I Am In Favor Of A New Revenue Share Commission Based Model. (More $ For Affiliates!)

**Top Online Casinos** · 4 November 2017, 2:40 pm

I am in favor of a new revenue share commission based model. And I would like to know what you all think about it.

Right now, as we all know, we bring in players and at the end of the month, an overall commission over all players is paid out.

Unless of course, one player wins big, and there shall be no commission for you what so ever, or a lot less depending on how big this win was / these wins were.. Please note: Your other players still made revenue, but the one big winner makes it so that you can kiss goodbye to any of that.

So, what am I in favor of?

A commission earning model 'per player' as in such where none of the players can impact the other player's commissions. Should one of the players win, he or she should then goes in negative for his own account. With as result that no commission will be earned over this particular player until they are back in the positive. But they should not ever impact the other revenue generated by the players we brought in. It's not fair. Where does 'that money' go to then? Why should they 'compensate' the other player? Actual revenue from these other players still flows to the casino. However, we won't see any of it.

I've had a few 'rather massive winners' right at the end of the month, for three months in a row now. Unfortunate? Yes. Impossible? Nothing is. Nasty it sure is. I've been with a lot less / too less income for way too long now.

However, should this 'per player revenue share' system be used, then big winners don't matter so much. With it, they can not negatively impact other players we brought in, generating revenue, for the casino.

At the end of the day, we did bring in all players to the casino. We should earn on all of them when they generate revenue for the casino, no matter if one of them wins or not. That's not a crazy thing to say / ask, is it?

The way it is now, we bring in the players right now, but have the smallest chance of making money from them. Again, one big winner and it is bye bye to our commission.

Shouldn't that change? It sure could. And, in my opinion would be a much better solution for us, affiliates.

All affiliate managers and other staff working with the affiliate programs are in fact receiving a monthly SALARY. A sense of security I've not had for quite some time. We don't get 'a salary'. But, it is our players who we brought in that pay for their salaries.

If we build up a decent amount of commission the 30^th of the month, we still are not 100% sure we will get paid any of it. Again, one big winner, on the very last hour of the last day of the month, and you could be without income that month.

Wouldn't using such a 'player based' solution also provide us affiliates with a bit more sense of security, knowing that the chance we get paid is going to be close to 100%. (Taking in account of course that you do have active players brought in etc.)

I would really like to know your opinion on this please.

Thank you in advance.

**Progger** · 4 November 2017, 3:34 pm

My opinion...forget it...

Solution...Use multiple Accounts...

~Fin~

**Cash Bonus** · 4 November 2017, 3:58 pm

Originally Posted by Top Online Casinos

I am in favor of a new revenue share commission based model. And I would like to know what you all think about it.

Right now, as we all know, we bring in players and at the end of the month, an overall commission over all players is paid out.

Unless of course, one player wins big, and there shall be no commission for you what so ever, or a lot less depending on how big this win was / these wins were.. Please note: Your other players still made revenue, but the one big winner makes it so that you can kiss goodbye to any of that.

So, what am I in favor of?

A commission earning model 'per player' as in such where none of the players can impact the other player's commissions. Should one of the players win, he or she should then goes in negative for his own account. With as result that no commission will be earned over this particular player until they are back in the positive. But they should not ever impact the other revenue generated by the players we brought in. It's not fair. Where does 'that money' go to then? Why should they 'compensate' the other player? Actual revenue from these other players still flows to the casino. However, we won't see any of it.

I've had a few 'rather massive winners' right at the end of the month, for three months in a row now. Unfortunate? Yes. Impossible? Nothing is. Nasty it sure is. I've been with a lot less / too less income for way too long now.

However, should this 'per player revenue share' system be used, then big winners don't matter so much. With it, they can not negatively impact other players we brought in, generating revenue, for the casino.

At the end of the day, we did bring in all players to the casino. We should earn on all of them when they generate revenue for the casino, no matter if one of them wins or not. That's not a crazy thing to say / ask, is it?

The way it is now, we bring in the players right now, but have the smallest chance of making money from them. Again, one big winner and it is bye bye to our commission.

Shouldn't that change? It sure could. And, in my opinion would be a much better solution for us, affiliates.

All affiliate managers and other staff working with the affiliate programs are in fact receiving a monthly SALARY. A sense of security I've not had for quite some time. We don't get 'a salary'. But, it is our players who we brought in that pay for their salaries.

If we build up a decent amount of commission the 30^th of the month, we still are not 100% sure we will get paid any of it. Again, one big winner, on the very last hour of the last day of the month, and you could be without income that month.

Wouldn't using such a 'player based' solution also provide us affiliates with a bit more sense of security, knowing that the chance we get paid is going to be close to 100%. (Taking in account of course that you do have active players brought in etc.)

