Rumors have started to emerge online (including in well-known Telegram channels) about payment issues for webmasters who worked with the Boomerang Casino offer. Webmaster Valery, who worked with the Profitov.Partners affiliate program, and the SEO Dream Team have already reported on this matter. In both cases, the advertiser insisted that the webmaster failed to meet the offer's conditions and attracted low-quality traffic.
We are not taking sides but are trying to gather facts and opinions from participants to understand what happened. We are not passing judgment on the situation – everyone can decide for themselves how to approach what occurred.
We are not taking sides but are trying to gather facts and opinions from participants to understand what happened. We are not passing judgment on the situation – everyone can decide for themselves how to approach what occurred.
Situation No. 1
On May 23rd, in the Telegram channel TikToKiller, webmaster Valery from the "Nipple Liver" team reported that Profitov.Partners did not pay him $3000 for the Boomerang Casino [HU] offer. The webmaster started sending TikTok traffic to offer #1020 on a CPA basis with the standard prohibition on fraud and incentivized traffic. However, according to his account, something went wrong. At first, there were no payouts for a month and a half due to delayed verifications, and then Profitov.Partners announced that they would only pay for a third of the traffic that somewhat met the advertiser's requirements.
As a result, the webmaster was waiting for payments for the deposited accounts, and Profitov.Partners did not refuse to act as a guarantor, while pointing out various flaws in the traffic and the campaign itself (non-targeted creatives). In turn, Profitov.Partners offered the webmaster a compromise. They were willing to pay compensation if he restarted the traffic to prove there was no fraud. The second option was that he could send traffic to another offer with a higher rate, but they required 200 deposits per week, while the webmaster barely managed to get 23 deposits in a month.
In the affiliate program, they did not claim that the webmaster initially sent fraudulent traffic, but rather labeled it as low-quality traffic, assuming that he used non-targeted creatives. However, from the webmaster's perspective, his "lifestyle" creatives corresponded to the offer, and such creatives were currently the only ones possible to promote on TikTok.
Furthermore, the affiliate program had warned the webmaster that they might cut overcaps, and his limits were set at 20 test deposits. However, according to the webmaster, he heard about this for the first time when they refused to pay part of the money.
The owner of Profitov.Partners mentioned that the advertiser scrutinizes the traffic thoroughly, closely examines each user, and makes significant cuts.
As a result, the webmaster was waiting for payments for the deposited accounts, and Profitov.Partners did not refuse to act as a guarantor, while pointing out various flaws in the traffic and the campaign itself (non-targeted creatives). In turn, Profitov.Partners offered the webmaster a compromise. They were willing to pay compensation if he restarted the traffic to prove there was no fraud. The second option was that he could send traffic to another offer with a higher rate, but they required 200 deposits per week, while the webmaster barely managed to get 23 deposits in a month.
In the affiliate program, they did not claim that the webmaster initially sent fraudulent traffic, but rather labeled it as low-quality traffic, assuming that he used non-targeted creatives. However, from the webmaster's perspective, his "lifestyle" creatives corresponded to the offer, and such creatives were currently the only ones possible to promote on TikTok.
Furthermore, the affiliate program had warned the webmaster that they might cut overcaps, and his limits were set at 20 test deposits. However, according to the webmaster, he heard about this for the first time when they refused to pay part of the money.
The owner of Profitov.Partners mentioned that the advertiser scrutinizes the traffic thoroughly, closely examines each user, and makes significant cuts.
ZorbasMedia also reached out to the affected webmaster from the "Nipple Liver" team. He confirmed that he was not paid a portion of the money while working with the Boomerang Casino offer. As he explained, there have been no developments at the moment, and Profitov.Partners insists on their position, refusing to make any payments. The webmaster, on the other hand, is not willing to give up. He has now launched a new campaign with memes against Profitov.Partners to draw attention to the situation.
