Question.

Greenguy · 2013-02-27, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleo

I'm just the opposite. I prefer CCBill over NATS. At least with CCBill I don't have amounts below the minimum payout sitting in a sponsor’s bank account.

Oddly enough, I have learned to fucking LOVE NATS

StinkyPink · 2013-02-27, 10:49 PM

Thank you for your reply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreadbandit

New aff? Means you're planning to add more than ccbill?

We will always payout via ccbill, no question. After Ibill and WebmasterChecks, ePass, the only other option is zambaio and epoch. While I like epoch, we plan on adding them as a cascade within ccbill, along with segpay, whereas ccbill takes care of the accounting. As for zambaio, I am just too unfamiliar with them so, eh. *shrugs*

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreadbandit

Sounds like a good think to do (about request system) - I'd check it out but:
> I have rich history (10 years long) of personal dislike about ccbill based affiliate programs, and not just because stats takes some MINUTES to load... was using many sponsors in past and wasn't pleased - also my friend did for a couple of last years and when I've seen ratios (mostly se traffic) we've decided to drop all of them. It's sad because I see so much nice sites working just on ccbill, what a waste... Simply doing so much better with nats that has cascade billing and at least one alternative to ccbill.

We plan on integrating to NATS, or MPA3, or another viable option is sliiing. I like sliiing, but there is that unfamiliar feeling I just can't get past. I spent several months setting up NATS (with CCBILL), just to have everything just foul up at once so we just figured it wasn't for us and just cut our losss. However, it is STILL an option.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreadbandit

> I go for partnerships so my rule is to rather stay away from sponsors that don't give user trial option.

A few of our sites are smaller fan sites designed to be bonus material for members of lilcandy.com. We decided to put a small signup fee on them to allow affiliates the opportunity to make a few extra bucks. To each their own, they are very cute girls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreadbandit

> Don't touch nothing that's not updated daily - don't know about your sites. Don't want to be rude - just two things above says no anyway.

Our flagship site still updates, we try to keep it weekly, but the sauce is in the weekly webcam shows, and Candys Tweetly tweet tweets on twitter. She does requests and even goes on dates. We also have a couple niche sites to roll out in the near future. Lots of work!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleo

I'm just the opposite. I prefer CCBill over NATS. At least with CCBill I don't have amounts below the minimum payout sitting in a sponsor’s bank account.

I used to have that same problem. I would be a billionaire if I was just paid all the under-minimums I am owed from all the programs in the last 12 years lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greenie

Oddly enough, I have learned to fucking LOVE NATS

We may be aiming for NATS for the long term. Meanwhile, I am looking into sliiing to replace ccbtools, just dunno.

Greenguy · 2013-02-28, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StinkyPink

We may be aiming for NATS for the long term. Meanwhile, I am looking into sliiing to replace ccbtools, just dunno.

I think that's a new one to me - do you know any affiliate programs that are currently using it?

StinkyPink · 2013-02-28, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greenie

I think that's a new one to me - do you know any affiliate programs that are currently using it?

It was developed by a guy named Marco, also known as CHMOD. He has been around for awhile, seems like a dependable guy. I did get some sample urls but they were unknown to me, and some of them I couldn't even find the affiliate area, so I just don't know. There has been some threads where folks have said good things about it. Lets face it, this is a time in the industry where folks are sticking to what they kno, they just can't afford many 'mistakes' right now. It's no wonder there isn't much buz, and it's no wonder that onley newer or unknown programs may be using it. I feel this may be also because they find it via search engine as opposed to forums or resources where webmasters are used to the software/services they work with everyday.