-
Done. -
I can see where instant payouts could be a good boost for a program just getting off the ground or to eliminate any trust issues and what better way for a webmaster to feel secure. Give them there money instantly. When you and I started in this biz there were not nearly as many companies out there to work with and even less you could trust, now there are too many however the trust still isn't there. If this module was done properly it would be a great way to eliminate the trust issue, however as it stands right now it seems to be having the opposite effect. Figure it out and I would be on board in a heartbeat.
How many times have we all heard the story about a company going out of biz and never paying their affiliates what is rightly theirs, too many, this would eliminate any chance of that with the exception of a few dollars. I agree though company's should conduct themselves in a manner their grandparents would be proud of but in this world do you really think that is ever going to happen 100%, sadly, probably not.
and dont princess me! lol ;)I have no siggy and I want no siggy.. damn no I have one again!Comment
-
I guess the other option is as follows:
Program owners running NATS sans verification-
Comment
-
the only thing about this that really bothers me is the what happens to the unverified joins? DO they get refunded/voided or do they NOT.
If NOT that's fucking shaving.Comment
-
Yeah, as others have asked... if a transaction is paid by the biller 2-3 weeks later then does it change to verified?Comment
-
Think about it a little, does it really lower the bar? I think it may in fact raise the bar, how many companies do you know that can afford to do instant payments, suck up all the risk in the process, and sustain that for an extended period of time, it's like PPS they would have to have quite a bit of up front capital, in this day and age I would say only a handful could do it. That handful could monopolize the affiliate market and finally leave webmasters with a good taste in their mouth(no pun intended), there would be no more worry about sending to many joins to one company and having them go belly up before the check arrived.I have no siggy and I want no siggy.. damn no I have one again!Comment
-
When BoyAlley turns off the yellow, it's serious business... good points though.Comment
-
Pay me once a week and that is almost too often
gfynicky @ gmail.comComment
-
This is a very interesting thread, I got out of the industry 4 years ago and am just starting to get back into it, boy how things have changed!
After just going through the last 4 pages of this thread there are alot of very interesting comment and points.
One that Im not sure if I missed or not is....with NATS, is FlashCash the only or one of the only businesses using it for the purpose of instant payouts as well as fraud control? Or are other sponsors using it for instant payouts too? Seems most at present are using it mainly for fraud control, am I wrong? If so, Im sure you'll all let me know
Comment
-
Flashcash is the only one currently using this module. We have made it abundantly easy to know if someone is using the module.This is a very interesting thread, I got out of the industry 4 years ago and am just starting to get back into it, boy how things have changed!
After just going through the last 4 pages of this thread there are alot of very interesting comment and points.
One that Im not sure if I missed or not is....with NATS, is FlashCash the only or one of the only businesses using it for the purpose of instant payouts as well as fraud control? Or are other sponsors using it for instant payouts too? Seems most at present are using it mainly for fraud control, am I wrong? If so, Im sure you'll all let me know
If you disagree with FC's business model then you are free not to use them. 1000s of affiliates use them happily and are happy to know exactly what is going on and see the #s both verified and unverified. A few on GFY live for GFY drama.Comment
-
Would you please not make blanket statements like this that are clearly not true just because you can't stand the heat on GFY from the drama whores.
WMs have been raising these issues with flashcash on the FC board since day one of the NATs change and NOT bringing it to GFY. So it's NOT just the GFY drama whores that are complaining.Comment
-
I know the numbers. You don't. So I think YOU would be the one who is making statements which you don't know to be true. And again, FlashCash has ALWAYS paid out like this. Everyone keeps saying "since the NATS change" as if we did it. We required them to show both verified and un-verified counts. I would think affiliates would be thankful for this. But, as always, some people manage to amaze me.Last edited by TMM_John; 12-04-2006, 08:39 PM.Comment
-
Ok...am I the only one that is totally fucking lost in this thread? Granted I started on page 1 and then jumped right to page 3, but yeah...totally lost here.Comment
-
What the fuck are you talking about.. Jeez you're starting to come across as a major arrogent asswipe who thinks not only that his shit doesn't stink, but it could NEVER stink..
The ONLY thing I've said is that I have 25% of my PAID TRIAL signups NOT getting verified since the switch to NATs.
At first I didn't care about this thing. I even told FC they shouldn't show the two since I knew this is exactly what would happen. But now that I see how many aren't getting verified, I want some answers. 25% on a PAID TRIAL... Is that typical? Sounds damn high to me for a paid trial that's already been scrubbed by the processor. And if you read their board I'm not the only one. And I don't get instant payments either.
