View Single Post
Old 03-17-2005, 12:35 PM  
ElvisManson
Looking California
 
ElvisManson's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 5,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by FightThisPatent
So then "shaving" is not much of an issue, because as you are tracking your results, and you are happy with them, then it doesn't really matter if the program shaves or not.

I agree with your analysis that ROI is the key, but being satisfied with what you perceive as your ROI, encourage or send a message that it's better to have a high PPS and shave, then it is to price the PPS that is lower than the membership price, such that from a business perspective, that makes sense (ie. not paying out more than you take in?)

I'm not saying that a lower PPS wouldn't or couldn't shave, but its the perception that shaving is necessary when you have a high PPS.

So the risk issue seems to be this:

1) If a paysite does a high payout, they are hoping statistically that members rebill and they make their money and the risk to affiliates is that they get paid less than what they could have earned.

2) If the paysite does a lower PPS, then less risk for the paysite if a member doesn't rebill, but possibly less ROI for the affiliate webmaster, so therefore the risk to the paysite is getting less traffic.



Fight the Dilemma!
If "shaving" was a proven variable in the equation of how a VPC is determined I would definitely consider it. But shaving is an unknown variable.

By sending traffic to numerous programs that have different payout structures you should be able to determine the true worth of your traffic.

It isn't about encouraging shaving or sending a message, it is about find what your traffic is worth and maximizing the profitability of that traffic.
ElvisManson is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote