lol.......

who is doing 2000 new paid joins a day.

ES 4L

Brad Shaw approved.

lol ...I am not pushing anyone I was answering a question, she wanted justification for my answer. Its simple.
I have a major clue - that is the reality.

yior honestly telling me company's like top bucks and traffic cash gold arent doing 2000 new joins a day? get real... bro I am from vegas to live here born and raised but you gotta keep it real... there are many people doing 2000 joins a day... I have heard from ron levi's mouth that in the hay day 5-6000 new joins day in and day out... so 2000 now a days is nothing....

Their is a basic problem with non usa webmasters using cascading billing - Most solutions use only ccbill, paycom and ibill.
Ibill are all but down and out, Paycom do not accept non usa webmasters - Which leaves us only ccbill - To cascade with whom?
Make little sense paying X amount of dollars for a system which can not be utilized fully.
However, using the tools provided by ccbill allows a denial to pop a page to a secondary processor.
I personally do not do this because sales can not be tracked correctly to ensure the affiliate gets his share.
I fully agree that by not using cascading, programmes like mine lose out both in sales and affiliate sales and are less attractive to gaining new partners - Until paycom (or other) accepts EU webmasters, we are disadvantaged.

that alone drove me to switch to CCBill as primary processor for my private sites that aren't run through my NATS program --- almost immediately, revenue returned to "normal" (that is, where it was before Jettis sold me to Epoch)...

Nasty Dollars is doing 5000-6000 new sign ups per day from what I've read

and speaking about the subject, we will start a program probably in the next months, and we don't intend to use cascading, just CCbill will be fine, at least for the beginning.

There are many single girl site networks for example, who use just CCbill and seem to be doing very fine

3rd party processing and merchant accounts are 2 separate animals, obviously

Venus, if a merchant account works well for you, then that is great for you :),
however, there are some obvious caveats to merchant accounts, they are not the end-all solution, look at the top 5-10 programs on the net to see what they use, how many have decided that 3rd party processing is the best route for them??and with regard to 3rd party processing, there is a validity to cascading on many separate levels (cascading from ccbill as primary, I mean ;)

There are programs that do much more than 2000 new joins a day

good thread kimmy

Fiddy !!

This is unrelated but I find the Coke and Pepsi thing so crazy. They spend so much money on advertizing against each other it's almost insane and when you go out to eat somewhere and order a Coke or Pepsi they will have one or the other, not both. So the waitress says "I'm sorry we don't have BLANK is BLANK ok?

.... and I think most of us say ok.

We use use cascade billing with Paycom and CCBill (our affiliates can choose the primary) but I know there are tons of CCBill only sponsors that don't. I assume all of the ones using CCBills affiliate software do not cascade in any way to credit their afiliates.

However if they are not running an affiliate program it's easy enough to send their CCBill declines to any url, and in this case would be a another signup form using an alternate biller. But like I said it would be hard to pass that credit on to an affiliate so it's not a solution for most.

In order to use cascade billing for affliate traffic you need your own affiliate software and can't use CCBill's or whatever processor it is that you use. That is sort of like a double edge sword in itself as there are some paranoid affiliates that only trust CCBills link tracking software and do not trust the sponsors software whether it be their own custom coded or off the shelf software you can purchase. That's why we still let our affiliates who wish to use CCBills links do so.

Our motto is to try and make every affiliate happy as everyone is different and instead of trying to change their mind we find it easier to make available what they want instead.

Cheers,
BV

Actually there are several programs that don't use cascade billing yet as I find out each time I update sponsorspecs.
Do I think they should, yes - if for no other reason than to double check their business model for any chance of higher transaction numbers.

Although I agree with Venus that having a merchant account gives optimum control over your money, there are many that have the merchant accounts that still cascade with a 3rd party processor. There are benefits to covering all bases!

Venus, be glad you're cute or he would have just called you an idiot.

Exactly until (and hopefuly) the billing market changes its a bit useless to people incorporated in Europe to have cascade billing (talking about adult processing, since mainstream is a different animal)

Cascading software doesn't just cover the billing solutions -- and billing solutions aren't just from one third party to another either -- merchant accounts fit into cascading as well.

And the affilate tracking and analysis -- that's one that hasnt really been touched on, but if these software programs allow you to track and tailor your affiliate program in order to make the most money you can as a program owner -- because you can see which affiliates really are the most profitable and work to extend their profitability -- that alone would seem to be another really important reason for such a thing.

Kimmykim - most of the small programs don't process enoug volume that allows them to get a merchant account

This is true, but you can still cascade with checks and other alternative forms of billing as well --

Hmmmmm, have you ever considered what happens when your merchant bank decides they no longer want to process adult transactions or for whatever reason your gateway goes down?