I would really like to know your opinion on this please.

Thank you in advance.

I am also in favour of what you are saying here. I really think that affiliates should have more resources available to them and they should also be heard and listenend to more too. I most certainly agree with you.

**allfreechips** · 4 November 2017, 4:37 pm

So put all the risk on the casino operator, I love it. I mean they have most of the risk n ow but we should stick it to them more and tax the rich! Oh got a bit off topic there but I bet if we make is so much in out favor they surely would never decide its no longer having us.

Bu t in reality, if your worries about winners use multiple accounts as stated above.

**Top Online Casinos** · 4 November 2017, 6:40 pm

Originally Posted by allfreechips

So put all the risk on the casino operator, I love it.

The player goes ' inactive' until they play / lose back their money. If the player cashes out all and runs, then that is a different case, no?
Same happens with some other affiliate programs too. When a player wins, some programs 'ringfence' him. No negative carry over method etc. It would be nice if that player would also not negatively impact other revenues made that current month, would it not?

Multiple accounts. Not a solution.

**Top Online Casinos** · 4 November 2017, 6:42 pm

Originally Posted by Progger

My opinion...forget it...

Solution...Use multiple Accounts...

~Fin~

Thank you. It's also just a thought. You know, a brain-spin. Perhaps others would like it too, perhaps others dislike it.

I don't want to be using more than one account per affiliate program I think. Thanks for the suggestion.

**Triple7** · 5 November 2017, 12:01 pm

If you want "no risk", then you should apply for a job with a weekly or monthly salary. Then you know every month what you will receive.

Another solution is what Progger said, open multiple accounts. You won't be the first one who's doing this to spread risks.

**Renee** · 5 November 2017, 11:35 pm

Originally Posted by Top Online Casinos

At the end of the day, we did bring in all players to the casino. We should earn on all of them when they generate revenue for the casino, no matter if one of them wins or not. That's not a crazy thing to say / ask, is it?

So I guess you'd then be ok for all the programs who currently have no negative carryover to abolish that, and carry over any negatives on your account right?

Otherwise, you're getting that player ringfenced against the other players, AND having no negative carryover, so when they lose it back the following month, you're earning commission on that too.

Most programs have a clause in their terms about large winners being ringfenced anyway. I don't see the need to add in something that separates individual players. That's why the majority of groups offer no negative carryover. The casinos are already carrying the risk there.

That's my 2 cents from an affiliate progam's perspective.

There is another option, but affiliates would need to push affiliate programs to do it - a model based on turnover instead of win/loss.

Rewards Affiliates already offers this. You make a percentage of the margin on each bet made so your commission only goes up. If a player wins, your commission does not go down, and if they play the win back, you earn on that wagered money too. There is no limit to the amount you can earn on a single deposit with the wager model whereas on revshare you're limited to a percentage of the amount deposited provided they lose it all.

Something to think about.

Cheers

**Former Member 14** · 6 November 2017, 4:16 am

Originally Posted by Renee

There is another option, but affiliates would need to push affiliate programs to do it - a model based on turnover instead of win/loss.

Rewards Affiliates already offers this. You make a percentage of the margin on each bet made so your commission only goes up. If a player wins, your commission does not go down, and if they play the win back, you earn on that wagered money too. There is no limit to the amount you can earn on a single deposit with the wager model whereas on revshare you're limited to a percentage of the amount deposited provided they lose it all.

Something to think about.

Cheers

I'm on the Wagershare model, and it's the best commission based option any affiliate program offers. In fact, I think Wagershare is ONLY available at Rewards Affiliates. This works best if you only have slot players. I believe it pays 1.3% on all wagering (that also includes bonuses etc). I also believe that VIP Hosts in Vegas receive a similar commission on their whales.

The wager share model sure beats worrying about EOM winners, or being wiped out by manager bonuses etc. What you see, is what you get

**Moonlight Cat** · 6 November 2017, 2:20 pm

Originally Posted by happyfeet

I'm on the Wagershare model, and it's the best commission based option any affiliate program offers. In fact, I think Wagershare is ONLY available at Rewards Affiliates.

As i know, asian programs like this model.

Thread: I Am In Favor Of A New Revenue Share Commission Based Model. (More $ For Affiliates!)

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

I Am In Favor Of A New Revenue Share Commission Based Model. (More $ For Affiliates!)

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Top Online Casinos For This Useful Post:

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

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

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

The Following User Says Thank You to Top Online Casinos For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to Top Online Casinos For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to Triple7 For This Useful Post:

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

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Former Member 14 For This Useful Post:

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

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions