Referral

How referral mechanics are described on the desk, when they are not invented

The headshot desk does not run a referral programme and does not publish a referral code. This page documents how a reader can verify any referral claim on a canonical source, and what the desk does if a third-party "headshot referral" surface is reported.

Read responsible play Open customer care

Why no code

The desk does not publish a referral code

The desk does not run a paid contest, does not host a wallet and does not publish a referral code. The only commercial surface on the site is a single first-party play entry route with disclosure, reached via the header CTA or the mobile sticky bar.

Where a third-party surface claims to publish a "headshot referral code", the desk's editorial boundary is the same as for any promo claim: the surface must be verifiable on a canonical source, must show an 18+ marker, must show jurisdiction framing, and must link to the responsible play page. The desk treats the absence of any of these items as a hard fail.

Mechanics, not endorsements

How referral mechanics actually work, when they exist

Eligibility

A real referral programme always has eligibility rules. The desk never endorses a programme that hides eligibility in the small print.

Reward structure

A real referral programme has a documented reward structure. The desk treats the absence of a documented structure as a high-risk signal.

Jurisdiction framing

Every real referral programme carries jurisdiction framing. The desk never endorses a programme that does not show jurisdiction framing in plain language.

Red flags

Four signals that a referral surface is high-risk

The desk maintains a short red-flag list for any third-party surface claiming to publish a headshot referral code. The list is not a legal compliance tool — it is an editorial discipline that the desk applies to itself and asks the reader to apply to any third-party surface.

The four red flags: no canonical source, no eligibility framing, no jurisdiction framing and no 18+ marker. If a surface shows any one of these red flags, the desk's recommendation is to close the surface and verify on the organizer feed. The desk does not endorse the surface regardless of the claim it makes.

Mechanics, extended

What a real referral programme looks like, in three patterns

The first pattern is the operator-agnostic programme. The programme is run by an independent affiliate network that pays a commission on every reader who converts. The network is the canonical source for the commission structure, the eligibility rules, and the jurisdiction framing. The desk's editorial role is to surface the network's standard, not to publish a desk code.

The second pattern is the partner-specific programme. The programme is run by a single operator that partners with a small set of publishers. The operator is the canonical source for the partner list, the commission structure, and the eligibility rules. The desk does not run a partner-specific programme and does not publish a partner code.

The third pattern is the in-house programme. The programme is run by the operator's own marketing team, and the programme is documented in the operator's terms. The desk does not run an in-house programme and does not publish an in-house code. The desk's editorial role is to verify the programme on the operator's terms, not to publish a desk code.

Report

How a reader reports a third-party "headshot referral" surface

If a reader identifies a third-party surface that uses the headshot brand name or logo without authorisation, the desk routes the report to the security contact listed on the contact page. The standard report should include the URL of the third-party surface, the date the reader first saw the surface, the device and browser used, and a screenshot if possible.

The desk's standard practice is to read security reports in the order they arrive and to publish a public note on the newsroom if a credible surface is identified. The desk does not republish a phishing URL in public copy. The desk treats the public note as a stand-alone correction that respects the reader who reported the issue.

Compare

Referral programmes vs bonus codes vs affiliate links

The three concepts overlap, and the overlap is the source of much reader confusion. A referral programme is a structured programme that pays a commission to a partner for every reader who converts. A bonus code is a structured programme that pays a reward to a reader for a specific action, usually a first deposit. An affiliate link is a tracked URL that pays a commission to the affiliate for every reader who converts.

The differences matter for the verification step. A referral programme is verified on the partner's terms. A bonus code is verified on the operator's terms. An affiliate link is verified on the affiliate network's terms. The three surfaces have different canonical sources, and the reader should verify each surface on the relevant canonical source.

The desk's editorial boundary on the three concepts is the same as for any promo claim. The surface must be verifiable on a canonical source, must show an 18+ marker, must show jurisdiction framing, and must link to the responsible play page. The desk treats the absence of any of these items as a hard fail. The desk does not endorse a third-party surface that does not meet the standard.

Self-discipline

Why the desk's referral posture is the same as its bonus-code posture

The desk's referral posture and bonus-code posture are the same by design. Both surfaces are governed by the same editorial standard: no invented language, no paraphrase of a private leak, no over-claim on wagering context, no endorsement of a third-party surface. The two pages are deliberately framed in the same language, with the same red flags, and the same verification step.

The reason for the symmetry is editorial consistency. The desk's editorial role is to publish reads; the editorial role does not change based on the type of promo surface. A reader who holds the desk to the standard on a bonus-code page should hold the desk to the same standard on a referral page. The two pages are intentionally aligned so that the reader can apply the same verification step to either surface.

The desk's standard practice is to publish the boundary and to let the reader verify. The desk does not chase referral programmes across the network. The desk does not endorse a referral programme. The desk does not promote a referral programme. The desk's editorial role ends at the URL; the verification step is the reader's.

Operator licence

How a referral claim interacts with an operator's licence

A referral claim is typically published by an affiliate network, not by the operator. The affiliate network is the canonical source for the referral structure, the eligibility rules, and the jurisdiction framing. The operator is the canonical source for the licence, the activity rule, and the public support channels. The two surfaces are deliberately separate, and a reader should verify each surface on the relevant canonical source.

For a reader who wants to verify a referral claim, the desk's standard practice is to verify the affiliate network on the network's terms and to verify the operator on the operator's terms. The two verifications are independent; the desk does not endorse a referral claim based on a single verification. The desk's role is to surface the verification step; the reader's role is to apply the step to each surface.

Affiliate clarity

What an affiliate disclosure looks like on the desk

The desk's editorial role is to surface the verification step for any affiliate surface. The desk does not authorise an affiliate surface that hides the canonical source, hides the eligibility framing, hides the jurisdiction framing, or hides the 18+ marker. The desk's standard practice is to surface the verification step on the referral page and the contact page.

For a reader who wants to verify an affiliate disclosure, the desk's standard practice is to look for the disclosure on the third-party surface. The disclosure is typically a small-print block at the bottom of the page. The reader should read the disclosure before acting on the affiliate surface. The desk's role is to surface the verification step; the reader's role is to apply the step.

Reader vs affiliate

How the desk's editorial role differs from an affiliate's commercial role

The desk's editorial role is to publish reads. The desk's role is not to sell a service, not to drive a conversion, and not to chase a commission. The desk's role is to surface the verification step and to hold the editorial standard. The desk's role is the editorial role; the reader's role is to read.

An affiliate's commercial role is the opposite. The affiliate's role is to sell a service, to drive a conversion, and to chase a commission. The affiliate's role is to convert the reader into a customer. The affiliate's role is the commercial role; the affiliate's role is not the editorial role.

The two roles are deliberately separate. The desk's editorial surface is the central URL; the affiliate's commercial surface is the third-party network. The two surfaces share the verification step, but the two surfaces do not share the editorial standard. The reader can hold the desk to the editorial standard via the contact page; the reader can hold the affiliate to the verification step via the canonical source.