YOU are responsible for shaving - GoFuckYourself.com

Libertine · 12-10-2003, 04:38 AM

Yes, that's right. You're the one who's responsible.*

There are way too many people out there who base their initial choice of sponsors solely on payout per signup or %. Everybody knows there are programs that shave, and with that knowledge it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that if a program pays more than seems possible, something is amiss.

It amazes me what some of you webmasters expect. Payouts that leave almost no profit margin for the program, no third party popups/links etc, hosted galleries, big parties at webmaster events, quality sites with loads of exclusive content... where the hell do you think they get the money if every signup you send them actually costs more than it makes?

A program owner once told me he basically had the choice between offering realistic payouts with no shaving, which would only bring very few webmasters to his program, and ridiculously high payouts with shaving - which would bring loads of webmasters, although the actual earnings by webmasters were pretty much the same.

Now, I'm not defending shaving. It's fraud, illegal and quite simply a very low thing to do.
But what are you expecting if you want payouts which, between processing costs, bandwidth costs, content costs, design costs, advertising costs, etc, would leave a negative profit margin for the program owner?

*obviously, this only holds if you are a webmaster and are sending traffic to affiliate programs

- AFN - · 12-10-2003, 04:39 AM

Wow...this post actually makes sense.

- AFN - · 12-10-2003, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

There are way too many people out there who base their initial choice of sponsors solely on payout per signup or %. Everybody knows there are programs that shave, and with that knowledge it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that if a program pays more than seems possible, something is amiss.

This sums it all up.........

Just like the Rolling Stones said in "Sympathy for the Devil" "...who killed the Kennedies... why its you and me." We only have our own greed to blame. There's probably MORE SHAVING going on than a Thai buddhist monk seminary, we just don't see it.

- Jesus Christ - · 12-10-2003, 04:42 AM

$35 PPS with chargeback/credit decutions is hardly unreasonable.

Libertine · 12-10-2003, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by - Jesus Christ -
$35 PPS with chargeback/credit decutions is hardly unreasonable.

That depends. Membership costs, the possibility of (free) trials, third party popups, third party links, members area upsells, cross sells, content costs, webmaster referral bonuses, hosted galleries, average recurring, etcetera determine whether it is reasonable or not.

johnbosh · 12-10-2003, 04:52 AM

$35 pps is very much, wonder how those ccbil sites with 25 revshare are doing

- Jesus Christ - · 12-10-2003, 04:55 AM

I stiall say $35 PPS is not a red flag at all if they also take deductions. Especailly when they make 4$ off every sale AND have the possiblity to retain. Not even taking into account consoles and forign redierects.

Your argument just doesnt hold up for the PIBcash case.

But in general it does.

Libertine · 12-10-2003, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by - Jesus Christ -
I stiall say $35 PPS is not a red flag at all if they also take deductions. Especailly when they make 4$ off every sale AND have the possiblity to retain. Not even taking into account consoles and forign redierects.

Your argument just doesnt hold up for the PIBcash case.

But in general it does.

I'm not talking specifically about the PIBCash case... the proof I have seen so far isn't really convincing, so I really have no idea if they shave or not.

However, even $35 a signup is a lot. With hosted galleries, no third party upsells on the tour and cheap trials, it will take a program 2 months of retention to break even. Depending on retention rates, that can mean actually losing money on a large portion of signups.

- Jesus Christ - · 12-10-2003, 05:07 AM

There will always be a market for suckering in noobs with the "Up to $50 per signup" claims.

It doesnt mean that I casued it.

- AFN - · 12-10-2003, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by - Jesus Christ -
There will always be a market for suckering in noobs with the "Up to $50 per signup" claims.

It doesnt mean that I casued it.

but... you're still a moron

- Jesus Christ - · 12-10-2003, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by - AFN -
but... you're still a moron

You dont know me And stop following me around.

- AFN - · 12-10-2003, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by - Jesus Christ -
You dont know me And stop follwing me around.

I don't wanna know you, there's no money in knowing loser n00bz

- Jesus Christ - · 12-10-2003, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by - AFN -
I don't wanna know you, there's no money in knowing loser n00bz

Heh. If you only knew how funny that really is.

