Since the other thread was getting too long, I thought this article by Roberto deserved a separate thread..
Your thoughts?
Watchdogs, a nightmare for arrogant operators
By Roberto Castiglioni
www.theoffshorewire.com
The most common criticism against watchdog Web sites is that information they provide is usually biased and based on their own agendas. Sometimes it’s biased because a sports book advertises with a specific site.
Players always expect to read more positive reviews about advertisers than non advertisers. This perception is not entirely false.
For instance, Sportsbookreview.com has always stressed the need of a strong corporate presence within the industry. That was until the owner of WWTS (one of SBR’s most important business relationships) canned its corporate structure and went back to a more archaic business structure.
Offshore Gamblers Digest is usually very picky on most books, yet did its part by ignoring the slow pays of its only sponsor when this occurred a few months ago.
The Offshore Wire has repeatedly been accused of reserving a special treatment to one of its sponsors, BCN Sports.
The list of commonly mentioned examples is endless. The bottom-line is that every site is subject to its owners and management beliefs, provided that no site operator has the disclosed ambition to be the sole owner of absolute truth.
The Rx.com stands up as an exception to this rule. Its popular posting forum has hosted concerns and warnings about the Web site’s advertisers in more than one occasion.
Rx.com founder Ken Weitzner’s detractors like to define this unusual behavior as “cyber extortionism.” But is this really the case or is it better to assess that The RX has shown a more “information oriented” approach instead?
We believe the latter is the right answer.
Eighteen months ago, a warning was raised against Bluegrass. This sports book was advertising on the RX and its owner was adamant in admitting to me during an interview that when the warning was raised he was indeed in a slow-pay mode.
As soon as Betpanam’s management openly asked Weitzner to LIE about their financial distress, the Rx.com pulled its banners.
When adverse information regarding a particular sports book surfaces, the news quickly flows through the “insider’s network.”
Web site owners are often confronted with the eternal dilemma of releasing information to the public. Sometimes they withhold it for a while in the attempt to support the efforts of a troubled company. This is also called the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” syndrome.
The truth is, most if not all operations fear uncontrolled information or leaks. When this occurs, well-trained readers immediately read through the lines of sports books’ official statements in reply to leaks.
Lawsuits and threats to severe advertisement contracts are the most common threats watchdog Web sites have. Some sports books do effectively leverage on the latter.
Gambling 911 recently received threats of severing the ongoing advertisement contract because its Forum was hosting adverse information about one of their advertisers’ services. Christopher Costigan, the president of the Web site, candidly posted it in a thread.
Provided players are ultimately the sole responsible of their decision about which sports books they want to entertain relationships with, watchdog Web sites are an essential service to provide information based on which players will make their own decisions.
Watchdogs do not have the ambition to be totally unbiased. However, recent and past events prove they do strive to be as objective as possible regardless of their affiliation with a particular operation.
When a customer has a complaint about Olympic, Spiro himself calls the player most of the time and tries to understand what he can do to improve the quality of services he provides. Quite different behavior is reported about an operator out of Gibraltar, who seemingly doesn’t fear making threats in the attempt to silence information.
What industry operators must understand is that they will never improve their ventures by trying to buy or impose silence on watchdog sites. Rather, they should understand criticisms and be able to translate them into an improved quality of service.
Your thoughts?
Watchdogs, a nightmare for arrogant operators
By Roberto Castiglioni
www.theoffshorewire.com
The most common criticism against watchdog Web sites is that information they provide is usually biased and based on their own agendas. Sometimes it’s biased because a sports book advertises with a specific site.
Players always expect to read more positive reviews about advertisers than non advertisers. This perception is not entirely false.
For instance, Sportsbookreview.com has always stressed the need of a strong corporate presence within the industry. That was until the owner of WWTS (one of SBR’s most important business relationships) canned its corporate structure and went back to a more archaic business structure.
Offshore Gamblers Digest is usually very picky on most books, yet did its part by ignoring the slow pays of its only sponsor when this occurred a few months ago.
The Offshore Wire has repeatedly been accused of reserving a special treatment to one of its sponsors, BCN Sports.
The list of commonly mentioned examples is endless. The bottom-line is that every site is subject to its owners and management beliefs, provided that no site operator has the disclosed ambition to be the sole owner of absolute truth.
The Rx.com stands up as an exception to this rule. Its popular posting forum has hosted concerns and warnings about the Web site’s advertisers in more than one occasion.
Rx.com founder Ken Weitzner’s detractors like to define this unusual behavior as “cyber extortionism.” But is this really the case or is it better to assess that The RX has shown a more “information oriented” approach instead?
We believe the latter is the right answer.
Eighteen months ago, a warning was raised against Bluegrass. This sports book was advertising on the RX and its owner was adamant in admitting to me during an interview that when the warning was raised he was indeed in a slow-pay mode.
As soon as Betpanam’s management openly asked Weitzner to LIE about their financial distress, the Rx.com pulled its banners.
When adverse information regarding a particular sports book surfaces, the news quickly flows through the “insider’s network.”
Web site owners are often confronted with the eternal dilemma of releasing information to the public. Sometimes they withhold it for a while in the attempt to support the efforts of a troubled company. This is also called the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” syndrome.
The truth is, most if not all operations fear uncontrolled information or leaks. When this occurs, well-trained readers immediately read through the lines of sports books’ official statements in reply to leaks.
Lawsuits and threats to severe advertisement contracts are the most common threats watchdog Web sites have. Some sports books do effectively leverage on the latter.
Gambling 911 recently received threats of severing the ongoing advertisement contract because its Forum was hosting adverse information about one of their advertisers’ services. Christopher Costigan, the president of the Web site, candidly posted it in a thread.
Provided players are ultimately the sole responsible of their decision about which sports books they want to entertain relationships with, watchdog Web sites are an essential service to provide information based on which players will make their own decisions.
Watchdogs do not have the ambition to be totally unbiased. However, recent and past events prove they do strive to be as objective as possible regardless of their affiliation with a particular operation.
When a customer has a complaint about Olympic, Spiro himself calls the player most of the time and tries to understand what he can do to improve the quality of services he provides. Quite different behavior is reported about an operator out of Gibraltar, who seemingly doesn’t fear making threats in the attempt to silence information.
What industry operators must understand is that they will never improve their ventures by trying to buy or impose silence on watchdog sites. Rather, they should understand criticisms and be able to translate them into an improved quality of service.
