Are These New Piece Of Shit Options Now Standard In NATS?

[Linkster]

I guess I have a big misunderstanding here - I have quite a few programs that I promote that use ccbill and paycomm at the same time as a backup - I dont get seperate checks from them - thats handled by the sponsor - its the sponsors minimum I have to meet not ccbills or paycoms
So using that example of 20 sales and 1 sale gives me an uneasy feeling of your understanding of sponsor programs???

[PBucksJohn]

Originally Posted by Linkster

I guess I have a big misunderstanding here - I have quite a few programs that I promote that use ccbill and paycomm at the same time as a backup - I dont get seperate checks from them - thats handled by the sponsor - its the sponsors minimum I have to meet not ccbills or paycoms
So using that example of 20 sales and 1 sale gives me an uneasy feeling of your understanding of sponsor programs???

I said when the processors handle the payouts. Someone who has a full custom backend and does their own payouts is the same as someone running NATS. There are people who will buy $50 scripts that will send someone to processor B when processor A denies the customer and they have both processors issue checks. That is the situation I was referring to.

I have been in this industry since 1996. My understanding of affiliate programs is just fine, no need to feel uneasy about it.

[Linkster]

In answer to your statement about someone using the two processors with separate checks - I can only think of one program that does that - and have for at least 6 or 7 years - and I think I use a little over 300 sponsors but I suppose someone out there could be doing their own cascading
So again - Im still a little uneasy since you seem to use that as a major selling point and really emphasize the issue - when it doesnt seem to be an issue?

[PBucksJohn]

Originally Posted by Linkster

In answer to your statement about someone using the two processors with separate checks - I can only think of one program that does that - and have for at least 6 or 7 years - and I think I use a little over 300 sponsors but I suppose someone out there could be doing their own cascading
So again - Im still a little uneasy since you seem to use that as a major selling point and really emphasize the issue - when it doesnt seem to be an issue?

It was mentioned as a problem. Its not a "major selling point". It wasn't even brought up by me.

[[BV]]

Originally Posted by PBucksJohn

I said when the processors handle the payouts. Someone who has a full custom back end and does their own payouts is the same as someone running NATS. There are people who will buy $50 scripts that will send someone to processor B when processor A denies the customer and they have both processors issue checks. That is the situation I was referring to.

That's how BVCash is set up, affiliates can choose who they want as primary and it cascades from there. Checks are issued by CCBill and Paycom. The merge CCBill account feature is just too much for me to pass up. I get too many small TGP affiliates signing up every day to go away from 3rd party billing. I don't care if they only do 1 sale a week or even every 2 weeks. I am close to 2000 affiliates now and most of them fit that category. You've seen the "Spam me with CCBill sponsors" threads before.

Our script is far from a $50 script though. It has alot of the same bells and whistles NATS has. Some even before NATS had them. In fact we probably would have bought NATS but it wasn't available in 2001 was it?

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by [BV]

...You've seen the "Spam me with CCBill sponsors" threads before...

Side Note: Be VERY CAREFUL with anyone you see starting one of those threads - there's a lot of scumbag webamsters using Zango to con signups away from webmasters promoting CCBill sponsors.

[[BV]]

Originally Posted by Greenie

Side Note: Be VERY CAREFUL with anyone you see starting one of those threads - there's a lot of scumbag webamsters using Zango to con signups away from webmasters promoting CCBill sponsors.

true, I'm sure it happens, maybe we need a zango blacklist of known webmasters that buy traffic from Zango


like those tgp submitter blacklists i've heard about

Based on my experiences most of these posts are from people starting what I call a "Fake TGP" (One that's all FHG's and no submissions), or other similar business models that require a lot of sponsors.

I have even seen posts of people wishing they could merge their NATS checks. Obviously they are clueless and that is impossible, they are just frustrated.

It's a big thing, the merge feature. Are all or most of your CCBill sponsors merged under your main ccbill acct for link o rama?

Oh and I agree with you about the ccbill sub account thing. The problem there is in order to do it that way you the affiliate would have to sign up for each new sites sub account. Not too big a deal but most sponsors think that's a bad idea, especially if they have 20 sites. So they usually have "Account Grouping" & "Multiple Redirects" enabled so you can send traffic to any of their sites and only sign up once.

But from what I've heard that will be addressed also in CCBills next version.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by [BV]

...It's a big thing, the merge feature. Are all or most of your CCBill sponsors merged under your main ccbill acct for link o rama?

Oh and I agree with you about the ccbill sub account thing. The problem there is in order to do it that way you the affiliate would have to sign up for each new sites sub account. Not too big a deal but most sponsors think that's a bad idea, especially if they have 20 sites. So they usually have "Account Grouping" & "Multiple Redirects" enabled so you can send traffic to any of their sites and only sign up once....

1 - yes, I did finally merge most if not all of them under 1 account (I find one I missed every few weeks)

2 - I've only signed up to you one time, but CCBill shows stats for 0000, 0002 & 0003

[digifan]

Originally Posted by Greenie

Side Note: Be VERY CAREFUL with anyone you see starting one of those threads - there's a lot of scumbag webamsters using Zango to con signups away from webmasters promoting CCBill sponsors.

Oh wow.. thanks for this info, I didn't know that