There are a LOT of programs out there that does not use cascading billing.

There are a few reasons for this -

1. Smaller programs/companies cannot afford a full fledged affiliate program software and stick with the "single processor" solution. They dont see that the investment will pay them back in many ways once integrated.

2. Education - Due to lack of "adult industry education" many program owners dont understand that they are leaving a ton of money on the table when not cascading their processors. When set up correctly I would say they leave 15%-30% right off the bat.

3. Technical knowhow and the fear of trying - Operating a cascading solution does require some technical insight. Many program owners lack this and fear it.

Having many many clients use cascading billing for both third party processors as well as for merchant account holders (yes, we offer professional cascading for merchant account holders - works like a charm! See thread posted by MensNiche earlier: http://gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=396212 ) for more than 3,5 years we see that ALL clients make more money doing it with NO significant increase in CB ratio.

This discussion should really boil down to EDUCATION OF THE MASSES. And that YOU ARE NOT COMPETITIVE IF YOU DO NOT USE A CASCADING BILLING SOLUTION.

:2 cents: :thumbsup

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

my vote for dumbest post of the month.

Anything that has the potential to increase sales should be considered an investment, not a wasted expenditure of time or money, imo.

Of course 5 years ago when I was at CCBill I advised our client base on how to structure their join pages to capture the most revenue from the surfers. Programs like the ones we are talking about make it a point and click process to do so now, instead of having to do a lot of programming and testing in house. There are some companies that have great custom software, Lightspeed is one that comes to mind, and the investment that Steve made in it was huge, but if you ask him he will tell you just how worth it the expense was.

Seems like people dont like the truth and stop posting to threads once the truth is out in the open...

PS. See my post above...
PPS. See Kimmykims post above...


:2 cents:

Although there are differences in the algorithms used by the various processors, shouldn't these differences - in terms of the results they produce - reasonably be very small? If they are not small, shouldn't that issue be addressed rather than side-stepped by settling for cascading. Cascading may be better than nothing, but it only catches some of the lost customers, so surely it isn't a good substitute for tighter processing in the first place?

There are also issues of perception/reputation, cost, ease-of-use, but it surprizes me that there isn't a clearer view as to which is the best processor. The bigger sites in particular should be able to test which allows the most sales while trapping the maximum number of frauds. Yet their choice of processor suggests a mix of views, if actual views at all and not just habit.

With more objectivity, inefficient algorithms should cause the processors using them to lose business and their response to that pressure would reasonably be to tighten them up: to everyone's benefit. I suspect that the "safety net" of cascading is going to make people look at their processors even less critically than we appear to now.

Forgot to address it in my previous post...

Flynt Digital pays on all cascaded transactions :thumbsup

Actually jayeff, these are very good comments -- and each processor will tell you they are the best, and a certain segment of the clients will tell you that their processor is the best.

But with that said, there's really no way to guarantee that your primary processor is always going to have a lightning fast connection to their bank, that they won't be experiencing a DOS attack, or some other circumstance that can't be helped.

Scrubbing is also different at processors. And each processors list of automatic declines by country or BIN number is unique to the processor, based on their history with that piece of the puzzle.

What do you consider to be a reasonable variant among processors for scrub declines? 5%? 10% I don't see it as any more than that but nonetheless if one is scrubbing for some reason unique to them and the sale can and will go through at a different processor, then why wouldn't you want the income?

Or perhaps someone uses a different processor for checks, such as WTS, which is a very common situation. If the credit card join fails, and they fall back to the check processor through the use of the cc processors failure page, then the affiliate code is lost, and if the surfer signs up using a check after the cc failure, what happens? People come screaming shave, shave, shave... whereas using a cascade system the join would still be credited to the affiliate.

I'll address your last paragraph too, but it won't make you happy at all. The two remaining, legitimate, stable credit card processors have no reason to loosen up their scrubbing. At all. They aren't going to lose business because people complain. There is nowhere else to go. Most of the industry either doesn't understand merchant account management (as we've seen in this thread lol), doesn't want to bother with it (as many of the larger programs will tell you right up front), or can't get a merchant account because of past transgressions that cost them that ability.

Why every site out there doesn't have at least two credit card join options, one checking join option, the ability to accept Eurodebit, Asian credit solutions, phone billing, dialers, and magic beans if you can find a way to cash them in, is totally and completely beyond me.

Not necessarily, we have a bank that loves low volume adult for their mercs

KK - I love you. And if you didnt insist on being so darn independent I would hire you in a heartbeat! You are so right on all fronts!

Jayeff - good observation, but I think KK pointed out the other reasons FOR having a cascading solution with the extra bells and whistles that comes along in a full fledged affiliate program software.