ZorbasMedia also received a comment from the affiliate program Profitov.Partners regarding the situation with Boomerang Casino. They mentioned that they have been familiar with this advertiser for a long time but started collaborating with them only some time ago.
We have known Boomerang for quite some time, but we only started working with them recently. As far as we know, they are a subsidiary of one of the major products (the affiliate program being a part of the product). Moreover, the current employees at Boomerang have prior experience in other gambling products, so there were no concerns when we initiated this collaboration.
Profitov.Partners
According to the affiliate program, a situation like this with Boomerang Casino could have occurred due to several reasons, such as non-targeted creatives or attracting an audience that may not be the most suitable for the offer. However, they cannot draw specific conclusions as the advertiser did not provide credible proofs in the end.
You are correct. There is no definitive answer, and many factors could have influenced the quality of the traffic and the outcome of the situation. Starting with the fact that the creatives presented by the webmasters might not have been entirely targeted and aimed at quick earnings. Additionally, the audience attracted may not have been the best fit for the offer. Finally, one should not overlook the possibility that the product itself might not be effectively retaining players, but without the ability to access internal data and information, it is challenging to determine the exact reasons for the issues.
We requested proof of the product's performance from Boomerang representatives. In response to this request, we received a screenshot of another partner's traffic, allegedly driven from TikTok, showing incredible results.
However, the registration-to-deposit (reg2dep) rate in the screenshot ranged from 1,000% to 1,250%, which is simply impossible for TikTok traffic in Hungary. Therefore, there are strong reasons to believe that the screenshot displayed results from SEO or PPC traffic campaigns. Even if that were the case, the indicators on the screenshot showed that players were engaging with the product.
Profitov.Partners
After learning about the situation with the webmaster and the advertiser, Profitov.Partners reported that Boomerang Casino was blocked, and its offers were disabled.
After this case, we banned Boomerang from our affiliate program and disabled all their offers. However, I would like to remind everyone that our marketing is called affiliate marketing for a reason. It should be win-win for all parties involved, whether it's the affiliate program, webmasters, or advertisers. I cannot say that such situations are something new in the market. Almost all advertisers cut off poor traffic because it is not beneficial for anyone. Advertisers also need and want to make profits.
As I mentioned before, if everyone comes to the affiliate program, sends cheap and low-quality traffic, and then blames anyone but themselves for all the issues, it will lead to the proliferation of many incentivized traffic providers, fraudsters, and individuals who purchase cheap traffic.
As an affiliate program, we decided to meet the "Nipple Liver" team halfway and offered a compromise. Additionally, we negotiated payment for 12 deposits that showed activity and expressed willingness to continue monitoring the traffic. In case of further developments, we agreed to pursue additional payouts for this particular traffic source.
Profitov.Partners
Furthermore, according to Profitov.Partners, Boomerang Casino did not pay the test caps to the webmasters. The affiliate program provided specific figures:
Webmaster #1: Total: 23, Paid: 2 Webmaster #2: Total: 14, Paid: 1 Webmaster #3: Total: 9, Paid: 3 Team "Nipple Liver": Total: 32, Paid: 12
The affiliate program also mentioned that they received threats from fake accounts on behalf of the webmaster and his team. However, in reality, it was the advertiser who refused to make the payments, not the affiliate program.
It is worth noting that the team made veiled threats (from fake accounts, and if one connects their memes with the threats, it becomes evident that the fake accounts belonged to them). Subsequently, they engaged in extortion, suggesting, "Pay us at least for the traffic that was sent before the stop, and we will write a case study about you, which will have a happy ending and everything will be fine."
I can also remind you about leaked personal correspondences, sensational headlines, and claims that supposedly 12 out of 32 deposits were not paid (although for 22 deposits, they were asked to stop the traffic with a warning that the traffic might be capped).
Profitov.Partners
It has been revealed that Profitov.Partners has agreed to cover the losses incurred by the arbitrageurs during their collaboration with Boomerang Casino. The affiliate program is offering webmasters to reimburse their expenses, while the arbitrageurs are required to provide screenshots showing the dates and amounts spent on traffic before the manager stopped the traffic.