- AFN - · 12-10-2003, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by - Jesus Christ -
Heh. If you only knew how funny that really is.

oh now you're going to say you're big time.. Great... lying to get respect. LOL Your ridiculous nick tags you as a pimply faced rubber necked geek who's never talked to a woman before without giving her his credit card number first.

- Jesus Christ - · 12-10-2003, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by - AFN -

oh now you're going to say you're big time.. Great... lying to get respect. LOL Your ridiculous nick tags you as a pimply faced rubber necked geek who's never talked to a woman before without giving her his credit card number first.

I haven't said a thing, but keep going...

quiet · 12-10-2003, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by - AFN -

I don't wanna know you, there's no money in knowing loser n00bz

you've got a serious hard-on for jesus christ.

PornBroker · 12-10-2003, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by - AFN -

This sums it all up.........

Just like the Rolling Stones said in "Sympathy for the Devil" "...who killed the Kennedies... why its you and me." We only have our own greed to blame. There's probably MORE SHAVING going on than a Thai buddhist monk seminary, we just don't see it.

hey ... I'm the only one authorized to quote 'sympathy for the devil' around here ;))))....see sig.

Paul Markham · 12-10-2003, 05:34 AM

Good thread and interesting until the kids started to shout at each other. If he's a moron ignore him, unless he's brighter than you and getting to you.

The only thing that should mateer is the money that comes in. But some kids think that if a guy says he pays $1,000 a sign up they will drive traffic to it.

We have clients who do nothing but drive traffic and buy a lot of content from us, on this alone I reckon they're successful. They stick with the same programs month after month because they worked out it's what comes in that counts. Not what they tell you they pay.

Then I have spoken to paysite owners who tell you straight unless you promise ridiculous figures no new guys will join to drive traffic.

Also spoke to a paysite owner who said a 3rd perty processor offered him the ability to shave.

chodadog · 12-10-2003, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by quiet

you've got a serious hard-on for jesus christ.

Jesus is love.

frippeno · 12-10-2003, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld
Yes, that's right. You're the one who's responsible.*

Yeah, and Enron had to rip off billions because of the "business climate".

Those mutual fund managers had to let their big customers skim off free profits "because it was just too easy".

Sell all you want, nobody with a shred of moral character is buying. The fact is, the whole PPS model is practically designed for fraud on both sides. I guess the lowly webmaster "demanded" that model and the sponsors had no choice but to comply. Right. We fucking gallery builders have soooo much power.

Libertine · 12-10-2003, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by frippeno

Yeah, and Enron had to rip off billions because of the "business climate".

Those mutual fund managers had to let their big customers skim off free profits "because it was just too easy".

Sell all you want, nobody with a shred of moral character is buying. The fact is, the whole PPS model is practically designed for fraud on both sides. I guess the lowly webmaster "demanded" that model and the sponsors had no choice but to comply. Right. We fucking gallery builders have soooo much power.

You said it yourself: the whole PPS model is practically designed for fraud on both sides. So, if you choose to participate in it, and choose programs based on how much they pay out, YES, you are responsible.

And you gallery builders have loads of power, just like other webmasters. See, you can choose what you promote. Nobody is stopping you from choosing sponsors that are less likely to shave.

jayeff · 12-10-2003, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld
That depends. Membership costs, the possibility of (free) trials... etcetera determine whether it is reasonable or not.

Your original post is reasonable on the face of it. The comments I have quoted more so. In another post you also, very reasonably, say that you do not know whether PIB shaved or not.

All of which neatly summarizes the problem that we all face. If you are not party to the internal workings of a sponsor, their plans, ambitions and accounts, then everything is guesswork. Knowing only what customers are charged and what a sponsor pays is not enough information to make assumptions - good or bad - about the honesty (or the viability) of a sponsor.

A sponsor may charge $40 and pay out only $20, but he could be shaving to stay in business because he spends too much on content or hosting. Another sponsor working on those same numbers may be shaving mercilessly just to make extra profits. Someone else could be paying out 6 weeks income, but be making very healthy, legitimate profits on the remaining rebills, cross-sells, up-sells, etc.

We are right to distrust. I can recall at least two affiliate software programs exposed on this board in recent months as having built-in shave features. It is very difficult to believe that such features are provided unless there is a demand for them. It is even harder to believe that when such features exist, no-one uses them. And a few sponsors over the years have been caught out. It doesn't help that some sponsors make outrageous claims for their programs while others have all the PR skills of a charging rhino.

