Stanjames - Stole my commsissons and are kicking me out.

**universal4** · 19 February 2013, 1:34 pm

Quotas do NOT support small affiliates and only slap them down.

Your actions with other affiliates show you DO base affiliate relationships on quotas, otherwise affiliates would NOT be kicked from the program for not performing to whatever "standards of revenue" which change from time to time and affiliate to affiliate.

Rick
Universal4

**Pmig** · 19 February 2013, 1:40 pm

Originally Posted by GarryMc

First off we’d like to say that we truly appreciate all feedback (both positive and negative), and take affiliate feedback into consideration when making decisions regarding the StanJames.com affiliate programme.

StanJames.com Affiliates has increasingly invested in the affiliate channel over the past few years, focused on supporting both large and small affiliates alike. Stan James does not actively look to remove membership to the affiliate programme regardless of performance levels, instead enlisting the philosophy of asking questions, working with affiliates to optimize their campaigns, and providing the support required for a successful partnership.

StanJames.com view the affiliate channel and individual affiliate relationships as vital to the success of the business. We are proud of the changes we’ve made to management of the programme and improvements the StanJames.com brands in 2012. These include the widely successful ‘Stan and James?TV adverts for Sports, Mobile and Casino to increase brand awareness, improved Casino player offer and Casino re-launch, and the reintroduction of best odds guaranteed on horse racing. We would like to think that the StanJames.com brand ethos of being straight forward, friendly and accessible is mirrored in the way we approach our affiliate relationships.

It is important to note that StanJames.com does not institute a policy surrounding player quotas, and the commission structures that affiliates work on are strictly revenue based (unless negotiated otherwise). In very rare instances, we do evaluate specific cases related to affiliate membership when affiliates have been unresponsive and dormant for an extended period of time; that being said, we are only an email or phone call away and will always re-review circumstances should they change based on the desire to promote StanJames.com.

On that note, we always welcome any feedback on improvements that can be made by StanJames.com to the affiliate programme, and will always take this feedback into consideration.

As ever, we look forward to your feedback.

Kind Regards,

StanJames.com Affiliate Team

This means that stanjames will retag my referred players back to my affiliate account and pay the commissions due?
Last time I look to my account the status was: "StanJames - General % Commission 0% Closed 12/29/2011 All Sites Flat 0 % on ALL/Total Revenue".
And this without receive any e-mail or phone call.

**casinog** · 19 February 2013, 3:47 pm

Originally Posted by GarryMc

We would like to think that the StanJames.com brand ethos of being straight forward, friendly and accessible is mirrored in the way we approach our affiliate relationships. [/COLOR]

Stan James does not actively look to remove membership to the affiliate programme regardless of performance levels.

It is important to note that StanJames.com does not institute a policy surrounding player quotas, and the commission structures that affiliates work on are strictly revenue based (unless negotiated otherwise). In very rare instances, we do evaluate specific cases related to affiliate membership when affiliates have been unresponsive and dormant for an extended period of time; that being said, we are only an email or phone call away and will always re-review circumstances should they change based on the desire to promote StanJames.com.

You activley DO look to remove affiliates on performance levels. Sometimes these performance dips are not due to our choosing and may be because of other factors i.e. Illness, technical faults, out of favor with search engines etc.

Email from yourselves: 21st Jan:

"I am writing to let you know that the affiliate account you hold with StanJames.com is under review for potential termination as for the past few months your registrations and active accounts have been extremely low."

You may sugar coat it and say its not quotas and get into the whole symantics game but your program is not affiliate friendly and you operate a type of "quota system".

I have been an affiliate since 2004-2005 and had quite a few players on my account.

Secondly you havent paid my commission since your new system has been in place since 2009 and I am owed quite a bit of commissions. Do you think that is fair as you had my payments details on file and never added them to your new system?

Why do you say your only going to pay me since October ???

IMO Its nothing more than greed that and you want cull affiliates and detag players from their accounts.

