AFF cuts down PPS to $55

[The Judge]

[budz]

what was it?

[mikesinner]

Revshare is better anyway but these days it's all shit.

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by budz

what was it?

Was $75.

[fris]

wasnt it 135$ pps at one point?

[budz]

Originally Posted by fris

wasnt it 135$ pps at one point?

i was gonna say something around that range too

but i think those were just promotions or may be big volumes?

I don't really promote them that much.

btw, I hate how they don't consolidate payment from all programs.
That's annoying. You too gammae/pornication :p

[seeandsee]

Originally Posted by The Judge

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by The Judge

send bush a thank u 2257 and all

[WiredGuy]

Hmmm, when did the cut happen? I never got notice of it.... Sagi, can you ICQ/email me?
WG

[Mr Pheer]

They didnt cut PPJ to $55.

The lowest payment on the new tiered payout is $55 and it goes up to $130 per join.

Beginning July 1, 2009, Adult FriendFinder is increasing your potential to earn even MORE money with our Tiered Per Order Payout Program! That means your earnings are based on the total number of orders you receive, so the more orders you get, the higher the payout per order!

Just another troll under the bridge....

[HookUPcom]

I'm just hear to go after there market share. ;)
Keepin' it real.
.

[The Judge]

For 1-6 sales per day it is now $55 and it goes up with volume. Most affiliates would be getting the $55.

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer

They didnt cut PPJ to $55.

The lowest payment on the new tiered payout is $55 and it goes up to $130 per join.



Just another troll under the bridge....

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

From AFFs SEC Filing last month:

The report of our independent registered public accounting firm includes an explanatory paragraph concerning conditions that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, and there is no guarantee that we will be able to continue to operate our business or generate revenue.

Our ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on our ability to raise additional capital, including from this offering. As of March 31, 2009, we had approximately $28.5 million in cash and restricted cash and $410.6 million in short-term debt, net of unamortized discount, $374.1 million of which had been reclassified from long-term debt, due to our failure to comply with certain covenants and restrictions in the agreements governing our 2006 Notes and 2005 Notes and our subsidiary?s First Lien Senior Secured Notes, Second Lien Subordinated Secured Notes and Subordinated Convertible Notes and for which waivers had not been obtained.

We have unsuccessfully sought to obtain waivers from all of our noteholders, except such waivers that have been obtained from an affiliate of Messrs. Bell and Staton relating to our Subordinated Term Loan Notes, for our failure to comply with certain covenants and restrictions contained in these agreements.

If we are unable to cure such defaults and/or obtain waivers, we could trigger the acceleration of payment provisions in such agreements which would require
us to immediately repay up to approximately $455.6 million to our noteholders.

We do not currently have sufficient cash to repay this indebtedness if our debt is accelerated and if the noteholders instituted foreclosure proceedings against our assets, the proceeds of the assets could be insufficient to repay such indebtedness in full. Under these circumstances, we may be unable to continue operating as a going concern.

In their report dated March 20, 2009, which is also included in this prospectus, our independent registered public accounting firm stated that events of default have occurred under certain of our debt agreements allowing noteholders to demand payment of our 2006 Notes and 2005 Notes, and our subsidiary?s First Lien Senior Secured Notes, Second Lien Subordinated Secured Notes and Subordinated Convertible Notes and that these conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

If doubts are raised about our ability to continue as a going concern following this offering, our stock price could drop and our ability to raise additional funds may be adversely affected. Any of these outcomes would be detrimental to our operations.

We have breached certain non-monetary covenants contained in agreements governing our 2006 Notes and 2005 Notes and our subsidiary, INI, has breached certain non-monetary covenants contained in its agreements governing the First Lien Senior Secured Notes, Second Lien Subordinated Secured Notes and Subordinated Convertible Notes.

We cannot assure you that we will be able to cure such defaults or events of default, obtain waivers and consents, amend the covenants, and/or remain in compliance with these covenants in the future.

Our debt agreements require us to maintain certain financial ratios as well as comply with other financial covenants relating to minimum consolidated EBITDA and minimum consolidated coverage ratio and negative covenants relating to restricted payments from INI to us and permitted investments. Certain of these ratios and covenants have not been maintained or satisfied primarily due to the unexpected VAT liability that was discovered after we acquired Various.

