GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Can be this considered as cheating webmasters (shaving)? [biz thread]

RayVega · 07-25-2006, 08:04 AM

Well, this is the way we progress. What's coming from this is a clear message that program owners need to create ccbill only tours for people coming in as a ccbill affiliate to force the surfer to use the biller that brought in the customer. This is good not only for the referrer, but for the biller as well. They are losing the % if they have one of their affiliates refer a program a member and the member signs up via another biller.

Nobody should have a problem with alternate cascading billers in the case of a decline though, that is just the program owner trying to save the sale from scrubbing by the biller. If ccbill fails or declines the buyer then they go to an alternate biller to give it a shot. that you just can't help. I wouldn't expect the program owner to loose the sale because it came from a ccbill affiliate and ccbill declined for some reason, but paycom for example might approved. In that example it sucks for the affiliate who sent it and didn't get credit, I always wondered what programs that didn't have a backend like NATS did about that. If the program has a backend like NATS and the affiliate is signed up for the program through their own backend then they get credit no matter what. It is just a tough situation.

I wonder if Nats can make an alteration to catch ccbill ref codes going to an alternate biller and at least alert the program owner so they can pay out properly (if it doesn't already, i'm not sure, it may although I've never seen it), especially in the case of a decline, which goes to a secondary biller.

Interesting discussion.

07-25-2006, 08:04 AM
RayVega Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New York ICQ#348007554 Posts: 4,212	Well, this is the way we progress. What's coming from this is a clear message that program owners need to create ccbill only tours for people coming in as a ccbill affiliate to force the surfer to use the biller that brought in the customer. This is good not only for the referrer, but for the biller as well. They are losing the % if they have one of their affiliates refer a program a member and the member signs up via another biller. Nobody should have a problem with alternate cascading billers in the case of a decline though, that is just the program owner trying to save the sale from scrubbing by the biller. If ccbill fails or declines the buyer then they go to an alternate biller to give it a shot. that you just can't help. I wouldn't expect the program owner to loose the sale because it came from a ccbill affiliate and ccbill declined for some reason, but paycom for example might approved. In that example it sucks for the affiliate who sent it and didn't get credit, I always wondered what programs that didn't have a backend like NATS did about that. If the program has a backend like NATS and the affiliate is signed up for the program through their own backend then they get credit no matter what. It is just a tough situation. I wonder if Nats can make an alteration to catch ccbill ref codes going to an alternate biller and at least alert the program owner so they can pay out properly (if it doesn't already, i'm not sure, it may although I've never seen it), especially in the case of a decline, which goes to a secondary biller. Interesting discussion. __________________ Ray "The Don" Vega Managing Director Private Equity Fund [email protected]