Should chargebacks be applied against your affiliate account - GoFuckYourself.com

notjoe · 03-24-2004, 04:46 AM

So, lets say you send some signups to a sponsor and lets say some of them get CB'd.

What are your views on Sponsors who eat that?

What are your views on Sponsors who take back the $ they paid out on the CB'd transaction?

flashfire · 03-24-2004, 04:55 AM

I like sponsers that eat....

johnbosh · 03-24-2004, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by flashfire
I like sponsers that eat....

jup their problem

03-24-2004, 04:59 AM

I don't like the fact that I get hit with occasional chargebacks, but then again, the company would be hit with fraud left and right if they ate it all. If they ate all chargebacks, who's to stop a webmaster from charging back hundreds of accounts in 1 way or another, while pocketing all of the earnings?

Your job is to send the signups and their job is to keep the members. If the surfer gets off once and decided to contest the charge, it's generally not the program's fault. Blame it on the asshat who's worried about his wife seeing a questionable charge on their CC acct.

notjoe · 03-24-2004, 05:02 AM

Processors pass on the CB back to the merchant, it would only make sense to pass that back onto the Affiliate or so i would think.

I think more honest programs would pass the CB back onto the affiliate as chances are they're not shaving and thus dont have the extra cash to eat the CBS.

High Quality · 03-24-2004, 05:05 AM

Theres lots of affiliates who promote on illegal sites like password sites etc. Theres no way I could make a profit not passing CB fees onto these affiliates....

So, I'm for this...

VirtuMike · 03-24-2004, 05:18 AM

We are both sponsors and affiliates. I am a firm believer that the affiliate is responsible for the chargebacks.

The affiliate should look at the tours and see what is promised, then look in the members areas to see if the promises are delivered. He then formulates his marketing plan based on that site's unique selling proposition. The affiliate has to make sure that nobody is deceiving that surfer at any point.

And if the affiliate sends traffic he knows to be questionable, he should be willing to take the hit on bad transactions.

Major (Tom) · 03-24-2004, 05:24 AM

Look at it this way. What if an affiliate is just pumping galleries of 3x20 second RLD clips or Evil clips that are already cut to save the time it takes to rip the sponsors clips. Now the member joins, and that content isnt in the members area.. My guess is it's a charge back. Why should my program eat it? Or what about check fraud? Check chargebacks are common. If a program eats the charge back something just doesnt make sense. And if they do eat charge backs, thats just a recipie for some eastern eurpoean webmaster to run 30 stolen cards through his affiliate link. I think it's in the best interest of the industry to dissuade chargebacks at all costs. Paying webmasters for chargebacks is definatley not going to do that.

just my opinion. I'm not claiming to have all the answers.
cheers
ds

NickB. · 03-24-2004, 05:31 AM

it all depends on the account right? if you have more than 2% charge backs on your account......the webmaster should be charged for that!

hova · 03-24-2004, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by VirtuMike
We are both sponsors and affiliates. I am a firm believer that the affiliate is responsible for the chargebacks.

The affiliate should look at the tours and see what is promised, then look in the members areas to see if the promises are delivered. He then formulates his marketing plan based on that site's unique selling proposition. The affiliate has to make sure that nobody is deceiving that surfer at any point.

And if the affiliate sends traffic he knows to be questionable, he should be willing to take the hit on bad transactions.

I am with you here, but some people told me that this asks to much from the affiliate

notjoe · 03-24-2004, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hova

I am with you here, but some people told me that this asks to much from the affiliate

Sure it may hurt the affiliate but if the sponsor eats the cost then it'll hurt them a lot more so, esp. if they're running their program above the board

Cash · 03-24-2004, 11:10 AM

"Should chargebacks be applied against your affiliate account?"
No.

Honeyslut · 03-24-2004, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by VirtuMike
We are both sponsors and affiliates. I am a firm believer that the affiliate is responsible for the chargebacks.

The affiliate should look at the tours and see what is promised, then look in the members areas to see if the promises are delivered. He then formulates his marketing plan based on that site's unique selling proposition. The affiliate has to make sure that nobody is deceiving that surfer at any point.

