Related Tags
Latest comments
Latest forum comments
News
Gamefan Last Words
OK, this will probably be the last thing to be written here about the whole GameFan Network fiasco, but this is a good expample of a pure ripp-off.
Gamers.com have some news that the former hosted sites from Gamefan have received a letter stating that they will get paid 0.00$ because they had been paid more than contractually obliged in the past.
The only one that got their loot was (ofcourse) VoodooExtreme who currently are still not online, while the original Gamefan-site is.
Here's a quote from the Gamers.com article :[BLOCK]Why would the Network overpay affiliates? The answer might lie in the renewal clause of the affiliate contract. If GFN wanted to keep a site on the network, it had to show that for the previous ten months, the site had been compensated at least $3.00 per 1,000 paid ad-page views (a "$3.00 CPM"). To do that, the GFN would have had to earn the equivalent of $6.00 CPM, because the contract spelled out a 50% split in net ad revenue between the affiliate and the Network.
So now, according to the letter, the Network is paying less. Since it was contractually bound to pay 50%, it seems likely that they were actually paying a greater percentage, which bears out their claim of having "over-delivered historically."
GFN also sent each affiliate a balance sheet, with a `Total Due' that conveniently tallied to $0.00. It does show that for June, July and August, no payment was issued, even though contractual payment was due, but with the "we paid you more" (to keep you happy?) logic, it all neatly balanced out.[/BLOCK]
Gamers.com have some news that the former hosted sites from Gamefan have received a letter stating that they will get paid 0.00$ because they had been paid more than contractually obliged in the past.
The only one that got their loot was (ofcourse) VoodooExtreme who currently are still not online, while the original Gamefan-site is.
Here's a quote from the Gamers.com article :[BLOCK]Why would the Network overpay affiliates? The answer might lie in the renewal clause of the affiliate contract. If GFN wanted to keep a site on the network, it had to show that for the previous ten months, the site had been compensated at least $3.00 per 1,000 paid ad-page views (a "$3.00 CPM"). To do that, the GFN would have had to earn the equivalent of $6.00 CPM, because the contract spelled out a 50% split in net ad revenue between the affiliate and the Network.
So now, according to the letter, the Network is paying less. Since it was contractually bound to pay 50%, it seems likely that they were actually paying a greater percentage, which bears out their claim of having "over-delivered historically."
GFN also sent each affiliate a balance sheet, with a `Total Due' that conveniently tallied to $0.00. It does show that for June, July and August, no payment was issued, even though contractual payment was due, but with the "we paid you more" (to keep you happy?) logic, it all neatly balanced out.[/BLOCK]
In other news:



0 Comment(s)