So why don't you get your head out of your ass and address the real questions that are being asked. And if you're not able to handle it in a professional manner, then hire a PR person who won't do further damage to your companies rep.Comment
-
Comment
-
PBucksJohn: Some things that need to be clarified...
1. Is the vertified/unverified set-up only for PPS programs? Can it be installed on a revshare program?
2. Can the verified/unverified set-up be applied to non-instant payouts?
3. Does an unverified PAID trial eventually convert to a verified trial over time... Yes, no, or you won't tell- very simple question, and BoyAlley asked it much earlier in this thread.Last edited by evulvmedia; 12-04-2006, 08:56 PM.Comment
-
1. It could be used on any program. I myself would never dream of using a program which used it for revshare as I see no reason at all to ever do so. If someone did, it would be disclosed as we have said and you would have the option to do as I would do and never dream of promoting it.
3. I don't pay attention to BoyAlley. Unverified signups turn into verified signups if they are verified. The verification has nothing to do with rebills and they don't magically turn to verified joins after time if they don't pass the verification criteria which I have said will not be posted in detail as it entirely defeats the purpose. If you'd like more details about what makes them verified I would hit up FlashCash as they are the only company using this, and it was developed for them using their input and past experience.
Thank you also for asking direct questions.
Edit: Your questions changed
2. Yes, that could be done using 2 separate programs in NATS as far as I am aware. I would need to verify with one of our programmers tomorrow at the office to be 100% sure tho.Last edited by TMM_John; 12-04-2006, 08:59 PM.Comment
-
Well maybe the issue is that we don't understand where the line is between the two.. Is it the NATs module that's doing the additional scrubbing/fraud control and thus not verifying all the sales? Or is that it's just a tool and FlashCash sets all the parameters how they want.
Perhaps the reason NATs is at the forefront of this issue right now is because from the affiliate standpoint it appears it's the NATs module that's doing this. Maybe you could give us some broad strokes about how it works and how much control the program has over it.Comment
-
Edit again: I misunderstood your question. Yes, the unverified/verified can be used for any program, but as stated, would be disclosed and you would know the full numbers and have your choice whether to promote it or not.
We can not dictate someone's business model. If they are being upfront and honest about something it is up to you whether or not to use them. We're not going to go down the path of you can and can't do this. We are a software provider, as long as the program is honest and upfront we don't have a problem with how they run their business.
If we say no to something we're the big bad rule industry setter abusing our power and everyone complains. If we don't say no to it we get strung up for allowing it (even tho we require full disclosure). Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't.Comment
-
The program has very little control over it. But it was built to FlashCash's specifications as they were the ones who needed it. We avoid writing one off software and our policy has always been from day one that anything put into NATS is put into NATS for everyone. Flashcash doesn't have control over how much is fraud and how much is not. There is a set of rules which is applied the same for every affiliate every day of the week. These rules were in place well before NATS and now that affiliates see the numbers they are complaining.
You said above you suggested to them they don't show the full signup #s, IMO thats absolutely the wrong way to go about it. Affiliates deserve to know the full story, which is what we required of them in order to agree to the feature. I can't believe anyone, especially someone like you who seems concerned about the numbers, would rather NOT see the full numbers and know exactly what is going on.Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
You have not really answered anyone's questions that I have seen.
You just kind of jump around the issue in a defensive position.
That's my view from the outside because I am not using FC or NATS.
I'm just here because I see some interesting questions.
FOR EXAMPLE:
People seem to want to know why 25% of their sign ups are unverified.
This is very high. Your answer is "Take it up with Flash Cash or don't use them".
That doesn't shed any light on how this 25% unverified makes any sense.
You don't have to reveal the workings of the system but some reasonable explanation of the high percentage would make sense.
Say for instance "a particular credit card company is being watched closely because of reported theft and those transactions are not being verified right now". Something like that is an answer.
But since you haven't said anything even remotely like that; it would be fair for webmasters to believe you are just stringing them along with a line of BS.
I couldn't care less about NATS or Flash Cash, but reading your replies in this thread kind of make me want to call BULLSHIT.Done.Comment
-
Comment
-
John, my questions would be this:
If you install this module, what exactly are the signs? Are those signs completely and totally visible to the end affiliate at all times?
Example: Could this be activated on a PPS program, and they just happen to NOT include the "unverified" column in the stats page that affiliates get?
