.

Can someone show a comparison to say Full Tilt which I know charges for everything. Cake does too

[MJ]

Retroactive to December too, I need to see numbers to see if this is good or bad.

[Mike]

If I understand correctly, they will discount the total amount of the charge back from the affiliate?

Nice partnership!?!

Industry standard is not to discount the commission percentage?

How did you get that from the above formula?

Gross Revenue – Proc. Fees – BDC - Charge backs + Returns = Payable revenue.

The way I read it is that charge backs get taken out just like processing fees and bonus dollars, which is BEFORE payable revenue is calculated.

Your commission = payable revenue x affiliate%

For those who don't know, with the old system, chipleader took back 100% of the revenue generated by that player, regardless of how long ago it was. If you landed a whale who then did a chargeback (for whatever reason), all of the MGR was taken back from the affiliate.

I'm not saying that this way is better or worse but it does seem more in line with a "partnership" than the old way. IMHO, chargebacks, processing fees, etc should be an expense absorbed by the company, not the affiliate, even if this means smaller commission percentages.

[Marcelo]

How did you get that from the above formula?

Gross Revenue – Proc. Fees – BDC - Charge backs + Returns = Payable revenue.

The way I read it is that charge backs get taken out just like processing fees and bonus dollars, which is BEFORE payable revenue is calculated.

Your commission = payable revenue x affiliate%

For those who don't know, with the old system, chipleader took back 100% of the revenue generated by that player, regardless of how long ago it was. If you landed a whale who then did a chargeback (for whatever reason), all of the MGR was taken back from the affiliate.

I'm not saying that this way is better or worse but it does seem more in line with a "partnership" than the old way. IMHO, chargebacks, processing fees, etc should be an expense absorbed by the company, not the affiliate, even if this means smaller commission percentages.

Thanks for the clarification.

[PokerDude]

I think there are scenarios where it is good and scenarios where it is bad for the affiliate. If the player charges back a large amount of deposit money and hardly played, the affiliate will get screwed big time. If the player played a lot an earned substantial revenue from the chargeback, then I think this new way benefits the affiliate (from the current method of outright deduction from commission). As always, we will see how this all plays out. Obviously, their fees have increased over time, and I think that they are not looking at the big picture here.