Affiliate program growth
 

I'd like to put a question out there.
Answers will be somewhat opinionated I'm sure, but there should be some common ground.

Here goes.

I think it's normal and wise for a new affiliate program to exclusively use the services of CCBill initially, and I'm sure that most people would agree with me on that. My question however, is.. At what point do you make the decision to use your own stats program based on your program's growth?

Looking at it in strictly economic terms, that point would be when you're doing enough volume that the cost of implementing a self-hosted affiliate backend such as NATS, MPA3, etc., is more than offset by the reduction in fees and increase in sales afforded by using your own merchant account and cascading billing.

when you can afford it and have the servers needed.

but i would keep ccbill signup available for those who prefer it...

You didn't say if you were going to add another CC processor or not - if you're just gonna go with CCBill, then is there really anything that NATS or MPA has that you need?

Sure, they both have a lot of bells & whistles, but in the end, do they offer anything you can't do yourself or already have in the affiliate area???

on the one hand, yes - NATS and MPA offer superior stats for affliliates and program owners. it's much faster and easier to add promo content and free hosted galleries and it's easy to add linking options like trial, no trial and no console. and you can offer alternative payment methods ccbill might not offer like epassporte or wire.

but if i were getting NATS or MPA, i certainly would add epoch into the processor mix. i worked with a program that used both and they regularly saw 11% more sales by using both. you can't beat making 11% more sales for doing nothing ;)

IMO they are just about the worst stats there are, and offer no advantage whatsoever.

That has little bearing on the majority of webmasters.

Again it has little bearing on anyone but the 1-5 people that own the program.. For most affiliates its a shit fight just to get a single gallery.

Again advantage for a very few people only


IMO - NATS is a gimic/toy for program owners.

I agree with GG. Simple fast uncomplicated admins and GOOD quality aff. support is important.. the rest is just guff...

DD

Dildo...err...ditto :D

I agree with some & disagree with others:

Stats - yes, they are better then CCBill in that they have the individual totals for each site in the program (something I really wish CCBill would add since they looked be be set up for it)

Adding Content/Hosted Material - I can't really see how one is that mush easier than the other. With each, I assume you still have to upload it to the server. You then tell NATS/MPA where it is OR you edit your html pages with the location & upload them for the CCBill affiliates - different steps that take the same amount of time & end with the same results.

Trials/Consoles - I can't see how this is any different for either option - hell, it's probably another step with NATS/MPA because you still have to contact CCBill to get the options set up for the trials & then put that link code in your affiliate admin. With the fancy versions, you have to contact CCBill & then tell the admin where the trial option is & then generate the link codes. Consoles would be the same thing - make the console tour & set up the link codes in the admins for each.

Payouts - I could be mistaken, but I think you might be able to have CCBill send you (the program owners) the money for certain webmasters & then pay them yourself (I Know you can have all the money sent to you & then pay all the webmasters yourself, because NATS & MPA programs do that)

I think it really boils down to this: Do you (the program owner) have the money to pay for the fancy admins while not passing along the cost to the webmasters?

(and this is all assuming that you're still only using CCBill & not multiple processors)

No third party stats/processing solution will ever be as trusted by affiliates as CCBill. Any time a sponsor puts software between the affiliate and the end processor, another level of trust has been removed.

I'm happy to read these thoughts from you guys. For us it's never been a question of being able to afford it, but of trust & convenience. Nobody can question the integrity of Ccbill's stats, nor that of a program relying on them. I am also not convinced that any of the big cascading scripts are tamper proof. "Shave" has a fluid definition, and I don't really want to risk being associated with something that might one day reveal itself to be vulnerable.
Finally, we specialize in tiny niches. When someone signs up to our program, they are often experimenting, and don't necessarily want to commit to $100 minimums. Our sites take a special touch to promote and we accept that we're not for everyone.

I worry about some of the newer programs out there that use these scripts. It's far too easy for them to simply disappear with everyone's money, since it's sitting in their bank account rather than a 3rd party's.

The only people that worry me are the ones that say their system cannot be shaved. Either they know they're blowing smoke up my ass or they don't understand the issue.

I suspect that the very fluid definition of shaving gets manipulated an awful lot.

Not that I'm trying to defend them, but I think they they do offer at $50 minimum payment option (and who knows, it might be an option the program owner can set to whatever amount they desire)

I think if a program isn't using nats, mpa, etc etc or their own affiliate software and is using ccbill etc then they are probably only playing 'sponsor'.

I have used or worked with programs that use Jettis, Epoch, CCbill, even Verotel ... and have used their affiliate software. I can honestly say that the affiliate software provided by these 3rd party processors simply can't compare to Nats on almost every level except maybe some affiliate ease of use areas. Not only that but I know for a fact that CCbill does not do affiliate tracking particularly well, and there are many sales that are made by an affiliate that never credited to an affiliate.

You would be an idiot to shave in today's competitive program arena. You wan't every single sale an affiliate makes to be credited to them to keep them promoting your program, and I know that Nats does a wonderful job of that... and feel their affiliate tracking is probably the best of the game.

My advice is if you are starting a program, start with affiliate management software straight off the bat.... it will save you hassles down the line and you will be taken more seriously by many higher volume affiliates.

If that's true & the program is using NATS or MPA, wouldn't the sale still not be credited to the affiliate? I mean, if CCBill (or any processor) screws it up, the fancy program would, by default, screw it up as well since it's just reporting the info the processor gives them.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Our stats backend works on the session ID system for example. It's at our level that the referral is made, not at the processor level.