And if the affiliate sends traffic he knows to be questionable, he should be willing to take the hit on bad transactions.

Good post ! Affiliates are so different from 4 years ago when I started in this biz. Everything has to be on a silver spoon.

Heck , 4 years ago I never dreamed of FREE content and mega hosted galleries. I just made and bought everything.

cool1 · 03-24-2004, 11:21 AM

I think it should be a 50/50 thing. Affiliate pays half, the sponsor pays half
After all it is hard to know why the customer charged back.
Was it the affiliates fault or the sponsors, hard to tell sometimes.

mardigras · 03-24-2004, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Honeyslut

Good post ! Affiliates are so different from 4 years ago when I started in this biz. Everything has to be on a silver spoon.

Heck , 4 years ago I never dreamed of FREE content and mega hosted galleries. I just made and bought everything.

Traffic is quite different from 4 years ago. 4 years ago just about any traffic could make $$$, today decent traffic is gold and the competition for it high and people aren't going to just toss it to unproductive or subpar programs so you have to "get their attention".

Giorgio_Xo · 03-24-2004, 11:57 AM

The individual chargeback shouldn't be assessed to the referring webmaster instead the expected percentage of fees by a part of the normal payout price.

goBigtime · 03-24-2004, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by notjoe
So, lets say you send some signups to a sponsor and lets say some of them get CB'd.

What are your views on Sponsors who eat that?

What are your views on Sponsors who take back the $ they paid out on the CB'd transaction?

If it's a "partnership" then the CB's should definitely be shared.

4Pics · 03-24-2004, 12:02 PM

in pps it should not be deducted, in partnership it should be shared.

What's to stop someone from applying 1% chargebacks to affiliates to raise profits? It's another form of a shave. It isn't like the affiliate gets a report of their cb's and a copy of the letter.

They also have cross-sells or upsells or 1 click mailers they made money on the guy that I dont get paid on.

magicmike · 03-24-2004, 12:08 PM

Well for a PPS program I say no.

If a wm has a really high cb percentage I'd bet 95% of companies will cut that wm and thats what it comes down to.

Before all the new visa / mc regs. a cb is no different than a refund. Obviously now people need to stay below 1% and if an affiliate is constantly way over thats too big a risk to take.

At the same time if you are charging your regular wm's for cb's then you should be charging them for refunds as well.

We don't do it anyways on pps, and at the same time we don't pay on fraud. So if its a case of fraud thats a whole different story.

Its built in to partnership programs for the most part already at the billing company level.

EZRhino · 03-24-2004, 12:10 PM

I would say if a affiliate of mine does have a few peices of fraud here and there within reason I will eat it no problem. But if its on going, consistent and cost vs reward doesnt add up in my favor, I'm not going to pay for it and I shouldnt be expected to.

SykkBoy · 03-24-2004, 12:42 PM

I think it should be on a case by case basis, based upon an affiliates individual performance

louiethenose · 03-25-2004, 12:56 PM

No fucking way.... Our job is to bring the surfer to the table. It is the sponsors job to make him eat, If he throws it up to fucking bad. Also i laughed at "well if it is a partnership" What fucking partnership? do you file a joint return? You are out of your fucking mind. NO FUCKING WAY. They are making monies in many different directions then the signup. They can afford it SO yes I say to bad they need to eat it not the affiliate. CRACKER!

Theo · 03-25-2004, 01:07 PM

personally I would't mind, its such small percentage that doesn't worry me.

detoxed · 03-25-2004, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soul_Rebel
personally I would't mind, its such small percentage that doesn't worry me.

The people against it are the ones with high percentages of fraud mysteriously coming from their traffic....

LA Mike · 03-25-2004, 01:57 PM

In order to keep payouts high I can definately see in the future that the chargebacks could be pushed to the affiliate. Or the sponsors can continue paying then and lower payouts. Things are definately tighter these days

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 03-25-2004, 02:03 PM

Affiliates want it all and more. Let them take responsibility for there traffic.

