|
|
#31
10-17-2007, 10:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Will 2+2 have a response or position on the AP fiasco?
it's rakereduction's banner. I'll ask chuck to exclude that one from the rotation.
|
|
#32
10-17-2007, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Will 2+2 have a response or position on the AP fiasco?
[ QUOTE ]
Most probably won't make that distinction, though. They'll just note that AP and their logo are still being displayed on 2+2, advising you to click for a sweet deal. People will still want to point fingers at us even if it's indirect. [/ QUOTE ] I agree people will point fingers, but the numbers of people who will do the pointing are small compared to the overall user base. I could not ethically ask 2+2 to walk away from a middle-man affiliate advertiser without a replacement source of advertising revenue, thats dipping into the company's wallet while taking a leap of faith since there still is not 100% conclusive evidence (I admit the evidence is becoming rather good). Of course it makes sense to advise the affiliate that there is a conflict of interest advertising Absolute Poker in the eyes of the 2+2 users, and that it would be in everyone's best interest that they change their advertising creative to remove mention of Absolute Poker but I don't think 2+2 should force the issue - YET. PS: seems like Mat's on it already.
|
|
#33
10-17-2007, 10:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Will 2+2 have a response or position on the AP fiasco?
TT,
Your argument doesn't make any sense. The fact that there's a middle-man affiliate involved is irrelevant. If 2+2 decides the right move is to not accept AP advertising, then it doesn't matter if it's direct or through a partner.
|
|
#34
10-17-2007, 11:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Will 2+2 have a response or position on the AP fiasco?
[ QUOTE ]
TT, Your argument doesn't make any sense. The fact that there's a middle-man affiliate involved is irrelevant. If 2+2 decides the right move is to not accept AP advertising, then it doesn't matter if it's direct or through a partner. [/ QUOTE ] tell that to ESPN, they still accept poker.net sites. The evidence is damming, but the results aren't final yet, lets not turn 2+2 Publishing into the online poker police enforcement department when the forum members discover something that they can enforce on their own. 2+2 has time in my opinion, rushing to a conclusion could do more harm than waiting for definitive results. Its only time... we have lots of it. My position was and still remains that 2+2 should not rush to a conclusion.
|
|
#36
10-17-2007, 11:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Will 2+2 have a response or position on the AP fiasco?
Rakereduction can easily remove the AP part of that animated banner. It would take all of 2 minutes.
|
|
#37
10-17-2007, 11:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Will 2+2 have a response or position on the AP fiasco?
TT have you followed the AP developments? How can you say it's not 100% conclusive?
If I were in charge of 2p2 I'd already have a 0-AP policy, and only if/when AP rectifies this situation satisfactorily would I reconsider that stance. As a major player in the poker world, you cannot show any support for a site that has knowingly covered up this scandal and repeatedly lied and lied again to cover up more lies. Honesty and integrity drive internet gambling, since without it sites cannot exist.
|
|
#38
10-17-2007, 11:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Will 2+2 have a response or position on the AP fiasco?
they agreed to this already.
presumably it's only temporary. they didn't object.
|
|
#40
10-18-2007, 12:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Will 2+2 have a response or position on the AP fiasco?
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. I saw this in the mod forum after reading this thread.  [/ QUOTE ] There are probably more too. Most rakeback affiliates stil offer AP [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img].
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