Players which affliates have worked hard to bring you through paying for PPC, SEO companys, buying links
from sites and spent many a late an hour working for.

Your actions show your anything but an affiliate friendly company.

Anyway you know who I am. If you want to contact me.

I.M.

**casinog** · 19 February 2013, 4:33 pm

Originally Posted by Pmig

This means that stanjames will retag my referred players back to my affiliate account and pay the commissions due?
Last time I look to my account the status was: "StanJames - General % Commission 0% Closed 12/29/2011 All Sites Flat 0 % on ALL/Total Revenue".
And this without receive any e-mail or phone call.

Thats pretty cold. Its simply not true when they say "Stan James does not actively look to remove membership to the affiliate programme regardless of performance levels."

Every since this new affliate team have come into place the've turned the Stan James affiliate program into a complete joke.

**vmlinuz** · 20 February 2013, 3:35 am

Originally Posted by xecutable

nstead of asking you like a civilized partner "Hey, I see we are not being promoted. May we ask why, and what can we do to improve this, so you can give us more exposure" they try to take the high road by forcing you to promote them.

The reason they don't do that is quite simple: they know players and affiliates don't really like their site because it's a piece of crap. They know how it could be improved but simply don't bother.

As for StanJames they were blacklisted on our Hungarian site about 2-3 years ago when they suddenly decided all Hungarian player accounts should be closed without any obvious reason. Of course they forgot to mention that on the signup form or in the terms and conditions. They simply decided to start closing the accounts citing the term "we're allowed to close an account without any reason". Good thing we didn't promote them.

**Zuga** · 20 February 2013, 7:50 am

Originally Posted by GarryMc

On that note, we always welcome any feedback on improvements that can be made by StanJames.com to the affiliate programme, and will always take this feedback into consideration.

What everyone here would welcome is for you to pay this affiliate and remove any quotas. Dat simple...

**Doolally** · 20 February 2013, 3:21 pm

I received the same email as Casinog.

Threatening to close accounts just isn't going to gain you more exposure if that's what you're looking for.

What you also seem to forget is that although many of the smaller affiliates may not supply many players, they might just know some of the bigger affiliates and tell them what a crock of **** your terms and conditions are.

**Viriatu** · 20 February 2013, 3:24 pm

Originally Posted by Zuga

What everyone here would welcome is for you to pay this affiliate and remove any quotas. Dat simple...

ye its so easy makes me cry, then remove quotas from terms get listed on decent guarddog sites that affiliates trust get some new exposure here and there and improve service to affiliates even more, raise the commissions dont stall and ye! it really is that easy!

**CasinoCoupons** · 25 February 2013, 10:38 am

this sucks i'll make sure i stay away from them...

**onlinepariuri** · 1 March 2013, 4:26 pm

I am also in this situation, have affiliate account suspended probably for low activity, but this isn't normal! I have 3-4 active players and lost them now, why because Stan and James want more players and i don't bring them!?

**Pmig** · 1 March 2013, 4:43 pm

Just to let all know since my reply, on February 19th, I didn't receive any contact from stan james, or at least a pm asking my affiliate id...

What kind of reputable affiliate program do this?

After a great "speech" about individual affiliate relationships as vital to the success of the business, the actions (or lack of) is demonstrated on this threads...

So, for my experience and for publicly demonstration of ignoring affiliates, just one word: avoid

**Pmig** · 5 March 2013, 1:41 pm

more a few days and stan james don't reply... this is for maintain this thread live!

**TinShed** · 10 April 2013, 1:38 pm

I've received the "under review" email last week. I only run a small football betting site and with the season about to come to an end the timing of this makes it almost pointless for me to try and get "new registrations and active accounts" I think I will just take down their banners and links from my site and save myself the trouble. However when I get my little site to the level I know it can reach I won't consider putting Stan James back up.

PS. Look after the little guys, we could be just one google animal update away from being your next big players.