It is a little surprising (and disappointing) that legitimate sponsors do not capitalize on this distrust by demonstrating their own honesty. If it gains acceptance, the initiative by PornPosse/ClickTruth is a small step in the right direction, but their audit methods are not - so far as I am aware - transparent and thus they themselves have to be taken on trust.

Smokey The Bear · 12-10-2003, 06:07 AM

Who me. !! Man i swear it wasnt me !!

PornBroker · 12-10-2003, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jayeff

Your original post is reasonable on the face of it. The comments I have quoted more so. In another post you also, very reasonably, say that you do not know whether PIB shaved or not.

All of which neatly summarizes the problem that we all face. If you are not party to the internal workings of a sponsor, their plans, ambitions and accounts, then everything is guesswork. Knowing only what customers are charged and what a sponsor pays is not enough information to make assumptions - good or bad - about the honesty (or the viability) of a sponsor.

A sponsor may charge $40 and pay out only $20, but he could be shaving to stay in business because he spends too much on content or hosting. Another sponsor working on those same numbers may be shaving mercilessly just to make extra profits. Someone else could be paying out 6 weeks income, but be making very healthy, legitimate profits on the remaining rebills, cross-sells, up-sells, etc.

We are right to distrust. I can recall at least two affiliate software programs exposed on this board in recent months as having built-in shave features. It is very difficult to believe that such features are provided unless there is a demand for them. It is even harder to believe that when such features exist, no-one uses them. And a few sponsors over the years have been caught out. It doesn't help that some sponsors make outrageous claims for their programs while others have all the PR skills of a charging rhino.

It is a little surprising (and disappointing) that legitimate sponsors do not capitalize on this distrust by demonstrating their own honesty. If it gains acceptance, the initiative by PornPosse/ClickTruth is a small step in the right direction, but their audit methods are not - so far as I am aware - transparent and thus they themselves have to be taken on trust.

good post.

Tipsy · 12-10-2003, 06:11 AM

The whole argument that the webmaster is responsible is so hugely flawed at such a very basic level it's laughable

Antxx · 12-10-2003, 06:13 AM

Then i must be an exception... I do not only signed up because of the payout % . Usually i sign to a sponsor that have some good variety in their niches, and not a to high monthly price subscription. Once it's done i promote it, and judge it by my conversion ratio, with a maximum number of uniques send. If it doesn't convert i put it in old sponsor folder, and i stop sending traffic.

It's longer that way, but in the long run, you learn who to trust and who have the best content. But the more important thing you find is how you feel more comfortable promoting certain sponsors instead of others, which directely impact your ratio too.

I am usually suspicious of sponsors offering more than 40$ ps or 70% revshare. I just can't see how this is viable in any regards. Especially when then have streaming content, which cost a bundle to run.

frippeno · 12-10-2003, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

You said it yourself: the whole PPS model is practically designed for fraud on both sides. So, if you choose to participate in it, and choose programs based on how much they pay out, YES, you are responsible.

And you gallery builders have loads of power, just like other webmasters. See, you can choose what you promote. Nobody is stopping you from choosing sponsors that are less likely to shave.

Two points. First, I'm still a relative n00b and only really understood the financial model of this biz a couple months ago.

I've noted weird things in my stats that made me wonder. For example, you are going along making a few signups a week consistently for several months. Suddenly, they stop. For weeks. I don't know what's happening, but it looks to me like a penalty for having great ratios/good traffic.

With another sponsor you get signups at a reasonable ratio until you are just under the minimum, then you get a zillion qualifieds with nothing. Coincidence? The coincidences only happen when they benefit the sponsor.

I'm eating my own dog food here, I'm in the process of moving all my traffic to revshare sponsors, tho that is no guaranteed fix.

My whole point is the "everyone else does it so I have to do it" is not going to be a legal defense. And it is only a matter of time before some drags one of these fuckers into court. And folks who think this isn't prosecutable fraud need to study the UCC.

kenny · 12-10-2003, 06:33 AM

Of course higher payouts are going to attract affilates. But that doesnt make it the affilates fault for being tricked. The affilate is given the impression of $35 per join not $35 for some joins and $0 for others.

