$70 is not worth calling a program "scammers" on a public forum. Especially when it wasn't a scam. It makes the person crying foul hard to take seriously.

Damn, pizza is expensive where you are at I guess. For $68 I can get 6 large deluxe type pizzas from Papa Johns and still have money left over to get an order of wings.

:thumbsup

.

OK first of all I agree with the OP that he should be paid.

But please BAN the OP for calling FW Scammers in the thread title. Thats obviously false and he needs to be banned for 30 days min.

I have done biz with FW and they are straight shooters, if a little on the tight side (wouldn't pay for my $6 dollar parking in a shoot budget..etc)

ALL sponsors should change their terms to state payment in full upon termination is due, otherwise its just keeping someones money thanks to some fine print.

But this fucking guy calling them scammers in the title... over a pittance.. gets my whiner of the year award.

I think the truth is probably that many of these programs just don't have the money to pay. If every affiliate who left the industry with $45 left on their account requested the account be closed and the monies paid out many of these programs would go bankrupt immediately. The idea of 1,000 former affiliates suddenly hitting them up demanding the accounts be closed out probably scares the shit out of them.

Normal businesses keep this money on hand using accounting practices. In adult the owner probably spent it on crack and hookers for him and his reps.

If he's owed money and they reply that they refuse to pay then to him it basically is a scam. It's not what most people have in mind with the term but it's debatable.

I wouldn't exactly call them "straight shooters" after this.

yep.............. fuck Fetish Wealth - creating a thread about them now... just doing my research :2 cents:

Bullshit.

Here is why programs withhold until a minimum payment amount is met: An Affiliate can say he quit the program and demand his tiny little check...then inadvertently he sends a few more sales the following week and then the company has to send ANOTHER tiny check to the dude while he searches for and pulls links...but many links get forgotten and he's bugging the sponsor for teeny tiny checks for MONTHS.

There is nothing scammy about terms and conditions to prevent this.

However I do think Sponsors should pay out after a termination agreement has been signed stating no further payments will be made to that Aff. Problem Solved.

He was trying to close his account. He stated that here right from the start. What you are talking about is something entirely different. It's been mentioned a dozen times already.

harmon ur a moron as always.

i did a search and this is the ONLY "scam" thread related to fetishwealth and this is obviously debatable and not way its a true scam by definition.

It's not what most of us have in mind when we think "scam" however the negative attention is deserved and I do not see Fetish Wealth as a victim. The owner made the choice to tell the affiliate "No." when he requested payment for the outstanding balance on his account upon account closing. He paid the price for it in negative publicity. That's how it works.

Next time an affiliate who was paid before asks for their account to be closed and all monies paid maybe it will get done with less hassle as a result? The truth is that affiliate shouldn't have had to take it to the boards in the first place. Fetish Wealth should have paid him. That is on them. They aren't victims. It wasn't a misunderstanding. The owner tried to pocket his money on a technicality.

Can you explain why minimum payouts exist? I'd love to read it.

Just a reminder that Sunny Day is the ex-partner of Marion.

So, he probably does know a thing or two about scamming :thumbsup

.

The issue isn't the existence of a minimum payout. The issue is that he wanted to close his account and be paid the balance due. This has been mentioned many times.

This is obviously not a matter of your affiliate being a scammer; I am not sure I have ever dealt with a company that would not pay out a closing account. I am not going to read all three pages, but I hope this is worth the chump change you are holding out for.

It would never really occur to me to go begging for a payout under the minimum, which although it may not be in their POS or TOS or whatever, it IS usually in a dropdown and is acknowledged and selected when you sign up to a NATS program.

Conversely, it would also never occur to me to refuse to do a payout below the minimum when someone was requesting to have their account closed.

But I also have seen my fair share of small time webmasters and wannabe's yelling "scam" whenever things don't go their way, also this is the first thing out of someones mouth when I ban them for carding or cheating.

As the owner of an affiliate program I have seen many affiliates sign up, do a little bit of business, then discontinue their account as soon as they get paid and sign up a second, third and so on. Usually it turns out they have been up to no good and are just trying to get their pending payout before getting caught, for some reason they think I have so many affiliates that I wont notice the same person signing up over and over. So that's one reason a program might stick to their guns on a minimum payout. I am not saying that is the case here, but it is a reason why this could happen, from a Nats program perspective.

As we understand it with our own program...the "minimum payout" was to keep costs low so we aren't sending out $15 checks every week.

It was just a way to send out one decent sized check and save money (when multiplied by hundreds of affiliates).

In 2013 I'm really thinking that there is no place for "minimum payouts" anymore. It's a 15 year old idea that was in place when sales were through the roof for paysites and it was easy to make thousands a week as an affiliate.

Plus...CC Bill doesn't seem to have any problem whatsoever sending me a $15 check or a $30,000 check week in and week out.
Why should we, as NATS programs, have any problem doing the same thing?

And it was also made as method to reduce fraud risk,as it's harder to generate several fraud sales then one or two.

