Quote:
|
Originally Posted by he-fox
This one of the reasons I don't promote CCBill aff programs. If it's only CCBill, you can loose the sale because of high scrubbing (which happens very often), no matter if there is another processor or not. I stick with programs that use 3 processors in cascade and give credit to affiliate for the sale. Ratios are already shitty, there's no need to make them shittier because CCBill scrubs more or less.
Fuck 60%, 70% or I-don't-know-what percentage, all that matters is how many $/click I get. My asset is the "click", and I want to make the most bucks for it.
|
Sounds all very rational. Except it isn't...
I wouldn't argue with you that cascading is a better option than a single processor, but I haven't seen anyone getting rich since its appearance (except perhaps for the companies selling the software). That's because the number of rejections which are conceivably a result of one processor's specific algorithms is tiny: I have seen 1% quoted by a lady who used to be a regular here and did/does work for a processor. That claim makes sense if you look at the actual reject levels (not merely the number of failed transactions) in the way that Brujah describes in this thread.
So let's say sponsors who only process with CCBill do lose 1% of their sales. That's not good news, but it's a damn poor reason to reject them all out of hand. How long a list do you want of all the things you and your sponsors can do to affect your income by a lot more than 1%?
You say, like every smart webmaster should, that you are only interested in $/click, but I'm curious to know how you can be sure you are earning the most you could be, if you arbitrarily exclude 100's of sponsors from consideration. And if that really were your concern, why should you care if someone has a damn great "don't click the button with the affiliate code" notice on his page,
providing you still make your $/click?
I think Paul is wrong, but only because of perception. If he did the usual and sent surfers to a secondary processor after a CCBill rejection, he wouldn't have suffered the negativity in a thread like this. It's ironic that because he was upfront about his secondary processor (and he is far from being the only sponsor who is), he is taking heat.
You can't have it both ways. Either you go the "scientific" route, calculating who gives you the most return for the real estate you devote to promoting them, or else you worry about the specifics of how their practises might impact on your results.