Fraud

A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
A piece of trickery; a trick.

One that defrauds; a cheat.
One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.

Of course the bottom dollar is the most important factor. Of course some sponsor programs use shaving to make their programs more attractive and capable of competing agaisnt larger programs that can afford to pay those high dollar pps. Alot of companies that shave probably do it with honest intentions. But unfortunately it allows programs to rip off webmasters off with stealth. Shaving can be used both as a marketing tool and a methond of embezzlement. That is why shaving is fraudulent activity. And no it is not the affilates fault.

pudcat · 12-10-2003, 06:53 AM

according to your logic...

I enter into a contract with an employer where they pay me $1mil/yr because I think it sounds like a damn good salary, they only end up paying me $20k/yr... it is my fault for accepting the job?

Raf1 · 12-10-2003, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld
Yes, that's right. You're the one who's responsible.*

There are way too many people out there who base their initial choice of sponsors solely on payout per signup or %. Everybody knows there are programs that shave, and with that knowledge it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that if a program pays more than seems possible, something is amiss.

It amazes me what some of you webmasters expect. Payouts that leave almost no profit margin for the program, no third party popups/links etc, hosted galleries, big parties at webmaster events, quality sites with loads of exclusive content... where the hell do you think they get the money if every signup you send them actually costs more than it makes?

A program owner once told me he basically had the choice between offering realistic payouts with no shaving, which would only bring very few webmasters to his program, and ridiculously high payouts with shaving - which would bring loads of webmasters, although the actual earnings by webmasters were pretty much the same.

Now, I'm not defending shaving. It's fraud, illegal and quite simply a very low thing to do.
But what are you expecting if you want payouts which, between processing costs, bandwidth costs, content costs, design costs, advertising costs, etc, would leave a negative profit margin for the program owner?

*obviously, this only holds if you are a webmaster and are sending traffic to affiliate programs

Good point

Libertine · 12-10-2003, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jayeff

Your original post is reasonable on the face of it. The comments I have quoted more so. In another post you also, very reasonably, say that you do not know whether PIB shaved or not.

All of which neatly summarizes the problem that we all face. If you are not party to the internal workings of a sponsor, their plans, ambitions and accounts, then everything is guesswork. Knowing only what customers are charged and what a sponsor pays is not enough information to make assumptions - good or bad - about the honesty (or the viability) of a sponsor.

A sponsor may charge $40 and pay out only $20, but he could be shaving to stay in business because he spends too much on content or hosting. Another sponsor working on those same numbers may be shaving mercilessly just to make extra profits. Someone else could be paying out 6 weeks income, but be making very healthy, legitimate profits on the remaining rebills, cross-sells, up-sells, etc.

We are right to distrust. I can recall at least two affiliate software programs exposed on this board in recent months as having built-in shave features. It is very difficult to believe that such features are provided unless there is a demand for them. It is even harder to believe that when such features exist, no-one uses them. And a few sponsors over the years have been caught out. It doesn't help that some sponsors make outrageous claims for their programs while others have all the PR skills of a charging rhino.

It is a little surprising (and disappointing) that legitimate sponsors do not capitalize on this distrust by demonstrating their own honesty. If it gains acceptance, the initiative by PornPosse/ClickTruth is a small step in the right direction, but their audit methods are not - so far as I am aware - transparent and thus they themselves have to be taken on trust.

Ofcourse, you never know what's going on completely. However, some basic knowledge is enough to know that what many sponsors are offering is borderline impossible. Now, taking that into account may not provide complete safety, but at least you have a good chance of not getting screwed.

Personally, I don't think there is any way to check sponsors for shaving without doing a complete financial audit, so any initiative against shaving is pretty much doomed to fail.
Even large-scale test signups and such bring along the problem that due to possible tech problems, there's always a minor chance of a signup not being counted.

The only real thing one can do is only use sponsors that offer realistic payouts and simply send traffic to those that make the most money out of your traffic. Less chance of getting shaved, and even if you are, at least you're making money

Libertine · 12-10-2003, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pudcat
according to your logic...

I enter into a contract with an employer where they pay me $1mil/yr because I think it sounds like a damn good salary, they only end up paying me $20k/yr... it is my fault for accepting the job?