I've always wondered about that...as I said earlier...CC Bill sends that check irregardless, and they are arguably the most successful third party biller out there. They don't seem to have that problem

And CC Bill is part of our cascade and probably a part of most folks cascade in NATS after their own merchant account.
And of course in our merchant account we have fraud protection settings as well.

original poster said it was paid....

yes it was paid as op said.

With a clenched fist a tear in your eye and a lump in your throat I guess.

[SIZE="6"]****minimums are in place for a couple reasons ****[/SIZE]
 

Robbie yes ccb doesnt have an issue sending out TONS of those checks but please consider their scale vs a small to medium size program. We have limited aff manager resources so every request to get get paid either before pay dates or before minimum is a real drain on our available staff and it is usually over small dollar amount when the staff could be doing something productive.

i simply made the call to instruct my program manger after dealing with a lot of BS related to making early payment to just stick with our rule for minimum payouts across the board rather than considering each on individual basis which takes his time and my time as he defers to me.

its not a question of our paying we have always paid and work hard daily to continue to do so with no issues.

****minimums are in place for a couple reasons ****

1. to prevent real scammers from making a few fraud sales and getting paid
2. to delay payment so that chargebacks have time to settle and not get paid out
3. to prevent MEMBERS from playing the system and joining under their own affiliate code and getting %50+ of the membership back right away (im assuming few of you have even considered this possibility)
4. i believe nats does require a minimum at least all nats progs ive seen do have it
5. to not spend time on sending lots of little checks
6. it could actually also be an incentive for smaller affiliates to send a couple more sales to meet the minimum!

again this is no a scam, not by any stretch of the imagination and our paying has never really been called to question , even in this case i dont believe that has been the issue at hand.

there are real scammers our there like MR , and we stay very clear of that BS.

we do not scam and i resent the OP for calling us that and smearing our name/brand.

glad people that understand the business enough can call it for what it is...

1.Agree
2.Agree
3.Agree
4.That doesn't have any sense,it is like saying "i cant pay you with cash because i always use my internet banking to pay people,and it does not working at the moment"
5.Debatable,plus you could resolve it by using third party service like webmaster checks
6.I don't find that incentive at all,more like opposite.I would probably go with program which have smaller payout minimum if they convert same.

Op should send request to change thread title as this board having disturbingly high amount of people which dont bother to read entire thread nor first post content only thread title.

say what?

Don't blame the OP. Take personal responsibility for your actions. If you hadn't refused to close his account and pay him as requested the topic never would have been started.

Yes. You owed someone a debt and you were trying to get around it using a technicality. They decided to take it to the boards as you gave them little other choice besides just shutting up and taking it. You started getting too much heat for it so you paid the guy as you should have done in the first place when he asked for his account to be closed.

oh and #

7. because certain methods of payments like BANK WIRES cost money (up to $30) and must be done by owner or partner with bank access so our minimum for wires is $500.

i think anyone can agree wold be stupid to send a bank wire for $50 when it costs up to $30

It saying how due one technical issue (nats restriction) cannot be resolved a non-tehnical problem.

Yes that is correct but i do know one program which issue wires with 10 euros minimum payment:) But yes possible only if there is small or no cost to send wires.

you are entitled to you opinion.

at least %50 of people here have agreed its not a scam and most are affiliates even...

Sorry, but That makes no sense.
Its like saying to a owner of a traffic trading site to keep track of some "special" hits by hand when the script has a way of doing it better.

Whilst I am happy that you paid out the money owed even though it should never have come to a 100+ thread on GFY.
What I would like to know is, would you and others sponsors pay out when an affiliate requests to close his or her account next time?

:thumbsup

I have finally had a chance to read this entire thread.

While I debated deleting it and banning the OP. I think this is a good debate to have.

The OP has been warned through email that further accusations need to be made with more carefully chosen wording. I have also changed the thread title to reflect more appropriately the subject of the thread.

Carry on.

Unless you clearly spell out what is going to be done on a minimum payment requirement being met, and make definitive rules about fees for early terminations, not meeting minimums, etc. then keeping the money is 100% unethical. No ifs, ands, or buts, that is money earned and should be paid to the affiliate on termination of the account.

Minimum pay out requirements DO NOT mean NO PAYMENT requirements. There is a huge difference. If your counsel told you otherwise then I recommend getting a second opinion.

Hold on...

PIRIOD!

Couldn't help myself...

Wearing my program owner hat, I am sorry but he has a right to call you scammers even if you don't see it that way and feel like your terms allowed you to keep that cash. It is just plain unethical to not say clearly why that cash is due to you and not owed to him.

I think if you clearly stated, "for processing and administration a minimum of X will be charged for early terminations or closing without meeting requirements" that would be a completely different story. From the program owner perspective it wouldn't be unreasonable either. Without that though, you clearly are just not paying money that the day before you acknowledged owing. Stand in his shoes and you should see why that seems shady. I don't care if the amount is a dollar. Money is money, and when you owe, you pay.