I personally think that cascading billing makes everyone BETTER at what they do. From the program owners (my immediate concern) to the processors. And the bonus in this is that both parties makes more money in the process.

:thumbsup

Ok so we all heard the rumors true or not this does bring up an issue.

On re-bills for webmasters we ate the cost for webmasters for Ibill, WSB and for the Card Services International mess (Merchant Account), we made sure all MP webmasters were paid even thou we were not. What happens now if, for whatever reason, we lose one of the two remaining processors? Since we are based on a Revshare model, what will happen if we lose one or the other?

Sure we can get members to re-join but how the hell do you track that to a Webmaster sale?

The only way I can see to do this is to have a merchant account again, and bounce the database to new one as banks terminate accounts.

After doing this twice in the last year the "Pay Per Join" model is starting to looking pretty damn good

Also on Cascading with Ibill, CCbill, Epoch and Net Billing with Card Services International, Ibill always had larger sales, We thought the Net Billing system would have higher sales, this was not the case,

I posted this a year ago,

Cascading Billing A Better Way?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good idea, but does not work all that well, now what would work is when the script notices a high rate of declines it bumps that processor down and move another in it's place. Now that would be a real cascading billing system.

Is there any purpose to cascading when a site uses its own merchant account or does using a merchant account eliminate any benefits of cascading?

I only ask because I assume that the merchant account scrubbing will be set up custom for the merchant by the merchant to maximize sales, thereby making any cascading essentially irrelevant. Is this true or do most sites using their own merchant account still cascade?

Ok that answers my question. Can you name the benefits of cascading when you have your own merchant account?

reread what you just said.

they both spend an abundance on advertising and when you go to eat somewhere they only have those two choices. do you see a connection?

Like Kimmy correctly mentioned a few posts up, there is more to cascading billing software than just cascading. I do not know a single app that does cascading which does not offer more than that on top of it. That is why we do not advertise NATS as a "cascading solution", we advertise it as an general Administration and Tracking system which offers affiliate tracking, cascading, fraud protection, popup management, ad tool management, member management, advanced reports, and more...

There also is a form of cascading the people just do not realize. Everyone seems to think you can only cascade from CCBill to Epoch or the other way around. What about Cascading from CCBill Credit Card to WTS Checks? Or from CCBill Credit Card to Dialers?

There is ALWAYS a way to maximize your profits when doing advanced cascading in such ways.

Cascading over Merchant Accounts always makes sense. You might not see so many sales via secondary or later processors, but you will see some. You could also setup scrubbing high on your merchant account to make sure your chargeback rate there is as low as possible and then have sales go through a 3rd party biller which you are not so sure about yourself and feel the 3rd party biller will be able to better judge if they should let the sale through or not.

Not to use one is plain stupid. We had a custom one...

As a broad statement that is way too simplified. I get the impression some people expect all those who a rejected by one processor to be picked up by the second. But as KK wrote, the difference between one processor's algorithm makes the number of potential "saves" in the region of 5%-10%. Of those customers who might get through, not all will choose to try. This is pure guess, but 35%-50% do? Fairly optimistically, your sales might increase as much as 5%.

If you want to keep it very simple, your site has to be big enough for that 5% to cover the cost of the cascading software. But actually that 5% is sales and not profit. You also need to take into account affiliate payout, processing fees, etc and I think you must assume a higher risk for the cards that are blocked by one algorithm. To do otherwise is like saying that algorithm has gone beyond tough to plain wrong.

None of which is enough to make cascading software a bad idea, but I think it means everyone has to do their own sums and make their own decisions. Not just jump aboard because it is the flavor of the month.

There also seems to me to be a missing element in that the algorithms used by the processors not only seem to develop over time, but appear to be switched for short periods. With a static system, you have processor A followed by processor B. This doesn't seem to be a giant leap forward from the days when all the payment options were on one page to which surfers got returned if their chosen payment option failed. But if the selection were dynamic, choosing as the first processor the one which at that moment in time had the most accomodating algorithm, that could make much more difference.

And the fees per transaction must be good also ;)

BTW What happens if that bank you use changes their mind?

Nice sig sosan LOOOL

probably!

Sure :)
Well as KK mentioned you never know when a gateway might have an upstream problem in connections or a DOS attack. Although it isn't a normal occurance, we all know sh*t happens.

Having all additional payment options is a smart move imho, so if you don't have the merchant account for check processing, etc ... you are loosing potential sales. Afterall business means making money, if you cut yourself short by only offering cc payments, its the business owner that looses in the end.

Although nobody could convince me that having your own merchant account isn't the absolute smartest move paysite owners could make for themselves, I'd never say its the ONLY option they should consider.