Affiliates Debate: Any End in Sight?

[Oski]

To beat you to the punch: "Any end in Sight" may be what you are thinking as you read this post.

I am not an affiliate, nor do I have an opinion as to whether they are "good" or "bad." I do know that I love online poker, and that I love having new players in my games, and I like having more games to choose from. Anything that makes online poker stronger is "good" in my opinion, however, since I do not know the interworkings of the industry, I defer to the site operators to know what is their best intersts to make the industry stronger. Therefore, if there is a business purpose for having affiliates, I would venture to say they are good. If a site is willing to pay for these services, it must be good. Just like advertising...it is good. Of course, there is "good" advertising and "bad", like spam; just as there are good and bad affiliates.


There are two types of choices for the consumer: business and moral.

1. Business choices come down to whether the consumer accepts the product for the price offered. If the product does not have value to the consumer, the consumer walks and looks for other options. The more consumer acting in such a manner tend to stimulate competition and provide more value for the market.

2. Moral choices tend to do with the policies and practices of the business. One good example is NIKE which uses foreign, cheap labor. Some people will not buy NIKE because they disagree with this policy. This type of decision has nothing to do with #1. One interesting side effect of moral choices is that almost 100% of the time, if the company or industry has to change in light of the moral issues, it often leads to HIGER prices to the end user (YOU). But, that is good, because we are willing to pay more for a quality product (absence of exploitation would be a good quality).

ANYHOOOO,

What the affiliate debate is about: This is a heated topic, but actually, both sides are predomonately correct. Why? Because one side is stuck on arguing the moral aspect, while the other is arguing the business.

Lets put the arguments in the proper catagories:

1. Lower Rake is Good - Business. (No arguments so far?)

2. Affiliates are Bad - Moral (As consumers, this issue can only be moral. The impact of an affiliate to the consumer, can only be felt in one place [if at all] - the rake. If the consumer is not willing to pay the rake, all things considered, she walks.

Look at it this way: (hypos) Mike Sexton makes 1 million a year from Party Poker, rake is high; Joeseph Blough makes $250,000 from Poker Stars, rake is low. If Mike Sexton took less compensation from Party, rake would be lower. Of course, this MAY be correct, but it seems silly to assume so. How can the consumer determine how one aspect of business expenses will equate with the total business plan. Why not say: "Licensing fees are too high, if the fees were lower, rake would be lower. Therefore, fees are bad."

The truth of the matter is that the arrangement between sites and affiliates only concerns those parties. Just like any other promotion or advertisement venture, if the affiliates did not bring money to the SITES, they would not be utilized. Again, the only way this impacts the consumer (if at all) would be in higher operating expenses (an assumption - why wouldn't they spend it on ANOTHER promotion instead?) which, presumably leads to higher rake (another assumption...If the site is happy with its traffic, why LOWER the rake when it does not have to?)

Therefore, the real issue is moral: Some posters say, "the affiliates make money off other people's back," etc., etc. Welcome to the real world. But, in this case, if you are the consumer, it is not really even your world. Again, this is an arrangement between two (or more) parties that does not concern you one bit. In other words, it's none of your business.

But, as it is a moral issue, you have the right to "NOT LIKE IT." Good, so you stand for something in the world, whatever that may be. I don't like it; I don't dislike it; I DON'T CARE, ITS NONE OF MY BUSINESS. Of course if one can show that lab monkeys are harmed by the affiliate program, (or some tangible damage for that matter) I might begin to care.

So, why do people "NOT LIKE IT." To each their own, but I cannot accept reasons that attempt to connect the outrage with a business argument = these do not go together. So, as of now, the only thing I see is "I don't like it...because some are making money where I might have been able to." In reality, such people already have made that argument:

Money to affiliates = bad, why? Because I am not making it, and it belongs (somehow) to me.

As a moral argument, it is irrefutable. One can like or dislike whatever they want. This is why the debate makes no headway. Those who "DO NOT LIKE IT" just do not like it, no matter what. So, there can be no argument. Of course, everyone agrees that lower rake is good for the player, so no argument there (its just when make the faulty assumptions set forth above does this argument incorrectly become steered towards a business choice).



BOTTOM LINE: So, until someone can show otherwise, arguments against affiliates are merely "It is bad, because (even though SHE went though the trouble to become an affiliate) that money is mine.