Party's anit-rakeback stance

[grimel]

Why does Pary care what the affiliates do with the money?? I play Party for the bonus $$ and split to where I have rakeback accounts.

AP told my affiliate how to correct their technical screw up (why they couldn't just move me into his column I don't know) by resigning up with a new name. AFTER playing out my bonus and starting a new bonus with the new account. That is wanting business. Party seems to be wanting to become smaller.

[Tuco]

Party wants to be attractive to investment bankers who dont really understand the world of affiliates and rakebacks. They are floating a multi-billion dollar IPO.

Tuco.

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
Party wants to be attractive to investment bankers who dont really understand the world of affiliates and rakebacks. They are floating a multi-billion dollar IPO.

Tuco.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're seriously overestimating how 'complicated' this situation is. it's quite simple, and any banker working on the deal will figure it out in 15 minutes.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Party wants to be attractive to investment bankers who dont really understand the world of affiliates and rakebacks. They are floating a multi-billion dollar IPO.

Tuco.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're seriously overestimating how 'complicated' this situation is. it's quite simple, and any banker working on the deal will figure it out in 15 minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

15 minutes? Try 5 seconds. "We have marketers that work on a commission based on the profits we make on the customers they bring".

[Losing all]

[ QUOTE ]
Party wants to be attractive to investment bankers who dont really understand the world of affiliates and rakebacks. They are floating a multi-billion dollar IPO.

Tuco.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't understand the logic of this. Unless they plan on ending the entire affiliate program.

lets show our banker the books with rakeback- Affiliate Fred has 10 players that generate 10K a month MGR. fred gets $3K from party, Fred pays $2500 to his players, Fred makes $500, PARTY makes $7000. Banker- "I piss on this company"

No rakeback- Affiliate Fred has 10 players that generate 10K a month in MGR (if non have left or cut down on playing time due to change) Party pays Fred $3K, Fred makes $3K(maybe), Party makes $7K (maybe). Banker- "I'll take 50,000 shares"

Anyone care to explain how option 2 looks better to Wall st?

[lorinda]

You missed the bit about Fred only having two customers last month and taking eight people from Empire who were paying 100% rake and stealing 30% of the rake from the site by getting those same people to sign up under their pet goldfish's name.

This is not how all affiliates work, but this is the part that the stock market will see.

Lori

[Losing all]

Gnomes would seem to be a bigger issue on the bonus side of things. I wish they could stop it, but I don't see how they can. The dude doesn't have any bogus accounts, the dude just wnats his (very) small piece of the pie. The dude might need a real job. Boo

[lorinda]

Anyone care to explain how option 2 looks better to Wall st?

Option 1 has inflated figures.

If Party charged double the rake and paid 50% rakeback, then they would have double the revenue (and double the costs) and appear to be double the company.

The current scenario is a version of that and the stock market would consider it naughty.

Lori

[Gotmilk]

[ QUOTE ]

If Party charged double the rake and paid 50% rakeback, then they would have double the revenue (and double the costs) and appear to be double the company.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of companies offer discounts to large customers and don't have to deal with those criticisms?

[b0000000000m]

Huh? Absolute revenues are not really that important. Everyone knows you net it out, so I don't think there would be any benefit.