Furthermore, we and INI have failed to comply with certain non-monetary covenants contained within some of our debt agreements including the timely delivery of quarterly financial statements and officer?s certificates and the holding of quarterly meetings of our board of directors. We also failed to obtain the consent of the noteholders prior to taking certain corporate actions such as seeking their consent prior to changing our name from Penthouse Media Group Inc. to FriendFinder Networks Inc. and our subsidiary?s name from FriendFinder Network, Inc. to FriendFinder California Inc.

In addition, in connection with the Various acquisition, we failed to meet certain operating targets and timely deliver certain agreed-upon documents and take certain actions with respect to the granting and perfection of security interests after the acquisition of Various was completed, although such documents and actions were subsequently completed.

If our efforts to cure and/or obtain waivers for such events of default from our noteholders are unsuccessful in the future it could result in the acceleration of $455.6 million in debt. If all of our indebtedness was accelerated, we would not have sufficient funds at the time of acceleration to repay most of our indebtedness, which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue as a going concern.

We have a history of significant operating losses and we may incur additional net losses in the future, which have had and may continue to have material consequences to our business.

We have historically generated significant net losses. As of March 31, 2009, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $149.4 million. For the three months ended March 31, 2009, we had a net loss of $3.1 million. For the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, we had net losses of approximately $46.0 million, $29.9 million and $49.9 million, respectively. We also had negative operating cash flows in 2006.

We expect our operating expenses will continue to increase during the next several years as a result of the promotion of our services and the expansion of our operations, including the launch of new websites and entering into acquisitions, strategic alliances and joint ventures. If our revenue does not grow at a substantially faster rate than these expected increases in our expenses or if our operating expenses are higher than we anticipate, we may not be profitable and we may incur additional losses, which could be significant.

Our net losses cause us to be more highly leveraged, increase our cost of debt and make us subject to certain covenants which limit our ability to grow our business organically or through acquisitions. For more information with respect to the covenants to which we are currently subject, see ??Any remaining indebtedness after this offering could make obtaining additional capital reserves difficult and could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our growth strategy.?

ADG

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

...And then there are those pesky pending Legal Proceedings (excerpts follow):

Legal Proceedings

We are currently a party to several legal proceedings, including the ones discussed below. Management presently believes that the ultimate outcome of these pending proceedings will be favorable to us. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings could occur.

An unfavorable ruling could include monetary damages or, in cases for which injunctive relief is sought, an injunction prohibiting us from selling one or more services or conducting enjoined activities. Were an unfavorable ruling to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the business or results of operations for the period in which the ruling occurs or future periods.

On December 28, 2007, Broadstream Capital Partners, Inc., or Broadstream, filed a lawsuit against us in the State Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District, and we subsequently removed the case to the Federal District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud arising out of a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that Broadstream entered into a Non-Disclosure Agreement with us that required Broadstream?s prior written consent for us to knowingly acquire Various or any of its subsidiaries and that such consent was not obtained. On April 7, 2008, Broadstream filed its first amended complaint, which added a new cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. On February 4, 2009, Broadstream filed its third amended complaint which dismisses the allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud.

The complaint seeks damages which plaintiff alleges to be in excess of $20.0 million, plus interest, costs and punitive damages. Broadstream later served supplemental disclosures asserting between $100 million and $500 million in damages plus punitive damages. We responded with a motion for summary judgment dated March 12, 2009, which was denied. The plaintiff withdrew its claim for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The trial is set for July 28, 2009. We dispute all of Broadstream?s claims and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On December 23, 2005, Robert Guccione, our former president, filed an action against us and some of our officers, among other defendants, in New York State Court for breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, failure to pay severance and conspiracy to defraud. The amount of damages requested in the complaint against us is approximately $9.0 million and against the officers is in excess of $10.0 million. Some of the counts in the complaint also demand an unspecified amount of damages.

Mr. Guccione filed an amended complaint on June 5, 2007 to include additional claims relating to ownership of certain United Kingdom, Jersey and Guernsey trademarks and add as a party Penthouse Publications Limited, an entity with no current affiliation with us, as party plaintiff. Mr. Guccione agreed to dismiss the count for conspiracy to defraud only.