Some good points here all around but I would have to say that to be more in control of your affiliate program and your affiliates, one would eventually have to take on a NATS, MPA, or similar service in order to grow and keep up with one's own growth.

The bells and whistles aren't just that... they are necessary tools and you want to keep things simple and uncomplicated for the affiliate or they will go away to someone else's program. Cascading billing is also a must. Once upon a time it was "nice to have" or a marketing point. Now it is fully expected by the affiliate.

If I were just starting out a new program, I think I would want to come out of the gates with my own backend control.

Before you insult several of the people here, you might consider that not everyone feels the need to rely on a program to support their business. There are MANY people running quality sites that manage to succeed without jumping at the newest trend. They do it on their own terms, with accountability and integrity being paramount. They answer to their members first & foremost, and if such policies discourage some affiliates, then so be it.
Every one of these webmasters has an emotional attachment to their business. They do not engage in the 'playa' game, fill their sites with tons of the cheapest purchased content available, or bill their customers in unfamilliar currencies to make a quick buck and piss off their customers in the process.
While not inherantly necessary, these same webmasters open their doors to affiliates, offer fair terms and share a quality product that both they and affiliate can succeed with. They are not 'playing sponsor', but rather they are operating under a different business model which does not require all those bells & whistles.

Do you know that if you had said that in the original post, this thread would have taken a completely different turn?

Everything I posted in here was based on a program that was using CCBill changing to NATS or MPA just for the bells & whistles while NOT using the cascading billing option & sticking with just CCBill as a processor.

And believe me when I say that I am talking out my ass when it comes to the program's admin as far as any of these (not what the affiliate sees) - the only one I've ever seen was CCBill's & the last time I looked was 2 or 3 years ago.

Greenguy, I think that making the switch just for the extra bells & whistles isn't a very smart move. The main reason (as I see it) to make the move to a NATS would be to have a better control of your program.

The ability to bill with any processor (even your own merchant accounts) being paramount here. The extra gadgets such as hosted galleries etc. are indeed a plus, but that sort of thing can be easily programmed outside the boundaries of NATS if desired.

For me, using your own stats comes down to growth, as indicated in the thread title.

Amen, Emmanuelle.

The use of NATS does not a quality program make.

In my view, NATS counts against a program when I am assessing it for 'use'.

DD

Ditto.

It seems the whole issue boils down to trusting the sponsor you are working with. Having a certain software does not magically make anyone more money. Affiliate support and great content is key.

But I've dealt with both CCBill only and Nats programs and MPA3 etc. I know the feelings of some of the older programs trying new technologies and softwares. I dealt with the same thing when alot of the old distributors were hesitant to make the jump to DVD. The word "fad" came up alot. Heck, most of those old pro adult companies considered the internet as a fad as well. They're singing a different tune now. Many of the established CCbill companies have been burned by the ibill of the world, etc. And we all know the old expression, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"

Having a Nats style affiliate software can enable you to make your partners and yourself more money if it is utilized correctly. There is no question about it. I have no idea why CCBill hasn't made their affiliate software better. It's been something that's been asked of CCbill for years. I know there are aspects of the obtaining of the promotional content that can be a pain to get to in Nats if you're not used to it. But one of the great things in Nats is tracking every campaign you create. So if you place a banner, or gallery or ad, you (the affiliate) can see how it's doing.

With my new program I had the option to start with the CCbill based program, and I did consider it. By using only CCbill only business model, a sponsor does not have to think about sending out affiliate checks, setting up additional processors, etc. But a few things lead me away from that business model. Cascading billing to help my partners get those additonal sales. The ability to direct certain countries to certain billers. It is more work to have Nats or similar program, but the tools are worth it. There are some features that might be bells and whistles, but those are only if you don't use them. Again though, it falls back on the integrity of the program it's self. If you as an affiliate and parter are worried about not getting paid and do not want to promote the program, it's all for nothing.

And for the minimum payments and such, a program can set their minimum to whatever they want. I have the IslandDollars minimum set at $25, which is a little less than 2 sales.

I already know of a few estabished older, larger CCBill based programs that will be taking the plunge to different affiliate software. You know why? Because they have no idea where their traffic comes from, or how to improve their programs. That is the truth. They will also keep their old program operating for any affiliates that do not want to switch over.

If anyone wants to talk more, I try to always be around on IcQ. :)

Sorry for the late response, was enjoying a weekend holliday :)

Anyhow, when using ccbill or any other processor through an affiliate software management system like mpa or nats you are sending the surfer to the actual software which then sends it onto the processor. Its the nats/mpa software that is calculating signups, crediting accounts etc ... ccbill is only processing the transactions.

There are many sponsors which use ccbill processing but use their own affiliate software to keep track of sales etc ... pussycash would be one example.

As chris said cascading is just one example where software like nats and mpa can really help pick up on extra sales, along with the ability to have as many payment methods as you want but still all are credited to the affiliate.

Fair enough ... and not my intention to insult people :) It was just my opinion formed from my many years in this business and I just voiced it because it related to this thread.

Though I warn about being too emotionally attached to your business, though having pride in what you've built may have been what you meant. Overly emotional business men and women are a pain to deal with and usually find it hard to foster more than a handful of good business relationships.

Thanks for the advice coach. How about you run your business the way you see fit, and I will run mine as I have since '98 as I see fit; without criticizing each other's respective business plans.