thefreakybeaver

lol I don't need to work on my attitude! My thoughts are probably the same thing others are thinking on here that don't have the balls to say anything or ask similiar questions.

I had always planned to send my traffic to one of my own programs, (which will now take longer to achieve my own sites because of payout cuts)

If it's a dog eat dog world and the paysite owners are piranhas, that's fine. BUT, they come on here making promises, saying they'll make more money for everyone's traffic etc but in reality they are just looking for the next sucker to come along so they make the big money off of them and not another program.

They act like they are great people who want to help webmasters make money when most of them are staring at each webmaster and their traffic and wondering how many more webmasters they need to recruit to buy their next viper. Not who can I help make money today, who can I form a partnership with today that all sides make decent moola, but who can I make money the most money from today. And I KNOW there are a few good ones out there, just gotta weed out the good from the bad.

Cecash could EASILY have jumped on the bandwagon and lowered their payouts $10 but they didn't! Why because they are not using this new rule as a way to make even more profit while the webmasters lose money.

I applaud cecash for stepping up and taking the risk. (there is a risk right? After all, the rest of the paysite owners say it can't be done)

And I think it's funny how other paysite owners think Cecash is wrong because they are NOT cutting webmasters pay or free trials etc. This makes all the others who are cutting the per signup price look damn bad because if cecash can do it why can't ANYONE else?

But this is an industry where if the paysite owners can jump on the bandwagon to higher their profit level they damn well will as seen by how many have posted here within minutes and hours of the first few announcements.

Did EVERY one of these programs really look at their revenue, profits, chargeback ratios, etc and figure out that $10 less per signup was what HAD to be done or did they pull that figure outta their asses? Some of them may have done an analzyes but I guarantee some didnt' and just followed along with the rest because well THEY CAN.

If is wasn't for goldfishes their would be no piranhas! Well unless you are Quiet

If Pk And the hun etc stopped allowing programs that cut the pay by such a big amount to be on their sites and stopped promoting them, how much more money would the sponsors be losing then?

Would LOVE to see a years worth of books for a big paysite program and see how much they were NOT losing by offering big payouts with all those cross sales, popups and upsells in the members area.

One surfer who left the box checked would be worth $110 to them! What percentage of those charged back? Or cancelled before they were charged or stayed for months! I get $35 they get $110+ I realize there is an average in all of this but I guarantee these paysites make a hell of alot more off a surfer than they lead us to believe!

It's the lies and they way they all stick together to pull the wool over our eyes that pisses me off. It's the dishonesty and lack of knowing the definition of the word "partner". We are here to help build up their membership base and income, they are here to help build up our income. Or at least that is what they lead webmasters to believe. When in reality they stick it to the webmaster any way they can to make sure their bottomline keeps going up and up while the webmasters' keeps going down.

Don't tell me my surfer is worth $25 to you when in reality they are worth $50 or $75. No need to lie is what I'm getting at.

Do you think that tgps, advertising spots like cybercat etc are going to lower their prices if a huge percent of sponsors lower their payouts? What about hosts? I will guess no.

My income has been going up quite nicely the last 6 months and I had plans which are now going down the toilet and if its absolutely a must to lower payments fine, I'll have to live with it, I'll just have to work harder and smarter. But I refuse to work harder for a program that is cutting their per signup payout and not taking it in the ass right along side me

But if it's a lie that $10 less is a MUST then yes, I'm pissed. But of course we will never get that answer from the owners themselves on just how they figure our surfers are now worth $10 less, we will never know.

Where did this magical $10 figure come from? This was the reason for my original post to try to understand the workings of a paysite so I could justify that they are being honest and a $10 cut per signup really was something they HAVE to do to keep from losing an amount of money they just couldn't afford.

So bottomline, the webmasters are still paying the same amount of money to make LESS money. If you dont' understand this, I don't know how else to spell it out. So instead of continually growing we are forced to spend even more money and time to keep our income at what it is now. Does anyone understand what I am trying to say here?

If you own a paysite and are contemplating cutting x amount of dollars per signup, think about the below instead!

Get rid of the hosted galleries, save on your bandwidth bills and gallery designers pay, get rid of the paying more to ppl who send more traffic etc. Why is my surfer only worth $25 if I send say 100 signups/month to your program but if someone else sends 120 signups/month to your program, his surfer is worth $30??

Get some decent free content weekly that I can use to promote your sites with. (before anyone pipes in and says free content is overexposed, bullshit. I make lots of money using free content BUT with the amount of work I do, I need to buy content too) Your sites are full of content, let us use some of it regularly. Get rid of your free hosting. If someone can't afford $30/month to host their galleries they are in the wrong business! Then I see no reason to lower the payouts at all and you keep the experienced webmasters promoting your sites.

Webmasters who count on the income instead of kids who hope to make money in the biz. Those who live with mommy and do this for beer money etc. How many signups do those that HAVE to use free hosting really send a site per month?

By doing the above you will save MUCH more money than cutting signups. Do you think webmasters will care if you get rid of your hosted galleries if you are paying them $10 more per signup than anyone else???

Hosted galleries are nice if you own a huge traffic source but other than that they are useless and more overexposed than free content. There's a big difference in seeing the same content than seeing the exact same gallery all over the place.

Sponsor free hosting sucks as they play dirty little tricks redirecting foreign traffic and popping dialers and getting the gallery submitter banned etc. Plus it's more widely open to abuse.


I would pick a sponsor with no hosted galleries, no free hosting, etc that pays $30+ a signup than a sponsor who cut the pay down to $25 and has hosted galleries. He is cutting my pay so he can say "I offer free hosting and galleries" I really don't care if you do, I pay for my own dedicated servers, bandwidth, content, traffic and I shouldn't be penalized while others use your free hosting, galleries and bandwidth.

There ya go a solution to the problem. Those that use free hosting and your bandwidth for hosted galleries, pay them less, not me! If they use free hosting and your hosted galleries, pay them $5 or $10 less, not webmasters who dish out thousands of dollars a month to send you more traffic!

I have outlined many many ways to lower your outgoing cashflow instead of cutting per signup $$ and I'm sure someone somewhere will find it useful, or at least I hope so.

End of rant for now