**universal4** · 10 April 2013, 1:48 pm

I will just take down their banners and links from my site and save myself the trouble. However when I get my little site to the level I know it can reach I won't consider putting Stan James back up.

This is the part that many many programs should pay attention to, this is truly powerful but I think that many don't understand how it can affect them long term.

Rick
Universal4

**thebookiesoffers** · 10 April 2013, 2:39 pm

from the meeting I had with Stan James at LAC I got the impression they aint interested in affiliates at all

they said, for a better commission i should send more traffic and profit and then I could move up the % ladder, no meeting half way or anything. So I bombed them right down my site and no longer do any extra promoting for them.

I work very closely with coral, ladbrokes, betfred and bet365 and each of these reap the benefits, which I then do as well

**UKCasinoOnline** · 10 April 2013, 8:43 pm

I know an affiliate, whom will remain anonymous, who met Stan James at LAC, and though I didn't attend the conference myself, I asked him if the meetings went well. He said "yeah, with the exception of Stan James, who said no to just about everything put to them and just seemed extremely disinterested in affiliates, full stop".

It is for this reason, that I only work with seven brands on my main site, as I know they are reputable, and have never given me any reason to doubt them.

The same affiliate told me recently they received 58 sign ups over one weekend at a particular brand, yet the average value per account was about ?, Volume means nothing in fact if anything, it negates the effect from good players.

Brands who act like this will eventually reap what they sow

**ocreditor** · 11 April 2013, 3:08 am

Affiliate programs will use legit tactics - such as change of system - which require affiliates to stay up to date. This way they rid themselves of those affiliates who are no longer active, and just roll on with the lifetime revenue promise.

**thebookiesoffers** · 11 April 2013, 4:00 am

Originally Posted by UKCasinoOnline

I know an affiliate, whom will remain anonymous, who met Stan James at LAC, and though I didn't attend the conference myself, I asked him if the meetings went well. He said "yeah, with the exception of Stan James, who said no to just about everything put to them and just seemed extremely disinterested in affiliates, full stop".

It is for this reason, that I only work with seven brands on my main site, as I know they are reputable, and have never given me any reason to doubt them.

The same affiliate told me recently they received 58 sign ups over one weekend at a particular brand, yet the average value per account was about ?, Volume means nothing in fact if anything, it negates the effect from good players.

Brands who act like this will eventually reap what they sow

do I know you? that description is pretty much the exact experience that I had

**Voids** · 11 April 2013, 7:01 am

Brands that don't care about affiliates are slowly being removed from my site. I may only be a small fish but I know who I want to work with currently. Stan James are not one of them unfortunately, if your a small football affiliate like myself, I can see a massive cull of "inactive affiliates" in summer, effectively cutting off a lot of players after just a year of commissions.

**Louis - Income Access** · 12 April 2013, 10:42 am

High stakes players are great from an affiliate perspective because most brands wipe out negatives each month, so while the affiliate might earn 0 when the player gets a big win, they are certain to earn plenty eventually. Bookies have a different experience, however. High stakes punters tend to win more often than low stakes punters (not always the case, of course), and as such, the win/loss average is closer to 50/50, reducing the margin. In some cases, the commission paid out actually eliminates the profit from the player and even can net a loss.

Volume of players helps, on average looking at a program, to create more stability and manageable profitability. Moreover, higher volume of players generally means more exposure for the brand as a whole, which increases value the affiliate delivers and thus the amount the brand is willing to pay to continue the relationship.

I'm not saying this in defense of quotas, as I agree that there are better solutions than putting quotas in place. I'm simply helping to provide context for why brands sometimes think this way.

Thread: Stanjames - Stole my commsissons and are kicking me out.

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to universal4 For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to Pmig For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to vmlinuz For This Useful Post:

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Zuga For This Useful Post:

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Doolally For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to Viriatu For This Useful Post:

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CasinoCoupons For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to onlinepariuri For This Useful Post:

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Pmig For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to Pmig For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to thebookiesoffers For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to UKCasinoOnline For This Useful Post:

Posting Permissions