Mr. Guccione filed a second amended complaint on December 20, 2007 adding General Media International, Inc. an entity with no current affiliation with us, as party plaintiff and a new claim for inducement to breach a contract. We filed our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on January 31, 2008, which was granted in part and denied in part. The court dismissed the claims for unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel.

On August 14, 2008, Mr. Guccione filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. We filed a proof of claim on January 13, 2009. On March 3, 2009, the Trustee filed an Adversary Proceeding against the defendants in the New York state court action seeking to ratify agreements to purchase United Kingdom, Jersey and Guernsey trademarks and to establish the extent, perfection and priority of the defendants? liens in the New York state court action, on the shares of General Media International Inc. and the U.S. $200,000 held in escrow for the sale of the United Kingdom, Jersey and Guernsey trademarks.

Our response to the Adversary Complaint was filed May 14, 2009. Our response to the Second Amended Complaint is due June 25, 2009 and a Pre-Trial Conference is set for June 9, 2009. We and our officers believe that we have meritorious defenses to all claims and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On or about November 27, 2006, a claimant filed a consumer class action arbitration at Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc., or JAMS, in San Jose, California, alleging a nationwide class against Various, under a variety of legal theories related to, among other things, representations regarding the number of active users on its internet dating websites, causing the appearance of erroneous member profiles, and a failure to adequately remove or account for alleged erroneous member profiles.

The claimant is seeking unspecified damages. Various disputes the claims and intends to defend the arbitration vigorously.

In or about December 2007, Spark Network Services, Inc. served Various with a complaint for patent infringement and is seeking unspecified monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,272,467 B1 titled ?System for Data Collection and Matching Compatible Profiles.?

Various moved for a stay of the federal case due to the USPTO?s reexamination of the patent at issue and the Federal Court granted the stay. The suit is in very early stages, and we intend to vigorously defend the claims asserted therein.

On November 4, 2008, Balthaser Online, Inc. filed a lawsuit for patent infringement against us, among other defendants, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and is seeking unspecified monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,000,180 titled ?Methods, Systems, and Processes for the Design and Creation of Rich-Media Applications Via the Internet.?

This suit is in very early stages and we intend to vigorously defend the claims asserted therein.

After our acquisition of Various in December 2007, we became aware that Various had not collected VAT from subscribers in the European Union nor had Various been paying VAT to the appropriate tax jurisdictions. The resulting liability for such omissions has yet to be determined and there can be no assurance that we will reach a favorable accommodation with the tax jurisdictions.

We have registered effective July 1, 2008 with the tax authorities of the applicable jurisdictions and effective July 29, 2008 have begun collecting VAT from our subscribers in the European Union.

We have initiated discussions with these tax jurisdictions on resolving the liability and we have come to a resolution with respect to the liability in certain tax jurisdictions but there can be no assurance that we will reach a favorable accommodation with all of these tax jurisdictions.

If we are unable to reach a favorable accommodation with these tax jurisdictions, the terms of the payment of these liabilities could adversely affect our financial condition. Our primary recourse to the sellers of Various for any losses suffered by us as a result of such liabilities (VAT-related or otherwise) is to offset the principal amount of the Subordinated Convertible Notes by the amount of any such losses.

On October 14, 2008, we made an indemnity claim against these notes under the acquisition agreement for Various in the amount of $64.3 million due to working capital adjustments resulting from the VAT liability which was not disclosed at the closing of the acquisition. As of March 31, 2009, the total amount of historical uncollected VAT payments was approximately $74.1 million, including approximately $35.5 million in potential penalties and interest. The sellers have denied responsibility for the VAT liability.

On or about March 26, 2009, Kevin Cammarata filed a complaint against our subsidiary FriendFinder California, Inc. and other defendants in the State Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles in connection with their advertising on a free adult content website run by a third party known as Bright Imperial Limited. In April 2009, Various and FriendFinder Networks Inc. were added as defendants.