Whole new idea for you guys to implement now...
Remember this thread in 6 months

EvaPharmacy · 03-26-2004, 04:31 AM

We charge our affiliates only for chargebacks, but we pay from our own pocket for ALL refunds.
Because the quality of our products and delivery is our baby and we take care about it very well

Living For Today · 03-26-2004, 06:29 AM

I think its perfectly acceptable if a chargeback occurs that the affiliate takes it. You are getting credited for a sale. If it is charged back....it is no longer a sale.

montel · 03-26-2004, 06:31 AM

the sponsors that dont charge back are probably shaving.

Nathan · 03-26-2004, 06:41 AM

Hi,

in my oppinion Partnership Programs should deduct the chargeback/refund at the same %-age as they give for joins and rebills. And why should they not? If you want a Partnership, then you gotta be willing to take the risk, you expect to get all rebills also!

On the other side, per signup programs should eat the chargebacks/refunds, the user expects $$ per signup and thats it.

I think the partnership program system is the standard currently, or am I mistaken there? For per signup program, I only know a few that remove the sale when a chargeback occures, but I also know from our clients that some want to remove the sale or at least to deduct a specific amount for a chargeback that occures.

Paul Markham · 03-26-2004, 06:59 AM

Welcome to the new adult internet. Visa are committed to getting us to reduce Charge Backs, so affiliates will have to either do their job and make sure their traffic is solid or they will go.

And it is not just an affiliates job to deliver clicks, it's his job to deliver people who are likely to buy something.

RWF · 03-26-2004, 07:13 AM

"Should chargebacks be applied against your affiliate account?"

Absolutely, my commision part of the chargeback that is!

This is only fair and square.

Pun · 03-26-2004, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly

And it is not just an affiliates job to deliver clicks, it's his job to deliver people who are likely to buy something.

Bullshit. It's our job (affiliate) to deliver you prospective clients. It's your job (site owner) to sell them. Whether or not the potenial client wanted to buy or not prior to getting to your site really isn't my responsibility once I've left him/her on your doorstep.

Sure, my ratios may be complete ass if I'm sending mortgage traffic to a porn site, but that's a risk I take delivering traffic there, and that's a risk I'm willing to accept in doing so.

taboo_gal · 03-26-2004, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4Pics
It isn't like the affiliate gets a report of their cb's and a copy of the letter.

They should at least get an email. I just advised a sponsor that if he received a chargeback, he should delete the order, which automatically removes commission from the affiliate. I then told him to be sure to email the affiliate explaining what happened to the order and the resulting commissions. This way the affiliate can not (should not) be able to say they were shaved or defrauded in some way. I also told him to keep a sharp eye on all chargebacks and the referring affiliates because if their cb's are frequent, they should be removed and sent an email notice as to why.

If the affiliate is to request proof of the chargeback, it should certainly be given. This way you know why the surfer chargedback; at least their "legalese" of "my wife found the cc statement".

As for PPS or Partnership...its all the same to me....a chargeback is a chargeback and an affiliate should not get paid on that item...period.

I think VirtuMike's post hit the nail on the head. I totally agree.

Good thread by the way!

03-24-2004, 04:46 AM	#1
notjoe Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 5,599	Should chargebacks be applied against your affiliate account So, lets say you send some signups to a sponsor and lets say some of them get CB'd. What are your views on Sponsors who eat that? What are your views on Sponsors who take back the $ they paid out on the CB'd transaction?

03-24-2004, 05:05 AM	#6
High Quality Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 5,741	Theres lots of affiliates who promote on illegal sites like password sites etc. Theres no way I could make a profit not passing CB fees onto these affiliates.... So, I'm for this... __________________ RecurCash.com - Averaging $38/sale with 60% revshare in the first 4 months alone! Convert your TEEN traffic today @ better than 1:500 guaranteed. ICQ me: 18287590!

