Pokerstars wants affiliates to pay Operational Costs

[GFPC]

I got this information from AGD website. In regards to their terms and conditions.

According to AGD,

"Pokerstars have retroactively changed their terms and conditions such that Operational costs are now shared by affiliates. This includes both legal costs and branding costs."

The post is seen here - Pokerstars Wants Affiliates to Pay for Operational Costs - Affiliate Guard Dog

Steve

[CK]

Rev share affiliates have had expenses deducted for months and months now - its not new for rev. What they should do is break down the expenses so affiliates know what they are paying rather than taking it off of their payments with no explanation as to what's what. Whats interesting is the legal/branding costs - why this is just being added to the T&C's now and if the changes to the FPP's is to balance out rev share vs cpa with the costs rev share affiliates pay if that makes sense. I guess what Im trying to say is maybe the change to the FPP's is a way for stars to offset the expenses incurred by players under cpa affiliates in the same way as it's done for rev share.Kind of like balancing out the system. idk costs of operating makes alot more sense than low value players.

Tagmug - Your response was not only unprofessional but pointless. A hint - grow up. After a comment like that, I wouldnt give you the time of day if I was an AM. I mean honestly you think the C word is appropriate never mind the other language. Show some class

[tagmug]

ohboy should not have written that.

[Matt Geer]

This response has been edited out by Pino - really no need to have anyone re-read these comments from earlier.

I don't think you could've made a more unintelligent response if you tried.

I still promote PokerStars and will continue to do so. I may not push them as hard as other sites, but they are still arguably one of the best sites for poker players.

And isn't that the goal anyway, to provide the best and most valuable resources to visitors to our sites? I'd much rather get paid a little less and promote top-notch poker rooms as opposed to being paid a shitton for promoting low trafficked sites that will more than likely shut down and steal player's money.

Whether you agree with me or not (and I'd imagine most do not), response such as the one above won't solve anything anyway - nothing with a positive outcome at least.

[AceHigh Pino]

I've banned tagmug for 7 days for that completely uncalled-for response. Regardless of him modifying it, I'm gonna let him cool his head for a bit...and if Jeremy of the other mods want to make it a little less or more, they can do it themselves.

Carry on with the topic at hand though please - I don't push Stars directly so I didn't know they applied these types of operational costs anyways on affiliates...pretty interesting.

[Giorgio]

What about our operational costs for promoting PokerStars? Hosting, content creation, SEO... etc etc, who shares those costs with us?

PokerStars has showed over and over not to care about affiliates. I'm glad I got rid of them - and I seem to make more than double the money promoting FTP in the positions I used to promote Stars, despite the 60 days rule.

[pamela]

Hello,

Can someone please tell me how big expenses are? Say for example if you bring $1000 in revenue, how much (just a guesstimate) would expenses be based on your experience?

Thanks

[MJ]

I'v seen a lot of big PAL afffiliates drop PokerStars or move them to bottom of results - kudos to everyone doing that - hope to see more of it.

Vote with your web pages.

[PTC]

doesnt look like this affects anyone taking CPA payments?

[pokerextras]

Fwiw, i started my affiliating career as a rakeback and kickback affiliate and have only just moved to pure cpa's, and after looking at the low cpa offers available at stars, have decided not to promote them. I'm also about to remove full tilt from my rakeback sites. We really do have strength in numbers and should use it far more than we do, then these sorts of things wouldn't be happening. Just my humble thoughts on the matter.