The complaint alleges that the defendants aided and abetted Bright Imperial Limited in engaging in below cost competition and unlawful use of ?loss leaders? in violation of California law by providing free, apparently professionally produced adult content. The plaintiff is seeking $10.0 million in damages, trebled to at least $30.0 million, plus injunctive relief and attorneys? fees.

On May 8, 2009, the Court denied the plaintiff?s request for an Order to Show Cause concerning its request for preliminary injunction, citing insufficient evidence among other factors. This suit is in very early stages and we intend to vigorously defend the claims asserted therein.

On or about April 22, 2009, Ms. Natalie Cedeno, the former human resources manager for Various, filed a complaint in State Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara against us and some of our related entities and executives for amongst other things, wrongful termination, breach of oral and written contracts, retaliation, discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The complaint appears to be for amounts according to proof and requests amongst other things compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney?s fees. We dispute the claims and we intend to vigorously defend the case.

ADG

[ChargebackJoe]

The only programme that still pays $75 regardless of volume is Dating Gold and it converts just as good.

[Si]

fuck 'em

[dav3]

Originally Posted by The Judge

[BAKO]

Aff rocks!

[kenny]

What does this SEC filing mean?

Are they broke? Broke as in GM?

Anyone got some links?

[wargames]

Originally Posted by ChargebackJoe

The only programme that still pays $75 regardless of volume is Dating Gold and it converts just as good.

[TampaToker]

Still pissed with them for keeping all my rebills after i stopped sending them traffic

[kenny]

Originally Posted by TampaToker

Still pissed with them for keeping all my rebills after i stopped sending them traffic

Why would they do that?

[TampaToker]

Originally Posted by kenny

Why would they do that?

Read the thread https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/832861-fuck-adultfriendfinder.html

Im the one brought this up and look who they replied too .....

[kenny]

Originally Posted by TampaToker

Read the thread https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/832861-fuck-adultfriendfinder.html

Im the one brought this up and look who they replied too .....

That is fucked up.

How come when Video Secrets tried this all hell broke loss:

http://www.gfy.com/showthread.php?t=...=video+secrets

(Let me add that Video Secrets did the right think and fixed their policy - so give them props for that)

But some how AFF is allowed a free pass??

So it is not really revshare than.. its a bait and hook tactic.. and if you think about the new PPS tier system an affiliate needs to send at least 50 sales per week (more than 6 daily) or you are going to be paid considerably less due to the tier system.

Now I have no problem with bonuses for big volumes of traffic.. but when a program is paying a whale affiliate more than twice the commission per signup as a small affiliate it looks to me like the small guys are getting considerably less to compensate the whales. Come to think of it.. its just not small webmasters its most webmasters since 7+ sales per day for one program is like $3000/weekly, $160,000/yearly, or about three times what the average American household makes.

So what happens if most of the small/average/kind of big webmasters wise up and leave and AFF is stuck paying just the high end of the tier?

Maybe I'm looking at this wrong or I don't have my facts straight but that is how it appears to me.

But if I'm right, than they deserve to go bust.

[ShellyCrash]

Say what you want about AFF, but you can't deny Conru was a very smart business man. Got out at just the right time.

[kenny]

Originally Posted by ShellyCrash

Say what you want about AFF, but you can't deny Conru was a very smart business man. Got out at just the right time.

For AFF revshare affiliates is like agreeing to a life-time cruise on the titanic?

What happens is they start losing some of these lawsuits for fake profiles and profiting from loss leaders?

What happens if it comes to the point where the loses are so great the money is no longer there to pay affiliates?

and please somebody explain how does a website this big get to the point where its deficits are so great for so long?

Is this mainly because of Penthouse or AFF? I admit I'm confused and speculating.

[ShellyCrash]

Originally Posted by kenny

and please somebody explain how does a website this big get to the point where its deficits are so great for so long?

The debt from my understanding mainly was generated by the purchase of the company by Penthouse from the founders.

AFF is huge, at this point, in my opinion, it's oversaturated. Most of AFF's target market (and even most people outside of it) at this point know who AFF is and have had an AFF membership. The rate of growth is slowing, I assume it's all about attrition and retention at this point. Probably why they are pulling back on loss leader offers.

Just my

[kenny]

Here is a link to a SEC document

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/da...186/i10505.htm

Lots of data there