Stanjames - Stole my commsissons and are kicking me out.

**Viriatu** · 19 June 2013, 4:52 pm

Originally Posted by Pmig

As promised, I update this thread just to let all know my issues are solved (thanks to Garry) and I have my account reopened and all commissions paid.

Apparently the problem on my account was a migration issue. As soon I start to talk with Garry the problems are solved very quickly and the payment are made on this payment cycle.

At the end, the problem here is just a matter of miscommunication and IT (information technology) problems. SOLVED

If not for all the fuss here seems clear this would never get sorted, despite me being happy you are on the right track, the core issues remain. Any more inexperienced webmaster entering the scene might still be at loss.

I wont even mention the simple fact we are talking about a 4 month time span,and the OP is still to get any real help it seems, a reputable or simply responsible brand or program would have this done in a timely manner using no quotas etc etc... resolving one issue and not adressing the big picture is just throwing sand to ones eyes imo.

**betfinder** · 26 June 2013, 1:15 pm

Well today I learned that I have also been "culled" from StanJames for low numbers.

I only found out because my links were giving an Invalid error then when I went to log into the affiliates area it said my account was suspended.
The reply I got from them when I emailed took a very 'hard line' approach from the outset.

They said my account was suspended pending termination and that this had been decided at the highest level and cannot be reversed.
(Well cheers Stan it was nice working with you too!)

They cited low numbers, poor performance and also my lack of responsiveness as apparently they had emailed me a few times about it. I said I never received any such emails so how could I reply. This is not the attitude I had come to expect after many years of being an affiliate.

I would have thought they would have been nicer and asked why I wasn't promoting them much, but it seems they are not interested in working with affiliates and clearly just want rid. I will not promote them on my network again and will advise my fellow affiliates and associates to steer clear.

I had been Tweeting their offers often on my newer site and that would have helped with branding. Their reasoning does seem odd though, they said it's not worth their while. But they don't do anything do they! Even if I am sending them just a trickle of traffic , it's still traffic. And I could have easily improved numbers if I gave them a push or did a promotion.

Oh well, stuff them. Plenty of bookmakers out there and I will focus my efforts on the ones who work with and value all their partners.

They seem to be alienating us with this strange approach. All the big affiliates were once small.

**betfinder** · 26 June 2013, 1:16 pm

I am glad I found this thread anyway and it's not just me. A good thing that I am not wasting any more of my time with them.

**universal4** · 26 June 2013, 1:21 pm

What sucks is that groups like this ever got ANY of our players as they didn't deserve them.

We are affiliates, we send players, we should be paid on players we send PERIOD.

If you think you can change the game after the fact, then you don't deserve the exposure/branding/free advertising to start with....

For many years (even when I was ridiculed for it) I have been trying to tell everyone how bad quotas are for EVERYONE!

Rick
Universal4

**thebookiesoffers** · 26 June 2013, 2:28 pm

Originally Posted by universal4

What sucks is that groups like this ever got ANY of our players as they didn't deserve them.

We are affiliates, we send players, we should be paid on players we send PERIOD.

If you think you can change the game after the fact, then you don't deserve the exposure/branding/free advertising to start with....

For many years (even when I was ridiculed for it) I have been trying to tell everyone how bad quotas are for EVERYONE!

Rick
Universal4

What is the GPWA stance on them closing accounts for poor numbers?

**universal4** · 26 June 2013, 2:54 pm

Well, I think it depends on whether the action follows their terms of service.

I have always lobbied very heavy against any kind of quota, whether in the terms or not, BUT, if a program does have a quota in their terms, as long as they do not make any retroactive changes to the terms, then at least they are following their agreements.

Rick
Universal4

**thebookiesoffers** · 26 June 2013, 3:15 pm

Originally Posted by universal4

Well, I think it depends on whether the action follows their terms of service.

I have always lobbied very heavy against any kind of quota, whether in the terms or not, BUT, if a program does have a quota in their terms, as long as they do not make any retroactive changes to the terms, then at least they are following their agreements.

Rick
Universal4

just find it strange that stan james say this on page 1

"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."

yet that goes against what betfinder has said above

**MichaelCorfman** · 26 June 2013, 3:30 pm

Originally Posted by thebookiesoffers

What is the GPWA stance on them closing accounts for poor numbers?

I had not seen this thread before, and it had not been brought to my attention, so I have to start by apologizing for our not having followed up sooner.

The first action I am taking is to move this thread into the Stan James forum. We generally only expect programs to monitor threads in their own forum, so having this thread in a different forum is not helpful in terms of receiving a response from them.

In terms of closing accounts for low numbers, my view is pretty simple. I don't like the practice. But, most importantly, when it is the practice I view it as being important that the practice is highlighted so that affiliates can enter into such a relationship with their eyes open, and do it only when the existence of an activity quota that can result in an account being closed is well documented. Situations can become a bit more blurred when a program views that attempts to reach out the the affiliate don't receive a response.

I've spoken to Anthony about this thread, and the plan is that we will follow-up to obtain greater clarity on the policies and procedures being followed, and to identify areas where changes could be made for the better. And if appropriate, we will look at how to improve the highlights we provide for programs. Just over a month ago I announced we were working on providing this sort of information for all affiliate programs in the thread New Information Provided About Affiliate Programs. We have tried to focus first on programs where we knew there were factors we felt were important to be highlighted to affiliates. Right now, based on the comments in this thread, it seems as though there may be some issues to highlight with respect to Stan James.

Michael

**ocreditor** · 3 July 2013, 6:30 am

Originally Posted by MichaelCorfman

In terms of closing accounts for low numbers, my view is pretty simple. I don't like the practice.

