That's true! . . . . although I was wearing my lab coat & goggles at the time :D

While there is no doubt that adult generates big money, as an example compare it to the billion dollar yearly industry that is just adwords/Ypn. (Yes I know adult uses it but it's a minor % compared to mainstream)

That is just 1 industry in mainstream. You can also add in the millions made by each of the different publisher networks, such as clickbank, cj, roirocket and so on.

Then there is the shitload that is made pushing Pharma & Replicas.

There is also the multi million dollar field of mlm. Each with it's different areas. One example is payed info forums, with hundreds of thousands of members each paying $99 a month for access.
-
As for the Cb issue. A lot of high volume programs use Offshore MA's. They do this as the CB ratio is much higher then the USA level, which gives them more room to work. They also most likely rotate the joins through several MA's so that they don't burn them.

As for customers that claim a CB, you'd be surprised to know that not every customer calls their bank. Most just move on.

-N

In many cases it is not that easy to file a CB. Some banks are a pain in the ass and ask you to get in contact with the program and even ask you for prove of it or threaten you that a CB will automatically cause your CC to be replaced by a new one.

My guess would be that many users will just swallow the 80 bucks and move on as you said, but they will draw their consequences: they will never ever join a porn site again. They will use Google to locate a tube site and enjoy their payback from the porn industry.

BTW: I just noticed a similar screen on a signup page from the same biller, where it would cost around 110$ if the surfer wasn't aware of the prechecked buttons and the small text on the very bottom of the page.

I found this cross-selling scheme on a lot of programs and as a revshare affiliate I was having the imagination that - under NATS at least - I would be receiving a shave-free share of the sales. I am sure it's not a NATS problem, but it certainly shows, that NATS programs have a possibility to play crazy games with the term 'shave free' ... or am I getting this wrong?

There are lots of ways to "shave" the affiliate that don't involve manipulating the data after the sale. I'd have to agree that cross sales on revshare is certainly one of many.

However, that wasn't my concern when I started this thread. I'm more concerned with the deceptive use of cross sales to take advantage of the customer. Whether they actually charge back or not, they're not likely to buy a porn site membership again anytime soon.

I was thinking the same exact thing the other day when I started reading this thread. The reason recips have to be above the Enter link is because surfers don't look below the Enter link. When a purchaser gets to the purchase place I would think he stops scrolling. If a checked box is below where he makes his purchase it's the same as recips under the enter link and usually doesn't get seen.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Twistys now has no-xsell link codes available for both their revshare and PPS programs, 60% vs 70% and $25 vs $30. They're in the process of adding FHG's with those same options.

BosBucks have said that they now also have a no-xsell option, and OCCash have said they will be adding one too.

It also appears that JuggCash (Brazzers et. al.) have now moved their pre-checks above the submit. Not sure if all the pre-check threads on the boards was the motivation or if perhaps a processor took them to task. Either way it's a step in the right direction, albeit a small one.

True, but some percentage will definitely charge back, and given the punitively low allowable chargeback ratios that Visa/MC have imposed on the adult industry, I have a hard time believing that these sorts of tricks are really good business for the sponsors.

I agree with Greenie that it's up to the buyer to pay attention to what he's agreeing to, but I also think that the practices that Toby is pointing to are gonna bite the sponsors in the ass.

That example Toby posted up is very deceptive, it's not clear at all what you're getting.

$80 could mean alot to some people that can't afford it so shame on the desperate sponsors that mislead people like this.
If they need a fix that badly they only have to say and we'll have a whip round.

I'll have to agree with EC on this one. Those programs that have the prechecked stuff hidden from view are the ones I have the real problem with. It's shady, it's deceptive, and it's for all intents and purposes straight-up thievery.

Having them visible on the page is nothing compared to that.

This is good to see happening. |thumb