Unfortunately this is the most accurate statement in this thread. I've yet to touch anything on NATS because of thier claim that it's impossible to shave using NATS. They make that statement either because they don't understand or they think we're idiots.

However, that being said, a good program can make plenty of money without shaving and possibly a lot more because they can get more webmasters interested.

Ohh please..
no offense Steve but

1) its not chump change 20% times thousands of afflitates is HUGE MONEY
Hundreds of thousands of dollars per year

2) the sponsors dont think they will get caught, Nobody ever thinks they are gonna get caught

3) the whole industry is setup to protect cheating sponsors, thats why they keep telling you.... settle it in email and not to take it to the boards blah blah blah

4)with the ip redirecting this stuff is very hard to catch

Actually an IP redirect would be one of the easiest things to catch. But I do agree with the other aspect of what you are saying which is that big companies can use attorneys to try and keep a person quiet - through law suits and/or settlements.

I have first hand knowledge of that being the case...

;)

Doing this to thousands of affiliates only increases the risk exponentially thus making it even more irrational.

Most accusations of shaving are baseless and borderline libelous. It is in the best interest of an affiliate to resolve an issue with the sponsor before resorting to a public forum. This is common sense.

This is a postdicitive conspiracy theory type statement. For example, someone suspects a sponsor is shaving, has no proof or evidence and then resorts to an explanation which can also not be proved and then says 'now prove to ME you arent shaving since you might be doing this'. This is the same logic conspiracy theorists base their arguments on - unproveable postdictive speculations.

Someone from PIBCash will be with you momentarily...

As a wise man once told me - unless you hack your way in and prove that they're not shaving you, they are...

Note that I'm not drawing conclusions about any particular sponsor here, only engaging in speculative debate, so...

I think your argument could go either way. If, as you say, accusations of shaving generally can't be proven, then it seems utterly illogical for a sponsor NOT to shave, since shaving clearly has a major positive impact on sponsor revenue, and cannot be proven absolutely from outside - only inferred by, as you say, "unproveable postdictive speculation."

"OK, guys, we can make a lot more money by shaving in ways that can't be proven and can simply be denied, or we can engage in 'ethics' and lose out on all the extra revenue." What do you think Mr. Trump would choose? How about Sony? Halliburton?

This is completely true.

I haven't been around as long as some, but I've run businesses for most of my adult life. I've never seen an industry so willing to protect cheaters.

If someone complains on a board about a sponsor...what happens to them? They usually get feasted upon by any number of sources that all have a vested interest in keeping the cheating sponsor afloat.

Now, ask yourself these questions:

1. If I were a dishonest sponsor who would I shave?

If I were a dishonest sponsor I would shave the small and the mid-sized affiliates. I would make sure that the big named reputation players never got shaved and got as many bonuses as possible.

2. How would I make sure that all complaints got shot down immediately in the most vicious manner possible?

If Dinkus McFarland, small time affiliate, dares to complain on a board about a sponsor what happens to him? He's ripped apart mercilessly by the sponsor, ripped apart by the big reputation guys who use the program and don't get shaved because they're a big name. Ripped apart by forum whores who's posting for points, prizes, etc...all supplied by board sponsors (which in some cases has been the accused sponsor).

After seeing poor Dinkus get ripped apart, getting ostracized, do you think many other small to mid-sized affiliates would complain? Hell no. Whistle blowers in porn usually have the whistle shoved down their throats.

Or even Gilead Inc - oh shit - I let that one slip - damn Rumsfeld and his ownership in the company that holds the rights to Tamiflu - the wonder drug for bird flu - hmmm I wonder why Bush is appropriating 7 bill for tamiflu (must not be because Rumsfeld was the CEO until 2001 and still has 25 mill stock options)

Frankly, from my perspective... such speculative hypothesis to infer a sponsor is cheating is just lame and assuming all sponsors cheat is even lamer.

I don't disagree completely. I know some sponsors cheat... in fact owners of certain programs told me in no uncertain terms that they have been shaving for years. I am not protecting them. I simply don't need another lawsuit right now.

I am involved in a major law suit in which just one of the issues is that we caught them red handed redirecting traffic to another program from our banners. That is a matter of public record. We would like nothing more than to have the suit be continued in a public forum like federal court where all the records would become public domain.

We are an open book. Any time CE wants to lift the gag order on our arbitration proceedings we would be happy to share every single document, taped deposition, anything and everything - thereby letting webmasters decide for themselves who is right or wrong based on the evidence.

The only reason we can do lawsuits like Acacia and CE is because we have nothing to hide and we are quite willing to put ourselves under such scrutiny where our books, software, etc. can become a matter of public record by being in court. We are open to audits. If you think we cheat then come have a look and prove it.

We don't have "friends" that would defend us. We have plenty of enemies that would love for us to be taken apart by such a scandal. Bring it on.

We run an honest program and insinuating that we don't is aggravating but assuming everyone cheats is just plain unreasonable.

|peace|

wheeeeeeeeeeeeee

www.adultlounge.com

actually there are alot of programs that don't shave.

I promise you Platinum Bucks does not shave.

Signup a test webmaster account, do as many transactions as you wish and test us :)

Then let me know what account so at least I don't pay you for test signups LOL!

PLATINUM BUCKS = HONESTY

Dave, the question of shaving isn't just a question of 1 signup = 1 pay. There are other ways to shave. Would you also say your program tracks all hits, doesn't geo redirect any surfers, doesn't pop consoles on top of traffic, and those consoles are all 100% to the benefit of the webmaster sending the traffic?

I don't ask this to attack - I truly don't know the answer, so I figued I would ask and see what you have to say... :)

Alex

Dave also not to attack you but no program in the world is gonna shave a new account

a new affliate is gonna take the tour, look around, check the code on the join page

and they want you to see some dollars, this way you will start putting links and ads everywhere

after a few months when your ads everywhere is when the shave starts

A lot of webmaster will know what i am talking about

they see their sales climb everyweek then after 2 months or so they flatline for a week or 2 then slowly start to decrease

|spam|

Also (and this is in no way directed to Platinum Bucks either) be sure to include credits refunding without explanation against otherwise valid sales with authorized charges that still mysteriously grant full access to the refunded card...

ccbill sponsors don't shave because they can't... :) but make sure you check the details of the program because some don't pay rebills for life...

Cheers!

I dont believe many affiliates shave. It would be the end to them.

If anyone has proof that any shaving goes on i think a topic for that with a sticky should be up..

If you sign up to a program that pays out $35+ per sign up on $1 trials and have their own affiliate back end then it's possible they are shaving, there's no way to know.

Chances are if you're promoting a program that pays rev-share you have much less chance they shave. I could be wrong but when you do the math it only makes sence.