Also, is there a failsafe way for the software to do a "recheck" of things to assure that the member didn't happen to verify and that the sale was credited elsewhere (or made to disappear)?
What would stop a program from setting up a deal where sometimes the software isn't informed when a new member actually enters the site?
I see the potential here for abuses, are you confident to 100% that this module couldn't be the start of a very nice shaving system?
Same question apply to conversions as well... is NATS 100% on triggering a conversion payout? Is there are way for a member to recur without the webmaster affiliate getting credited?Comment
-
Example: Could a program go into the database, and modify the afffiliate code on all "unverified" members so that the actual webmaster who sent the traffic would never see the payout?Comment
-
RawAlex; thank you for being direct It is 1:30am here and as I'm sure you know it has been a LONG day for me. I will be answering your questions in detail tomorrow from the office. Thank you again for asking direct, answerable questions
Comment
-
Well, here's my conclusion:
** There is no such fucking thing as a verified sign up.
- there are only "sign ups", "refunds" or "charge backs".
- There is no fucking way in hell that NATS can predetermine a "chargeback".
- There is no fucking way in hell that NATS can predict a "refund".
If a drunk dope-head signs up and forgets his password before he gets into the site and he types in the wrong email address then he still paid.
Verifying that a customer is not an idiot berfore paying the webmaster explains why a high percentage of joins will not be verified; because fucking idiots sign up all the time and don't even remember the name of the website they joined or how to bookmark the page.
It's just bullshit.
"Instant Pay" is bullshit.
"Verified" sign ups is bullshit.
"Writing code to stop payment of a sign up to a webmaster" is bullshit.
I don't participate in "bullshit".Done.Comment
-
Fuck you, you fat fuck.
I have talked "privately" to program owners MANY times.
They were not able to help me.
I'm losing money here and I should give a fuck whether someone looks bad or
not? Perhaps if they weren't involved in this bullshit they wouldn't look so bad, eh?
It's hilarious how all the program owners jump in and defend NATS while affiliates try to get any questions answered.Comment
-
I understand what you're saying. But I didn't see those numbers before and now that I do, I'm concerned and have questions. When it comes to a "normal" program, they don't show me how many signups occur and then how many actually make it thru the scrubbing etc. So why should this be different? That was basically why I suggested flashcash not show it. And look what's happened. WMs are fixated and frustrated that they see all these signups occuring that they don't get paid for.
Also, the question has to be asked, why does this case require different reporting unless there's something about it that could be abused. On the one hand I'd like full disclosure from the programs. But on the other hand, my time is better spent building traffic, tweaking advertising and focusing on making more sales. At some point one has to "trust" the programs. What's that phrase? Ignorance is bliss?
Anyway, whether or not the numbers are displayed is a different discussion. You said elsewhere that my 25% is a hell of a lot worse then it should be. So now that I know it's out of whack I have a reason to talk to FC about why that might be the case and maybe what could be done about it.Comment
-
John's been saying non stop here that this feature has been there (on FlashCash) since day one, just invisible to webmasters.
So fucking what? It's out now and people want answers.
If there had been a shave feature from day one, should webmasters now say, "oh well, what you gonna do, it's been there forever" ?
Comment
-
What happens to all the unverified signups? Do you credit the member who didn't login after a certain period? If not, when does the affiliate get paid for it?- Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com
- For Sale: Obscenity.com
Comment
-
If I'm not mistaken, John just clearly stated the answer to that question is "never".
I believe what he just said pretty plainly is: Even if an "unverified" member never charges back or gets refunded, rebills (even more than once), unless that member does whatever secret magic voodo is necessary to become "verified", the affiliate never gets paid, and the program keeps that cash.
Comment
-
Oh, as for this (sorry, I couldn't let it go without responding):
Apparently the legitimate questions and concerns that I've raised in this thread (written in an intellectual manner) about a controversial feature that's part of his product offering isn't the type of thing that someone of John's stature responds to.
He'd rather respond to the short mumblings that he can easily dismiss.
At any rate, I've written his name down in my little black book of breeders that act like a bigger faggot than even I am, for future reference.........
Time for bed.
Comment
-
Why do people blame NATS for a 'shave function' that FlashCash always had?
FC wanted to use NATS, and NATS told them 'if you want to use our software, you need to show all numbers, including the ones that you don't payout your affilites for'.
If you don't like this you need to complain to FC, not to NATS...Comment
Comment