Rialto Affiliates added to Affiliate Program Warnings

**CityGuard** · 31 March 2011, 11:57 am

The Rialto Affiliates forum section has been added to the Affiliate Program Warnings section due to violations of the GPWA Code of Conduct.

**tryme** · 31 March 2011, 2:14 pm

I'm not really sure what this means, to be honest. Are they not paying affiliates? What is the issue? I'm not a private member here, so I'd be intrigued to know the general issue.

**alexpratt** · 31 March 2011, 3:01 pm

Also interested why - Did I miss a thread?

**Redbush54** · 6 April 2011, 4:18 pm

Could someone please shed a little more light on this warning. I find it strange there's been no other response. Thanks in advance.

**Carlo** · 6 April 2011, 4:37 pm

This issue is because GPWA autobilled us without giving us the option to choose a different package. We didn't respond to this and meet the deadline for changing our options because I was emailed (Carlo) to my personal Gmail address and not a business email address that I check every day.

We have had no further communication with GPWA to resolve this issue and if they choose to use their public forum as a means to blackmail us into paying for their service then so be it.

Our record of working with and paying affiliates is exemplary. This is just an issue between GPWA and us, meanwhile we'll be investing our money and time in CAP.

Thank you to GPWA for many years of service. It has been enjoyable sending over 10 years worth of business your way.

**arkyt** · 6 April 2011, 7:01 pm

Originally Posted by Carlo

This issue is because GPWA autobilled us without giving us the option to choose a different package.

Ouch, thats pretty crummy - thanks for the look in!

Best of luck to you!

**Daera** · 7 April 2011, 10:05 am

To say nothing more then "The Rialto Affiliates forum section has been added to the Affiliate Program Warnings section due to violations of the GPWA Code of Conduct" makes it sound like their program is roguish in some way. But if what Carlo said is true, then this is very misleading and unfair by GPWA in my opinion.

Why isn't there any more information about this from GPWA? What did they do to warrant a warning that affiliates need to be aware of?

**CityGuard** · 14 June 2011, 1:20 pm

I was just looking through the affiliate program warnings section and came across this. Sorry I missed it before.

There are a couple of points to clarify.

First, the claim that this is not related to affiliate issues is false. Although I'd think violation of a flat-fee agreement would be concerning to affiliates also, the problem with Rialto does extend to affiliates. The owe Casino City a small amount for a CPA arrangement and continually promised they were sending it but never did. The open balance is over a year old.

Second, the claims about not giving them an option to switch levels is false. They agreed to notify us before the start of the sponsorship period if they wanted to change levels or end it. To make sure they hadn't forgotten this, I sent Carlo a message to his @rialtoaffiliates.net email address a month before the deadline of the switch. A separate message from the finance department went to a gmail account because at the time the agreement was made, we were asked to send all invoices to the gmail account. It is false to claim that notice was only sent to the gmail account because the one from me personally went directly to his Rialto account. He definitely got that message because he replied with it in the body of his reply later on. We made the deadline clear when the agreement was signed, then sent a reminder as an extra step to make sure they could change if desired. Then after months of non-responsiveness and non-payment, the manager Harvey said he would finally address the matter if we let them retroactively change the level they agreed to (now not recently past the deadline, but several months past it). We agreed that we could do this. As soon as we agreed, he refused to take the compromise he'd initially suggested. (Carlo wasn't included in those latter messages, so he may not have been aware of that.)

I appreciate the feedback about more detail being helpful in the future. I've tended to make short announcements rather than detailed ones in the past because sometimes putting lots of detail together can take more time and I've wanted to get the news out sooner, but I know the background is helpful so I will try to include more of this info in the future.

**arkyt** · 14 June 2011, 1:44 pm

Originally Posted by CityGuard

The owe Casino City a small amount for a CPA arrangement and continually promised they were sending it but never did.

Why do Casino City issues keep impacting what goes on here at GPWA?

**CityGuard** · 14 June 2011, 1:58 pm

Originally Posted by arkyt

Why do Casino City issues keep impacting what goes on here at GPWA?

When affiliates have payment problems with an affiliate program, I think it is correct that it impacts how a professional association for affiliates interacts with the program. When payment problems are reported to us, we try to contact the program to get the issue resolved, and take action in cases where reasonable follow-up around payment is met with non-communication from the program. In this case the non-payment is from a year ago and there was routine follow-up throughout that period. I'd initially read your question as suggesting one shouldn't impact the other, but I don't genuinely think you meant to suggest that non-payment to affiliates and non-responsiveness to follow-up attempts should be ignored. We try to take those issues seriously.

**Daera** · 14 June 2011, 7:07 pm

Originally Posted by CityGuard

When affiliates have payment problems with an affiliate program, I think it is correct that it impacts how a professional association for affiliates interacts with the program. When payment problems are reported to us, we try to contact the program to get the issue resolved, and take action in cases where reasonable follow-up around payment is met with non-communication from the program. In this case the non-payment is from a year ago and there was routine follow-up throughout that period. I'd initially read your question as suggesting one shouldn't impact the other, but I don't genuinely think you meant to suggest that non-payment to affiliates and non-responsiveness to follow-up attempts should be ignored. We try to take those issues seriously.

If a single affiliate contacted you asking for your help, saying that one of your sponsored programs are not fulfilling an advertising agreement with them, you would move that sponsor to this area if you weren't able to resolve this? I didn't think a program would be put in the warning area so easily for a single affiliate. It's good to know you've got our backs like that.

**arkyt** · 15 June 2011, 12:08 pm

Originally Posted by CityGuard

In this case the non-payment is from a year ago and there was routine follow-up throughout that period. I'd initially read your question as suggesting one shouldn't impact the other, but I don't genuinely think you meant to suggest that non-payment to affiliates and non-responsiveness to follow-up attempts should be ignored. We try to take those issues seriously.

My inquiry sought to draw attention to a potential Conflict of Interest that may be impacting the quality of the GPWA product.

Originally Posted by Daera

If a single affiliate contacted you asking for your help, saying that one of your sponsored programs are not fulfilling an advertising agreement with them, you would move that sponsor to this area if you weren't able to resolve this? I didn't think a program would be put in the warning area so easily for a single affiliate. It's good to know you've got our backs like that.

Most if not all of us know that is not the case ... serious issues have been ignored by GPWA for years. When Vegas Affiliates were screwing me I went to Michael in PM and asked for his assistance - he refused to get involved. Brightshare / ASUSA played games and have now closed shop and screwed affiliates. Casino Rewards actively steals players which does negatively affect affiliates - GPWA has ignored these obvious wrong doings - just to name a few - and these days there are dozens of ongoing issues that are hurting affiliates - where is the GPWA in all those instances?

The way I see it at the end of the day they aren't going to do anything that might affect their bottom line - its all about the benjamins and as long as Casino City / GPWA is getting theirs they couldnt care less whether or not anyone else is losing theirs! Yep - they have the affiliates back.

**Puma** · 15 June 2011, 12:42 pm

The owe Casino City a small amount for a CPA arrangement and continually promised they were sending it but never did. The open balance is over a year old.

The fact that they are in rears for a year would suggest a warning was required.

**Daera** · 18 June 2011, 2:59 am

My last comment was meant to be sarcastic.

**grem** · 29 November 2011, 10:39 am

Has rialto decided to become a sponsor at casinoaffiliateprogram? top game isn't looking so good these days.

**Anthony** · 30 November 2011, 8:47 am

After they did not pay GPWA and Casino City they went to CAP.

Thread: Rialto Affiliates added to Affiliate Program Warnings

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Rialto Affiliates added to Affiliate Program Warnings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posting Permissions