03-24-2004, 05:18 AM	#7
VirtuMike Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Seat 1A Posts: 2,483	We are both sponsors and affiliates. I am a firm believer that the affiliate is responsible for the chargebacks. The affiliate should look at the tours and see what is promised, then look in the members areas to see if the promises are delivered. He then formulates his marketing plan based on that site's unique selling proposition. The affiliate has to make sure that nobody is deceiving that surfer at any point. And if the affiliate sends traffic he knows to be questionable, he should be willing to take the hit on bad transactions. __________________ Host it in AMSTERDAM at EUROTIVITY! - We also offer BACKUP SERVICES! XYZZY4L

03-24-2004, 11:10 AM	#12
Cash Click on my TCG signature Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 20,825	"Should chargebacks be applied against your affiliate account?" No. __________________ $9.95/month for 15000 GB bandwidth monthly, unlimited (sub)domains and MySQL5, PHP4/5, 500 GB disk storage! ; use any of these invitation codes: 216263692101; 408636009193; 846090586647; my ICQ 30160426!

03-24-2004, 11:21 AM	#14
cool1 sex is good Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Carman, MB Canada Posts: 24,939	I think it should be a 50/50 thing. Affiliate pays half, the sponsor pays half After all it is hard to know why the customer charged back. Was it the affiliates fault or the sponsors, hard to tell sometimes. __________________

03-24-2004, 04:55 AM	#2
flashfire ICQ 1 6 7 8 5 3 4 9 2 Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 13,098	I like sponsers that eat....

03-24-2004, 04:59 AM	#4
shermo Guest Posts: n/a	I don't like the fact that I get hit with occasional chargebacks, but then again, the company would be hit with fraud left and right if they ate it all. If they ate all chargebacks, who's to stop a webmaster from charging back hundreds of accounts in 1 way or another, while pocketing all of the earnings? Your job is to send the signups and their job is to keep the members. If the surfer gets off once and decided to contest the charge, it's generally not the program's fault. Blame it on the asshat who's worried about his wife seeing a questionable charge on their CC acct.

03-24-2004, 05:02 AM	#5
notjoe Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 5,599	Processors pass on the CB back to the merchant, it would only make sense to pass that back onto the Affiliate or so i would think. I think more honest programs would pass the CB back onto the affiliate as chances are they're not shaving and thus dont have the extra cash to eat the CBS.

03-24-2004, 05:24 AM	#8
Major (Tom) Boomer Woffen Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Null Posts: 30,554	Look at it this way. What if an affiliate is just pumping galleries of 3x20 second RLD clips or Evil clips that are already cut to save the time it takes to rip the sponsors clips. Now the member joins, and that content isnt in the members area.. My guess is it's a charge back. Why should my program eat it? Or what about check fraud? Check chargebacks are common. If a program eats the charge back something just doesnt make sense. And if they do eat charge backs, thats just a recipie for some eastern eurpoean webmaster to run 30 stolen cards through his affiliate link. I think it's in the best interest of the industry to dissuade chargebacks at all costs. Paying webmasters for chargebacks is definatley not going to do that. just my opinion. I'm not claiming to have all the answers. cheers ds

03-24-2004, 05:31 AM	#9
NickB. Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,855	it all depends on the account right? if you have more than 2% charge backs on your account......the webmaster should be charged for that!

03-24-2004, 11:57 AM	#16
Giorgio_Xo Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 4,263	The individual chargeback shouldn't be assessed to the referring webmaster instead the expected percentage of fees by a part of the normal payout price. __________________ Make Levees, Not War

03-24-2004, 12:02 PM	#18
4Pics Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 7,952	in pps it should not be deducted, in partnership it should be shared. What's to stop someone from applying 1% chargebacks to affiliates to raise profits? It's another form of a shave. It isn't like the affiliate gets a report of their cb's and a copy of the letter. They also have cross-sells or upsells or 1 click mailers they made money on the guy that I dont get paid on.