Situation No. 2
Another problematic case with the Boomerang Casino offer occurred with the SEO Dream Team in the international CPA network ADVADA.net. All the terms of the offer were agreed upon in advance, and the focus was solely on SEO traffic.
During the campaign, the advertiser stated that they would reject users with low deposits, although no additional KPIs were initially specified. In the end, this was not an issue as player metrics improved, and there were even repeat deposits. The result was 27 players attracted, and then the traffic was stopped. After a two-week hold, out of the 27 test deposits, only 2 were paid.
The advertiser cited the reason for the rejection as low traffic quality. Boomerang Casino referred to the small amounts and lack of repeat deposits, which led to the traffic being sent for further fraud checks. However, the SEO Dream Team clarified that, according to the terms, the minimum deposit was met, and the agreed-upon KPIs were fulfilled.
However, at some point, the advertiser began to doubt whether it was indeed SEO traffic. Several discussions and conference calls were held involving all parties, but in the end, the advertiser persisted in their stance, refusing to pay for the remaining deposits and disregarding the initial agreements on KPIs.
During the campaign, the advertiser stated that they would reject users with low deposits, although no additional KPIs were initially specified. In the end, this was not an issue as player metrics improved, and there were even repeat deposits. The result was 27 players attracted, and then the traffic was stopped. After a two-week hold, out of the 27 test deposits, only 2 were paid.
The advertiser cited the reason for the rejection as low traffic quality. Boomerang Casino referred to the small amounts and lack of repeat deposits, which led to the traffic being sent for further fraud checks. However, the SEO Dream Team clarified that, according to the terms, the minimum deposit was met, and the agreed-upon KPIs were fulfilled.
However, at some point, the advertiser began to doubt whether it was indeed SEO traffic. Several discussions and conference calls were held involving all parties, but in the end, the advertiser persisted in their stance, refusing to pay for the remaining deposits and disregarding the initial agreements on KPIs.
On May 25th, another call was conducted with the advertiser, during which they reiterated their previous statements and refused to pay for the traffic. It was suggested to involve the affiliate directly in the dialogue to provide evidence that the specific traffic was indeed from SEO sources.
On May 26th, a conference call was held with representatives from Boomerang Partners, Advada LTD, and the affiliate who provided the traffic. During the dialogue, it was determined that the traffic was indeed from SEO sources. However, the advertiser refused to make the full payment, disregarding ALL initial agreements, citing poor player metrics as the reason for their decision.
SEO Dream Team
As a result, the SEO Dream Team received payment only for the first two deposits, and no revenue share payments were made, as reported by the team.
Boomerang Casino's position
To understand the situation, ZorbasMedia also reached out to Anton, the head of the casino affiliate program Boomerang Partners. He explained how the company views both cases.
Regarding the situation with Profitov.Partners, Anton stated that the matter was resolved, and the test cap was paid.
Regarding the issue with the SEO Dream Team, he clarified why the payment was made only for 2 players. According to him, a combination of two factors led to this situation: an error made by a Boomerang Partners employee and the poor quality of the traffic.
Regarding the situation with Profitov.Partners, Anton stated that the matter was resolved, and the test cap was paid.
Regarding the issue with the SEO Dream Team, he clarified why the payment was made only for 2 players. According to him, a combination of two factors led to this situation: an error made by a Boomerang Partners employee and the poor quality of the traffic.
Yes, there were two factors at play. The first one was related to doubts about the source of the traffic. Let's put it this way, the entire situation occurred due to the lack of professionalism from an employee who was working in our team. This employee is relatively inexperienced, and in some instances, may have taken on more than they could handle. It's a common occurrence in many affiliate programs when inexperienced employees do not fully comprehend their actions and believe they are doing things better, while in reality, they only make things worse.