While I completely don't agree with new title of the thread I have to say that new title doesn't reflect my entire situation with Fetish Wealth.
Fetish Wealth had a chance and obligation to close my account long time ago when my first emails requesting that were send and / or icq attempts were made. If they at least reply to me that the situation is little more complicated than just pushing one button or anything else like checking that I still have going rebills, or transfer money to my paxum is costly below minimum?, anything.
I was ignored and neglected. Not one reply for over one year till few days ago, stating that in order to close my account I still have to reach the minimum.
Title of this thread if less accusing should be:
Fetish Wealth doesn't want to close my account because I didn't reach the minimum.
That would be more accurate.
I don't regret calling them a scammers in the first place because they didn't want to close my account, thus money left in balance would stay in their account. How else do you call that ?
I noticed that for many of you here on gfy asking for own money especially where amount is little of significance equals shame, bad business, not time efficient and so on.
Way to go guys. Keep it that way and show for programs that us affiliates work and labour put into promoting sites
Isnt worth anything, that they can keep "chump" money.
The truth is that $68 is a small amount of money and I should never been paid normally but I didn't wanted to get paid. I wanted to close my account with them.

Perhaps after being ignored for a year the OP was a tad pissed when making thread title?

Reminds me of the CTB incident.

You are a little ungrateful shit. I wouldn't pay you anything if I were FetishWealth.

Post proof u emailed /icqfor a year or ban.

Title seems accurate to me....it doesn't seem to be a question of getting paid as you're always paid in the past and I don't see many complaints and a few even stating support for the program.
Its more not hitting the minimum as the new title says and that is by definition not a scam which is why your title which was inaccurate + slanderous Was CHANGE BY ADMIN AMD HE CONSIDERED BANNING U
you yourself even said you had refills so why don't you just let them rebill, hit the minimum and collect the payment ?

This is the only perspective I can get behind. If I were FetishWealth, I'd say that this thread cost them $70 and be done with it. The potential business damage is much more than $70 anyway, from people unconsciously associating the word "scam" with the program. In any other (non-dysfunctional) industry, threads like this would regularly be met with lawyers writing nasty letters. The stupid shit people get away with saying here frankly amazes me.

"1. to prevent real scammers from making a few fraud sales and getting paid"

Fraud is fraud but delaying payments rather than not paying is a simple solution for that.

"2. to delay payment so that chargebacks have time to settle and not get paid out"

As I posted previously, there is a huge difference between delaying payment and not paying.

"3. to prevent MEMBERS from playing the system and joining under their own affiliate code and getting %50+ of the membership back right away (im assuming few of you have even considered this possibility)"


If the loophole to do that exists then that is up to the program to address, not to penalize someone for it based on suspicion.

"4. i believe nats does require a minimum at least all nats progs ive seen do have it"

A minimum threshold is set so that the administration of the affiliate account doesn't drain the programs accounting resources dealing with amounts less than (X). It doesn't have anything to do with paying what legit affiliates are owed, even based on a single sale.


"5. to not spend time on sending lots of little checks"

That is basically saying that you don't want to pay someone what you owe them. If you owe someone even 1 penny then they have a reasonable justification to expect payment. If I could count all the times someone welched on a debt because they thought "he can afford it; the amount is too small to matter" it would be enough to buy a house. Making that point makes it completely clear to me where the affiliate is justified calling you guys scammers.

"6. it could actually also be an incentive for smaller affiliates to send a couple more sales to meet the minimum!"

Maybe just flog them to incentive them, worked for every master since time immemorial. Looks like only "50% agree" so that means it looks like you just gave the other 50% a reason to stay away from any programs that are just going to take their cash 100% of the time based on unclear and misleading terms and conditions.

"7. because certain methods of payments like BANK WIRES cost money (up to $30) and must be done by owner or partner with bank access so our minimum for wires is $500."


That is just obfuscating. The amount of a wire has nothing to do with paying what is owed. Most companies set wire minimums for very reasonable concerns like the amount, the frequency, etc. but none of those reasons are applicable to being reasons for non payment. If someone has too little then send them a check.

Where have you been? lmfao.. guessing you're just spamming on by.

i see that title has been cleaned up

:thumbsup
QFT.
the program owner gave stupid reasons and tried to keep his money, money owed is money owed no matter what,how much.
:2 cents:

After reading his reaction to the kind Mod action of changing the thread title instead of Ban... I have to agree - fuck this guy. FW are not scammers

Sit down. You've been saying "fuck this guy" right from the start even before Eric changed the title. In fact you were calling for his ban.

i think you are only reading the parts you want to read..

Most of us have pretty much said that while it is not a scam, it most definitely is a bad business practice. He earned that money, he should be paid..
That argument not only holds no water, but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever..

He asked to have his account closed, by the pure definition of that his account would be deleted. If he accidentally missed a few links and sends them sales then that is his fault, not to mention if his account was deleted, he would not have access to those stats. Once the account is closed he would have no claim to referred sales.