When you go work as a burger flipper at Burger King, and someone tells you you'll be making millions, ofcourse it's your responsibility, simply for being gullible.

Ofcourse, shaving is fraud and illegal. So are Nigerian scams. When the signs are obvious though, you're responsible for your own stupidity

theharvman · 12-10-2003, 12:18 PM

We are on the ball with our payouts at $40.00 and you can ask around about how legitimate the Flynt Digital name is. Anyone having problems with payout and or shaving I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to join the Flynt Digital program simply by clicking on my sig. I look forward to working with each and every person that helps our organization grow.

Warm Regards,

Harvey K.
Marketing Manager
HUSTLER.com
255 G Street # 669
San Diego CA 92109
Office: 619.69.69.69.9
Fax: 619.696.9679
ICQ#: 150092593

RogerV · 12-10-2003, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by - Jesus Christ -
I stiall say $35 PPS is not a red flag at all if they also take deductions. Especailly when they make 4$ off every sale AND have the possiblity to retain. Not even taking into account consoles and forign redierects.

Your argument just doesnt hold up for the PIBcash case.

But in general it does.

I would have to agree with this $35 on a paid trial with deductions is possible.

Kimmykim · 12-10-2003, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tipsy
The whole argument that the webmaster is responsible is so hugely flawed at such a very basic level it's laughable

Actually it's the foundation of the system. The webmasters want higher payouts, they want you to bring their check to the house and wash their car while they are sitting there drinking a beer you brought over with you as well.

Both sides are guilty, its almost like an escalating arms race where Sponsor A is paying X, Sponsor B is paying Y, and as its been from the beginning, most resellers are too blinded by hit counts and conversion ratios to realize their bank teller ain't gonna cash those reports for them.

At the end of the day, if you send the same amount of traffic to two different places, who gets you the most money in the shortest amount of time? That's who gets your traffic.

Hooper · 12-10-2003, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theharvman
We are on the ball with our payouts at $40.00 and you can ask around about how legitimate the Flynt Digital name is. Anyone having problems with payout and or shaving I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to join the Flynt Digital program simply by clicking on my sig. I look forward to working with each and every person that helps our organization grow.

Warm Regards,

Harvey K.
Marketing Manager
HUSTLER.com
255 G Street # 669
San Diego CA 92109
Office: 619.69.69.69.9
Fax: 619.696.9679
ICQ#: 150092593

or you could join quickbuck where we understand the internet

sorry harv, but imho hustler's portfolio of sites is weak and it sounds like i'm not the only one.

btw, did i mention to you that i joined hometowngirls the other day to see your members area (no ref code of course) and conveniently your cancel forms couldnt find my signup until AFTER it recurred into a 34.95 rebill. I imagine it's easy to support 40 bucks payouts with that kind of practice.

RogerV · 12-10-2003, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

You said it yourself: the whole PPS model is practically designed for fraud on both sides. So, if you choose to participate in it, and choose programs based on how much they pay out, YES, you are responsible.

And you gallery builders have loads of power, just like other webmasters. See, you can choose what you promote. Nobody is stopping you from choosing sponsors that are less likely to shave.

This is why we have all these shows and parties.
so you can decide who you want to do business with.

It'a a good idea to contact or meet with companies you do business with and build a report between each other.

I say it all the time if you have traffic and arn't happy with your results give us a ring and maybe we can help.

RogerV · 12-10-2003, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

Ofcourse, you never know what's going on completely. However, some basic knowledge is enough to know that what many sponsors are offering is borderline impossible. Now, taking that into account may not provide complete safety, but at least you have a good chance of not getting screwed.

Personally, I don't think there is any way to check sponsors for shaving without doing a complete financial audit, so any initiative against shaving is pretty much doomed to fail.
Even large-scale test signups and such bring along the problem that due to possible tech problems, there's always a minor chance of a signup not being counted.

The only real thing one can do is only use sponsors that offer realistic payouts and simply send traffic to those that make the most money out of your traffic. Less chance of getting shaved, and even if you are, at least you're making money

You are on a roll

It's all a numbers game. every program has there way of profiting with there sites.

Porn4Abuck is a low payout of $25 because it has no deductions and its a $1 trial for a month.
we built it to convert so even if the payout is low you make more at the end of the day cause it converts like crazy.

