Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RayVega
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.
Interesting discussion.
|
its not tough at all, you said it yourself, if they have a nats (or similar) backend, affiliates are credited no matter what processor gets used. i see this as the only way to use cascading billing. its not like nats is expensive. sure, the program is just trying to save the sale but they apparently don't care if its saved for the affiliate as well by only paying out on one processor. in my mind its just justified theft by being too cheap to go with a solution that can handle more than one processor.