The first thing he did was, for some reason, be convinced that this traffic was not from an SEO source. We have already resolved this issue. We have no doubts that this traffic is indeed from SEO. They showed us the source, Aviator Games website, and we have no questions about it.
Anton, representative of Boomerang Casino
Boomerang Casino had concerns about the test cap provided by the SEO Dream Team due to the significantly lower performance compared to other affiliates for the GEO France. "The difference was catastrophic," Anton emphasized. Moreover, the affiliate manager did not specify the KPIs for this particular offer.
The second issue we had was related to the payment for the test cap. Firstly, it is important to note that the traffic quality was very poor. While France may not be considered a top-tier GEO, we have comparisons to make. France is a relatively closed market with limited product choices, and at the time, we had a large number of affiliates working with us. We witnessed genuinely good conversion rates in both SEO and PPC teams. In contrast, when we looked at the numbers, out of 20 players who came in (these are approximate figures), only 2 players met our internal KPI for profitability. If we consider the quality of traffic, especially in SEO, we all know that SEO sources are top performers in terms of funnel quality. They attract the most interested players because it's organic search traffic.
In this contrast between the SEO performance from our product and what came from the partner, we realized that there was a catastrophic difference. All the metrics were significantly worse than they should have been.
But the main mistake from the affiliate manager's side was that he did not discuss the KPIs for this traffic. It is understandable that the affiliate network and the webmaster latched onto this and tried to use it as an argument to pressure us into fully paying for the test cap. Perhaps if the traffic had been at least twice as good, we would have considered accommodating their request. However, when there is such a colossal difference between the traffic from the webmaster and that from other SEO sources, there is hardly any room for negotiation.
Anton, representative of Boomerang Casino
Boomerang Partners' head, Anton, clarified the performance metrics they used to evaluate the webmasters in this situation and provided the final figures for the received SEO traffic.
We assess the traffic based on 3 metrics:
• Average player deposit from the webmaster vs. average deposit for the GEO, it turned out to be 7 times lower.
• Percentage of player retention from the second week to the third for the webmaster vs. average for the GEO, it was 15 times lower.
• LTV (Lifetime Value) from the tracker vs. average LTV for the product on the GEO, it was 16 times lower. LTV is assessed based on an 8-month forward forecast.
Anton, representative of Boomerang Casino
Additionally, according to Anton, the ADVADA network conducted themselves unprofessionally by initiating three-party meetings. As a result of the discussions during the calls, Boomerang Casino came to the conclusion that the webmaster did not understand how the traffic should have been monetized properly.
We consider it unprofessional that ADVADA is shifting responsibility and arranging three-party meetings with the webmaster, to which we agreed. During the meeting with the webmaster, he clearly indicated that he did not understand how the traffic should be monetized. He mentioned that his job is to drive traffic, but he does not comprehend how it works within the product. I also don't quite understand how one can engage in arbitrage and not understand how the product assesses the monetization of traffic. If you don't grasp this aspect, how can you improve your product to make it more profitable? It's very strange.
Anton, representative of Boomerang Casino
In conclusion, Boomerang Casino pointed out that they understand the intensification of the issue - it is done to exert pressure and eventually receive payouts.
We understand that the issue is being intensified to exert pressure, hoping that we will eventually make the payout. It is a tactic that has been used before. We do not cut traffic, we do not disable affiliates, and we do not do everything retroactively. In fact, we converted to revenue share and paid out at the maximum percentage, even up to 50% or more for this traffic (Case #1, Partner - Profitov Partners). This is a generous percentage for a partner with highly questionable traffic.
Anton, representative of Boomerang Casino
Conclusion
Absolutely, you are right. In such situations, it's crucial to carefully review the terms of the offer, payouts, KPI requirements, and other details before starting the traffic. If necessary, it's better to seek additional clarification from the affiliate network, account manager, or advertiser to avoid surprises later on. Clear communication and understanding of the conditions can prevent misunderstandings and help build a more successful and transparent partnership.