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

[[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