Yes, we have exits and cross sales etc. to cover our loss on the trial. Like I said it's all a numbers game everyone has there fomula

you choose what's best for you at the end of the day.

slapass · 12-10-2003, 12:47 PM

They need to shave to stay in business?

ummm.... then why do we have 30 threads a day about see my new Ferrari, house, boat or huge party to pay the best affiliates back? Sponsors are not starving at $35 PPS.

Tipsy · 12-10-2003, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim

Actually it's the foundation of the system. The webmasters want higher payouts, they want you to bring their check to the house and wash their car while they are sitting there drinking a beer you brought over with you as well.

Both sides are guilty, its almost like an escalating arms race where Sponsor A is paying X, Sponsor B is paying Y, and as its been from the beginning, most resellers are too blinded by hit counts and conversion ratios to realize their bank teller ain't gonna cash those reports for them.

At the end of the day, if you send the same amount of traffic to two different places, who gets you the most money in the shortest amount of time? That's who gets your traffic.

No it isn't and you contradicted yourself in that statement alone. Carry on though.

Kimmykim · 12-10-2003, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tipsy

No it isn't and you contradicted yourself in that statement alone. Carry on though.

Yes, it is. It's nothing different than the car dealerships with their no interest and no payments til hell freezes over promotions.

You get a target demographic used to certain things when marketing to them and the bubble only gets bigger, not smaller.

taboo_dude · 12-10-2003, 01:02 PM

Some damn good posts in here...

I think the shaving will eventually correct itself. Kinda like the stock markets have done in the past few years. I see this happening in a few ways.

1. People waking the f$ck up!

2. One of them is going to get caught and it will be someone that sees that could recoup that money that they were shaved by banning together with others that have been ripped and then suing the hell out of them. (they are strength in numbers)

3. Sponsors realize that they are treading in very dangerous waters and if they don't get out they are going to get eaten alive by a bunch of paranas.

I promise one or a couple of these things will cause a correction course to be enacted. Both sponsors and affiliates are to blame but both can get back to reality if they choose to do so. There is still enough money being spent to do this WITHOUT SHAVING as well as not offering ENORMOUS PAYOUTS.

I hope it doesn't take a group of bald webmasters suing a sponsor to start this correction but something needs to be done. I wouldn't want that for either.

That's my 2

kenny · 12-10-2003, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim

Yes, it is. It's nothing different than the car dealerships with their no interest and no payments til hell freezes over promotions.

You get a target demographic used to certain things when marketing to them and the bubble only gets bigger, not smaller.

Execpt for the simple fact that a car dealership has it in black and white. They are not flat out lying.

Like I said earlier I am sure that some companies shave with good intentions but it doesnt excuse the pratice for following into the definition of fraud.

Ross · 12-10-2003, 03:45 PM

That kinda does make sense but.....

If the people who offer this are so confident in their programmes recurring then they should offer more. Its not our fault they can't keep members happy and its not our fault they want our traffic and signups...

Someone offers me $20 per sale then another offers me $30 per sale I know where I am gonna go. The reason payouts are so high is cause people keep trying to out do each other....

Webmasters benefit but programme owners say their shit is so good they can pay all this money out. Time they started proving it!

AmeliaG · 12-10-2003, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld
Yes, that's right. You're the one who's responsible.*

There are way too many people out there who base their initial choice of sponsors solely on payout per signup or %. Everybody knows there are programs that shave, and with that knowledge it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that if a program pays more than seems possible, something is amiss.

It amazes me what some of you webmasters expect. Payouts that leave almost no profit margin for the program, no third party popups/links etc, hosted galleries, big parties at webmaster events, quality sites with loads of exclusive content... where the hell do you think they get the money if every signup you send them actually costs more than it makes?

A program owner once told me he basically had the choice between offering realistic payouts with no shaving, which would only bring very few webmasters to his program, and ridiculously high payouts with shaving - which would bring loads of webmasters, although the actual earnings by webmasters were pretty much the same.

Now, I'm not defending shaving. It's fraud, illegal and quite simply a very low thing to do.
But what are you expecting if you want payouts which, between processing costs, bandwidth costs, content costs, design costs, advertising costs, etc, would leave a negative profit margin for the program owner?

