business thread: whats the natural % of traffic loss?
 

all this recent talk about zango, got me thinking about this. sponsor shaving aside, id guess there is a 'natural' loss of about 12-15% from the traffic sent. what am i missing here?

Tracking Issues - you dont credit for the sale (surfer had cookies disabled, sponsor did not have ip or pixel tracking, surfer had a weird browser, or some other technical issue where the sale went through, but you did not get credit for it)

Spyware theft - Zango or some other company switches affiliate codes or redirects traffic. i figured about 4-6% of adult computers have zango on it and aprox 1/2 to 1/4 of them have something that may change your credit for the sale of your specific sponsor

Surfers directly typing in the url


Tracking issues 9%
spyware theft 2%
Surfers directly typing in the url 1%

interesting question, BUMP

I would say direct typing might be even less than 1 pct.

I doubt 99,9 pct. of surfers ever thought about what that "refer.ccbill.com" or ref codes when they click on the site means. I doubt 99,9 pct. of the surfers have a clue about what affiliate marketing means..

On the other hand - now I get it - in fact it's more like they visit the tour with your refcode and remember the site url to come back typing it in directly for new trailers etc. - so in that case it could be that 1 pct. or maybe even more..

But that's the way it is, if you are a reseller you will never prevent them from buying the same product directly or somewhere else.. :2 cents:

well, i was thinking realistically, if i sent 100 hits to a sponsor, about what % can i just discount as a "natural" loss. ie loss due to a variety of difficult to prevent circumstances? i think its about 15%

then i just wanted to break down what i thought the factors were and see if anyone else thought i was way off. interesting how the hoopla about zango, its impact is smaller than others, imo

bump bump

I don't think it's really relevant, those "costs" are already included in the payout... that is, if lets say losses are 10%, and sponsor pays $40/signup, then without these losses the sponsor would be able to pay only $36 or so... however, this only applies to losses that go to the sponsor, for losses from spyware, etc, everyone involved (affiliate + sponsor) gets fucked....

The type in traffic has to be much higher than people think.
Not sure how one would go about for getting statistics for this, but I would assume it to be much higher than 1%. Afterall, take a look how many programs put HUGE logos with urls on their tours/galleries/images/movies/creatives, etc.. Sure they're branding their products, but they're also generating type ins through this.

Type ins are great for the affiliate IF the surfer does not delete cookies and joins after type in before your trackers expiration, which for most programs is only 24 -72 hours

I suppose one should also count non convertable traffic as a loss too, but this is a controllable loss as you have the ability to filter it & redirect it to something that can convert that traffic.

For example, countries that can't be billed by biller or not accepted by program. If unfiltered it's a loss, but since you can control it you can make it beneficial

thats one way to look at it. i guess another way would be that if *somehow" that 10% operational loss margin would disappear, would that sponsor drop their payouts to $36? No. the $40 dollar payout is the market rate, they would pay $20 if it would give the same results

but that aside, i was trying to feel out whether my % were accurate

I disagree with this logic. If payouts are $40 they are that because it's how much they need to pay in order to get a certain amount of traffic.
If they pay more they get more traffic but a lower margin, if they pay less they get a higher margin but less traffic. What they decide to pay is based on where they think the "sweet spot" is.

Also, losses from spyware can hurt the affiliate and not the sponsor, all they have to do is change the refcode from mine to theirs, the sponsor gets the same amount of sales, but my checks shrink and the spyware people make bank.

I think this is one of the main reasons we haven't seen anyone go after the spyware companies in a big way. The people with the deep pockets aren't being affected. :2 cents:

plus its a huge risk. think of the cost of going after a zango for instance. huge mainstream companies are leaving them alone, its a company full of attorneys. who wants to put out 2-3million+ in order to fight a *cause*