03-24-2004, 12:08 PM	#19
magicmike Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: JustPorno Posts: 2,384	Well for a PPS program I say no. If a wm has a really high cb percentage I'd bet 95% of companies will cut that wm and thats what it comes down to. Before all the new visa / mc regs. a cb is no different than a refund. Obviously now people need to stay below 1% and if an affiliate is constantly way over thats too big a risk to take. At the same time if you are charging your regular wm's for cb's then you should be charging them for refunds as well. We don't do it anyways on pps, and at the same time we don't pay on fraud. So if its a case of fraud thats a whole different story. Its built in to partnership programs for the most part already at the billing company level. __________________ Just Porno with both classic and mobile porn versions. Gay Porn Our mega gay site tranny porn

03-24-2004, 12:10 PM	#20
EZRhino Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: couch Posts: 6,258	I would say if a affiliate of mine does have a few peices of fraud here and there within reason I will eat it no problem. But if its on going, consistent and cost vs reward doesnt add up in my favor, I'm not going to pay for it and I shouldnt be expected to.

03-24-2004, 12:42 PM	#21
SykkBoy Jesus loves bacon Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Sin City, Motherfucker Posts: 19,969	I think it should be on a case by case basis, based upon an affiliates individual performance __________________ Support my new movie “The Second Coming”

03-25-2004, 12:56 PM	#22
louiethenose Registered User Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 2	No fucking way.... Our job is to bring the surfer to the table. It is the sponsors job to make him eat, If he throws it up to fucking bad. Also i laughed at "well if it is a partnership" What fucking partnership? do you file a joint return? You are out of your fucking mind. NO FUCKING WAY. They are making monies in many different directions then the signup. They can afford it SO yes I say to bad they need to eat it not the affiliate. CRACKER!

03-25-2004, 01:07 PM	#23
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	personally I would't mind, its such small percentage that doesn't worry me.

03-25-2004, 01:57 PM	#25
LA Mike Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 3,056	In order to keep payouts high I can definately see in the future that the chargebacks could be pushed to the affiliate. Or the sponsors can continue paying then and lower payouts. Things are definately tighter these days

03-25-2004, 02:03 PM	#26
AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE best designer on GFY Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: IALIEN.COM - High Definition Video and Photographic Productions -ICQ 78943384 Posts: 30,307	Affiliates want it all and more. Let them take responsibility for there traffic. Whole new idea for you guys to implement now... Remember this thread in 6 months __________________ NAKED HOSTING FTW!11 I'm On The INSANE PLAN $9.95/mo! \| The Alien Blog Adult News Worth Reading Updated Daily \| Content For Sale! 641 PICS 216 MINUTES OF VIDEO $350.00 \|ICQ: 78943384 \|

03-26-2004, 04:31 AM	#27
EvaPharmacy Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 255	We charge our affiliates only for chargebacks, but we pay from our own pocket for ALL refunds. Because the quality of our products and delivery is our baby and we take care about it very well __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

03-26-2004, 06:29 AM	#28
Living For Today Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,970	I think its perfectly acceptable if a chargeback occurs that the affiliate takes it. You are getting credited for a sale. If it is charged back....it is no longer a sale.

03-26-2004, 06:31 AM	#29
montel Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: See sig! Posts: 2,606	the sponsors that dont charge back are probably shaving. __________________ Barefootsies

03-26-2004, 06:41 AM	#30
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	Hi, in my oppinion Partnership Programs should deduct the chargeback/refund at the same %-age as they give for joins and rebills. And why should they not? If you want a Partnership, then you gotta be willing to take the risk, you expect to get all rebills also! On the other side, per signup programs should eat the chargebacks/refunds, the user expects $$ per signup and thats it. I think the partnership program system is the standard currently, or am I mistaken there? For per signup program, I only know a few that remove the sale when a chargeback occures, but I also know from our clients that some want to remove the sale or at least to deduct a specific amount for a chargeback that occures. __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

03-26-2004, 06:59 AM	#31
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	Welcome to the new adult internet. Visa are committed to getting us to reduce Charge Backs, so affiliates will have to either do their job and make sure their traffic is solid or they will go. And it is not just an affiliates job to deliver clicks, it's his job to deliver people who are likely to buy something. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

03-26-2004, 07:13 AM	#32
RWF Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 113	"Should chargebacks be applied against your affiliate account?" Absolutely, my commision part of the chargeback that is! This is only fair and square.