*obviously, this only holds if you are a webmaster and are sending traffic to affiliate programs

Very well put. Personally, for other people's programs I promote, I tend to pick revshare ones with sites I think are good and likely to retain. I remember my grammar school math with the whole $2.95 minus $40 would be a negative number thing and, although I occasionally promote PPS programs if I like the sites or the people or something, the negative numbers math always seemed to me like shaving or sending a lot of my traffic to exits I don't get credit for are kinda the only ways to make that work.

12-10-2003, 04:38 AM	#1
Libertine sex dwarf Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 17,860	YOU are responsible for shaving Yes, that's right. You're the one who's responsible.* There are way too many people out there who base their initial choice of sponsors solely on payout per signup or %. Everybody knows there are programs that shave, and with that knowledge it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that if a program pays more than seems possible, something is amiss. It amazes me what some of you webmasters expect. Payouts that leave almost no profit margin for the program, no third party popups/links etc, hosted galleries, big parties at webmaster events, quality sites with loads of exclusive content... where the hell do you think they get the money if every signup you send them actually costs more than it makes? A program owner once told me he basically had the choice between offering realistic payouts with no shaving, which would only bring very few webmasters to his program, and ridiculously high payouts with shaving - which would bring loads of webmasters, although the actual earnings by webmasters were pretty much the same. Now, I'm not defending shaving. It's fraud, illegal and quite simply a very low thing to do. But what are you expecting if you want payouts which, between processing costs, bandwidth costs, content costs, design costs, advertising costs, etc, would leave a negative profit margin for the program owner? *<small>obviously, this only holds if you are a webmaster and are sending traffic to affiliate programs</small> __________________ /(bb\|[^b]{2})/

12-10-2003, 04:39 AM	#2
- AFN - Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: NYC Baaaabeee Posts: 3,101	Wow...this post actually makes sense. __________________ cat cash* \| tr -d '\r' \| tr -s '/n' > money

12-10-2003, 04:42 AM	#4
- Jesus Christ - Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: ::::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: ::::::\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|:::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: Posts: 7,197	$35 PPS with chargeback/credit decutions is hardly unreasonable. __________________ Amen

12-10-2003, 04:55 AM	#7
- Jesus Christ - Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: ::::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: ::::::\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|:::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: Posts: 7,197	I stiall say $35 PPS is not a red flag at all if they also take deductions. Especailly when they make 4$ off every sale AND have the possiblity to retain. Not even taking into account consoles and forign redierects. Your argument just doesnt hold up for the PIBcash case. But in general it does. __________________ Amen

12-10-2003, 05:07 AM	#9
- Jesus Christ - Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: ::::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: ::::::\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|:::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: Posts: 7,197	There will always be a market for suckering in noobs with the "Up to $50 per signup" claims. It doesnt mean that I casued it. __________________ Amen

12-10-2003, 04:52 AM	#6
johnbosh Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: The Netherlands, Rotterdam Posts: 8,965	$35 pps is very much, wonder how those ccbil sites with 25 revshare are doing

12-10-2003, 05:34 AM	#18
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Good thread and interesting until the kids started to shout at each other. If he's a moron ignore him, unless he's brighter than you and getting to you. The only thing that should mateer is the money that comes in. But some kids think that if a guy says he pays $1,000 a sign up they will drive traffic to it. We have clients who do nothing but drive traffic and buy a lot of content from us, on this alone I reckon they're successful. They stick with the same programs month after month because they worked out it's what comes in that counts. Not what they tell you they pay. Then I have spoken to paysite owners who tell you straight unless you promise ridiculous figures no new guys will join to drive traffic. Also spoke to a paysite owner who said a 3rd perty processor offered him the ability to shave. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

12-10-2003, 06:07 AM	#23
Smokey The Bear So Fucking Banned Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: South Of Heaven™ Posts: 3,880	Who me. !! Man i swear it wasnt me !!

12-10-2003, 06:11 AM	#25
Tipsy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: See sig Posts: 6,989	The whole argument that the webmaster is responsible is so hugely flawed at such a very basic level it's laughable __________________ Ignorance is never bliss.

