Predatory Change in Terms - Ultimate Bet

[Darko]

Originally Posted by Graham

Could this be a way for them to get back at pokerlistings? (http://www.pokerlistings.com/ultimate-bet)

Meanwhile screwing everyone else over in the process.

i would expect pokerlistings to be on cpa anyways, so doubt this would effect pokerlings

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Darko

i would expect pokerlistings to be on cpa anyways, so doubt this would effect pokerlings

True, but you never know. This is one room you would probably want MGR over CPA.

[Dave]

My point is that affiliate mangers have to concentrate their efforts on working with the consistent, past producers.

It's a lot more time consuming than most affiliates realise.

This is just my guess/opinion.

I may well be wrong but it's the only logical explanation that I can come up with for their new terms.

They want to maximize their profits as much as we do.

[JohnG]

I realize they obviously want to maximize their profits but implementing policies like this may hinder them in the long run. By enforcing this minimum policy they are creating a barrier of entry to newer affiliates who in affect may become big producers in the long term. This is why this decision is stupid in my opinion.

[cashchaser]

Originally Posted by AlanAces

Ultimate Bet and Absolute get worse and worse every day........

Above post point out UB worst term. What u mean about AP ? Can u explain

[Dave]

I realize they obviously want to maximize their profits but implementing policies like this may hinder them in the long run. By enforcing this minimum policy they are creating a barrier of entry to newer affiliates who in affect may become big producers in the long term. This is why this decision is stupid in my opinion.

You used the word may twice in your post and that is exactly my point.

There are many, very well established poker sites that get tons of poker traffic and always will.

These are the sites the affiliate mangers are going to concentrate their efforts on.

Can a new guy break into this elite club?........ sure it's possible.

But you have to prove yourself as a player.... 10 RMP's per month isn't that much.... before your affiliate manger and the company consider you an asset to them.

[JohnG]

You should not have to prove yourself to them to simply be paid, you should have to prove yourself as an asset to them for any increase in revenue % or CPA, private tournaments, freerolls, etc.

Edit: This is my last post in regards to this thread, I believe my opinion is pretty clear . Dave please feel free to respond with your thoughts, this is fun.

[Dave]

I didn't mean to piss you of JohnG.

I'm just giving my honest opinions.

I would love to hear other views from all PAW members on this topic.

Don't be shy........ get it out.

[NewPokerGirl]

Does this only apply to UB? I would hate to lose my AP account since I switched to the PAW trackers and I wont be sending them any traffic directly.

[PPP]

Originally Posted by JohnG

By enforcing this minimum policy they are creating a barrier of entry to newer affiliates who in affect may become big producers in the long term. This is why this decision is stupid in my opinion.

Not commenting on the UB specific, but creating a barrier for entry for new affiliates is a moneymaker for the cardrooms. New affiliates are next to useless as a group. Many turn out to be fine of course, but most that sign up produce nothing at all. I would guess that most of the rest produce nothing but fraud players (and complaints).

The affiliate model began in days when there were not very many affiliates. Today there are tens of thousands. For years at most places you could sign up to be an affiliate just because you could. This appears to no longer be good business, for any established outfit anyway.

The UB terms sound like a pretty ridiculous way to address this though.

One more (small) stake in the heart of MGR.

Graham's idea may be right on the money, even if PL did CPA recently they could have MGR players from when they were just a startup outfit.