This is also the first time we are seeing this thread, but we feel it is important to comment.

OCR has been in the industry for over 10 years, and the practice of closing accounts for low numbers is one of the lowest practices in the affiliations field. We have fallen victim to this "fishy" practice a few times over the years, causing us to lose huge stakes of commission.

From experience, we steer clear of companies that engage in this practice. Affiliate programs that do this, no matter what the reason, are no different than insurance companies that prey on the general public by drawing in more clients without the intention of paying when the need arises. Just like the unsuspecting public, the affiliate is left in the dark and can do nothing after the traffic has already left his domain.

Originally Posted by MichaelCorfman

But, most importantly, when it is the practice I view it as being important that the practice is highlighted so that affiliates can enter into such a relationship with their eyes open.

OCR completely agrees with this statement and we believe that every new affiliate should do his research before entering into a "lifetime" affiliate contract with any company, such as check forums and ask for recommendations from other affiliates. Nevertheless, this is not enough if companies change their original contracts, just to make an easy profit off the affiliate. In short, be sure to do your research and stay updated and share information on forums such as these!

Thanks for sharing.

**Roulette Zeitung** · 4 July 2013, 3:57 pm

A scorpion was wandering along the bank of the river, wondering how to get to the other side. Suddenly he saw a fox. He asked the fox to take him on his back across the river.

The fox said, "No. If I do that, you'll sting me and I'll drown."
The scorpion assured him, "If I did that, we'd both drown."

So the fox thought about it and finally agreed. So the scorpion climbed up on his back and the fox began to swim. But halfway across the river, the scorpion stung him.
As the poison filled his veins, the fox turned to the scorpion and said, "Why did you do that? Now you'll drown too."

"I couldn't help it," said the scorpion. "It's my nature."

(Star Trek: Voyager Episode Scorpion Part I / Chakotay shares with Janeway)

Leopold

**FictionNet** · 4 July 2013, 9:48 pm

Originally Posted by Roulette Zeitung

A scorpion was wandering along the bank of the river

I remember this from The Crying Game...

**Roulette Zeitung** · 5 July 2013, 5:19 am

Hello FictionNet,

thank you for the tip. It is worth a special entry in my diary:

https://www.active-income.com/forum/leopolds-...tml#post725062

Leopold

**Anthony** · 6 July 2013, 10:20 am

I am communication with Stan James to get particulars about this issue.

**Roulette Zeitung** · 10 July 2013, 8:19 am

Thread started: 15. February 2013

Garry McGibbon: https://www.active-income.com/member/garrymc

Last Post: 19 February 2013
"First off we’d like to say that we truly appreciate all feedback...[yada yada yada]"

6 July 2013
"I am communication with Stan James"

15. Februar.................19. Februar.................6. July.......8. July........10. July

Garry McGibbon: Last Activity: 8 July 2013

No time for public transparency?
No time for public apologies for cheated webmasters?

But always time for giving interviews with big words:

"In this second installment of the featured partner interview series, we talked to Garry McGibbon, Communications Manager at StanJames.com."
Communications Manager

Last Post: 19 February 2013

IA: "If you had to sum up StanJames.com in one word, what would it be?"

GM: "Exciting![...]"

Source: https://blog.incomeaccess.com/13241/2...es-com-at-bac/

"sum up StanJames.com in one word [...] Exciting!"
Exciting!

Mr. McGibbon, as a communications manager you have not promised too much!
It's really exciting to see this Mardi Gras event.

Leopold

**thebookiesoffers** · 13 August 2013, 11:57 am

Originally Posted by Anthony

I am communication with Stan James to get particulars about this issue.

Any updates about this?

**-Shay-** · 13 August 2013, 12:29 pm

Originally Posted by thebookiesoffers

Any updates about this?

Look under the rug - the one with the broom next to it.

**thebookiesoffers** · 14 August 2013, 1:27 pm

Originally Posted by thebookiesoffers

Any updates about this?

???????

**Anthony** · 16 August 2013, 6:53 am

Michael will update this thread shortly.

**thebookiesoffers** · 16 August 2013, 12:25 pm

Originally Posted by Anthony

Michael will update this thread shortly.

Pardon me, but over a month ago you posted YOU were in communication with Stan James, can you update what happened with YOUR discussions please, as I asked in PM

**MichaelCorfman** · 16 August 2013, 1:13 pm

Originally Posted by thebookiesoffers

Pardon me, but over a month ago you posted YOU were in communication with Stan James, can you update what happened with YOUR discussions please, as I asked in PM

Just to confirm, yes, Anthony has been in touch with Stan James. The plan after my post from before was that Anthony would have appropriate interactions with Stan James to understand what had transpired that led up this thread being started. Anthony did have such interactions, and did feel, at the end of those interactions, that he understood both what happened and why. Anthony has now made that information available to me.

Based on the information I have, I agree with Anthony's assessment that the picture painted in this thread at this point in time is both incomplete and misleading, and creates an impression that is very unfavorable to Stan James versus the impression created with all of the facts, as we understand them, made clear.

However, at this point in time, we are not certain which of the information given to us needs to be treated as confidential, and which information can be disclosed. Yesterday evening I sent an email message to Stan James requesting a phone call be scheduled to discuss the situation in greater detail, and also to clarify what information is acceptable to be posted in public. Currently I am awaiting a response to that email.

Michael

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

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

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

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to universal4 For This Useful Post:

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MichaelCorfman For This Useful Post:

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

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roulette Zeitung For This Useful Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posting Permissions