12-10-2003, 06:13 AM	#26
Antxx Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Qubec, Canada Posts: 587	Then i must be an exception... I do not only signed up because of the payout % . Usually i sign to a sponsor that have some good variety in their niches, and not a to high monthly price subscription. Once it's done i promote it, and judge it by my conversion ratio, with a maximum number of uniques send. If it doesn't convert i put it in old sponsor folder, and i stop sending traffic. It's longer that way, but in the long run, you learn who to trust and who have the best content. But the more important thing you find is how you feel more comfortable promoting certain sponsors instead of others, which directely impact your ratio too. I am usually suspicious of sponsors offering more than 40$ ps or 70% revshare. I just can't see how this is viable in any regards. Especially when then have streaming content, which cost a bundle to run. __________________ "Those who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who only dream by night" -E A. Poe http://www.playhon.com http://www.living-glass.com Last edited by Antxx; 12-10-2003 at 06:16 AM..

12-10-2003, 06:33 AM	#28
kenny Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 7,245	Of course higher payouts are going to attract affilates. But that doesnt make it the affilates fault for being tricked. The affilate is given the impression of $35 per join not $35 for some joins and $0 for others. <b>Fraud</b> A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. A piece of trickery; a trick. One that defrauds; a cheat. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor. Of course the bottom dollar is the most important factor. Of course some sponsor programs use shaving to make their programs more attractive and capable of competing agaisnt larger programs that can afford to pay those high dollar pps. Alot of companies that shave probably do it with honest intentions. But unfortunately it allows programs to rip off webmasters off with stealth. Shaving can be used both as a marketing tool and a methond of embezzlement. That is why shaving is fraudulent activity. And no it is not the affilates fault. __________________ 7

12-10-2003, 06:53 AM	#29
pudcat Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,169	according to your logic... I enter into a contract with an employer where they pay me $1mil/yr because I think it sounds like a damn good salary, they only end up paying me $20k/yr... it is my fault for accepting the job?

12-10-2003, 12:18 PM	#33
theharvman Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,366	We are on the ball with our payouts at $40.00 and you can ask around about how legitimate the Flynt Digital name is. Anyone having problems with payout and or shaving I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to join the Flynt Digital program simply by clicking on my sig. I look forward to working with each and every person that helps our organization grow. Warm Regards, Harvey K. Marketing Manager HUSTLER.com 255 G Street # 669 San Diego CA 92109 Office: 619.69.69.69.9 Fax: 619.696.9679 ICQ#: 150092593 __________________ Email:[email protected] Site: http://TheScreamingO.com Program: http://http://www.idevaffiliate.com Skype: theharvman ICQ: 150092593

12-10-2003, 12:47 PM	#39
slapass Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 14,622	They need to shave to stay in business? ummm.... then why do we have 30 threads a day about see my new Ferrari, house, boat or huge party to pay the best affiliates back? Sponsors are not starving at $35 PPS.

12-10-2003, 01:02 PM	#42
taboo_dude Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: TN Posts: 707	Some damn good posts in here... I think the shaving will eventually correct itself. Kinda like the stock markets have done in the past few years. I see this happening in a few ways. 1. People waking the f$ck up! 2. One of them is going to get caught and it will be someone that sees that could recoup that money that they were shaved by banning together with others that have been ripped and then suing the hell out of them. (they are strength in numbers) 3. Sponsors realize that they are treading in very dangerous waters and if they don't get out they are going to get eaten alive by a bunch of paranas. I promise one or a couple of these things will cause a correction course to be enacted. Both sponsors and affiliates are to blame but both can get back to reality if they choose to do so. There is still enough money being spent to do this WITHOUT SHAVING as well as not offering ENORMOUS PAYOUTS. I hope it doesn't take a group of bald webmasters suing a sponsor to start this correction but something needs to be done. I wouldn't want that for either. That's my 2 __________________ If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. The Duke.

12-10-2003, 03:45 PM	#44
Ross Ik ben een aap Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Traffic Force Towers, Canada! Posts: 18,874	That kinda does make sense but..... If the people who offer this are so confident in their programmes recurring then they should offer more. Its not our fault they can't keep members happy and its not our fault they want our traffic and signups... Someone offers me $20 per sale then another offers me $30 per sale I know where I am gonna go. The reason payouts are so high is cause people keep trying to out do each other.... Webmasters benefit but programme owners say their shit is so good they can pay all this money out. Time they started proving it!