Anyone on a Flat Rate Advertising Deal?

[Gambleri]

Are there any affiliates here who have negotiated flat rate advertising deals? What kind of traffic were you getting as you negotiated the deal? Are you paid up-front? Do you negotiate monthly or is it for several months at a time? Have you been happy with the arrangement?

Most gambling affiliates are on revenue share. While that can be exciting at times, it's poor business in the long run. You give all the power to the affiliate program and put yourself in a weak position (the affiliate program can decide how much to pay you, when to pay you, and even remove you from the program whenever they please).

And yes, you can negotiate a better revenue share deal, of course, but ultimately you put yourself in a weak position even if it's better than the standard affiliate revenue share deal.

[TheGooner]

Most gambling affiliates are on revenue share. While that can be exciting at times, it's poor business in the long run.

You'll have a LONG argument to convince me that you can get a better flat rate / CPA return over a good rev-share.

Typically if your flat rate / CPA deals do not return a good return to the program then they will be terminated / converted into rev-share.
And if you over-perform on flat-rate (giving a great return) then you'll never know / benefit.

But if you have real world examples of where this HAS ALREADY worked for you then I'd be pleased to read about it.

[Renee]

What Gooner said.

If the flat deal is not working for the program they will be cutting it off next renewal. If it's working, you'll be losing money.

Affiliate managers talk to each other too, so if your campaigns are not performing on a flat rate and the program decides not to renew, the programs you approach to replace them will ask the previous groups how you performed. Each site performs different with each program, but it doesn't look good for you in this case for example.

Revshare is always going to be better in the long run.

[Syndicate]

The only argument i would have with Gooner - He's a long term established affiliate, and first moment advantage means he has recurring revenue.

However, their is nothing proprietary about owning a website and directing traffic to advertising partners, and their's an argument for suggesting it's the gaming operators job to convert.

Add to that a lot of programs are ''reneging and cheating'', and cookies often mean the real seller of a betting/gaming service isn't getting paid. By that i clearly mean ''first click'' counts for a lot.

I have a few older established businesses were i can set the terms and profit accordingly. Nevertheless, it's not true in the affiliate game, so i've had to be more innovative and adapt. I've used flat rate deals often, and i'm now of the opinion that i don't want long term relationships. Afterall, the world revolves and situations change and so should business.

The DNA of business is - How am i going to make money!!

Gooner - I don't mean the above in any disrespectful way - it's just that what works for one doesn't necessarily work for the other. Everyone has to decide their own strategy, while being innovative with their strategic focus!

[Gambleri]

You'll have a LONG argument to convince me that you can get a better flat rate / CPA return over a good rev-share.

How much money per player will you make on a revenue share deal compared to a CPA deal or a flat rate deal (relatively)? How long would it take to make that money on revenue share?

Is getting a higher amount in monthly payments over a couple of years a better deal than getting a lower amount right now? There’s something to be said for getting $x now instead of getting $y in revenue share, especially if the difference between y and x is relatively small. You can invest the money you get up-front right away and, in two years, it probably has turned into more money.

Typically if your flat rate / CPA deals do not return a good return to the program then they will be terminated / converted into rev-share.

Why does it have to be terminated or converted? Can't you just agree on a lower deal or switch affiliate programs if it's not working for the other party?

And if you over-perform on flat-rate (giving a great return) then you'll never know / benefit.

Can't you still keep a track of how many clicks, registrations, depositors, etc. you're delivering?

If an affiliate goes to an affiliate program and tells them his/her historical player values and average monthly depositors (also, in case of a high-traffic site so there’s brand visibility benefits and some % of the depositors are currently not being tracked to the affiliate correctly), the affiliate should be able to negotiate a deal that makes sense, right?

And even if that deal is, for example, $8,500 up-front compared to $10,000 you can make on revenue share over the years, wouldn’t that make all the sense in the world? No risk, stable income, invest the money in advance, etc.

[Gambleri]

If the flat deal is not working for the program they will be cutting it off next renewal. If it's working, you'll be losing money.

Why do you presume the deal is not going to work? In many cases, you have plenty of statistics to work with. It's not rocket science. You could even agree to a 1-2 month test run where the pay is lower and agree that the rate goes higher if things work smoothly.

And even if an affiliate program overpays momentarily, you can just set a lower deal for the next month (and vice-versa). Why would it not working mean you automatically have to go back to revenue share?

Affiliate managers talk to each other too, so if your campaigns are not performing on a flat rate and the program decides not to renew, the programs you approach to replace them will ask the previous groups how you performed. Each site performs different with each program, but it doesn't look good for you in this case for example.

Nobody's implying the affiliate is going to screw over the affiliate program or hide any details. Quite the opposite, these deals should be made with transparency, in a way that both parties benefit from them.

Revshare is always going to be better in the long run.

For the affiliate program, yes. Otherwise that’s crazy talk.

How much better off are the affiliates of Full Tilt Poker (2011), Lock Poker, Revenue Jet, Carbon Poker/Casino/Sports, even PokerStars (changes terms and shuts down affiliate accounts however they please). There are tens, perhaps hundreds of examples of similar incidents. Only one party benefited in those situations, and it sure wasn't the affiliates.

It’s in the interest of the affiliate program to set you up with a deal that comes with zero up-front costs for them (wisely, some affiliates require a fee to get the partnership started, but that’s it) and the power to do whatever they want with your account.

I’m not saying affiliates should have all the power either. It’s just that somehow affiliates have given all the power to the affiliate programs and, amazingly, are convinced that this is the best deal for the affiliates. Of course the affiliate managers are going to tell you that.

[TheGooner]

I have a few older established businesses were i can set the terms and profit accordingly. Nevertheless, it's not true in the affiliate game, so i've had to be more innovative and adapt. I've used flat rate deals often, and i'm now of the opinion that i don't want long term relationships. Afterall, the world revolves and situations change and so should business.

The DNA of business is - How am i going to make money!!

Indeed it is - and I agree that every website, every market and every affiliate will have different profile. SO I appreciate your input - and your viewpoint Mr Syndicate even when it differs from mine - as I said ... if posters have existing examples then please share.


Another part of business is also to understand your partner, and work well with them to maximise revenues. Partnerships are best for BOTH parties when they are productive ... and a rev-share deal puts gives both sides the same agenda - signups and profits.

A fixed rate deal will probably include riders and rules on number of impressions per month, site positioning and such like especially if it's for a significant amount - and that is just wasted money and time for both parties if the partnership is not working. It also makes it hard for the affiliate website to structurally change their approach with restrictive fixed rate deals.

If you have large traffic, freebie players and bonus hunters then perhaps a fixed rate deal is a good short term idea for an affiliate - until your partner feels burned because they can't convert the traffic into profits. The program has paid out in advance and not got payback - bad news in he long term.

However, by taking a rev-share deal an affiliate is effectively backing themselves to provide converting players - at zero up front cost to the program - and typically that low risk arrangement for the program results in a larger share and more profitable agreement for the affiliate.

SUMMARY :
As you have said : it is about business decisions and business deals and I agree.

In my opinion (and based on past experience) if your site has value and your traffic has value then typically rev-share is the best way for affiliates to unlock the best payoff for that share, and other paid agreements like CPA, tenancy and fixed-rate have lower potential payback for high value sites.

I expect each of my players to be worth high xxx to low x,xxx on average to the program - some players turn out to be xxx,xxx (!!) and I can't find matching CPAs, fixed rates anywhere to tempt me off rev-share.

[Gambleri]

Another part of business is also to understand your partner, and work well with them to maximise revenues. Partnerships are best for BOTH parties when they are productive ... and a rev-share deal puts gives both sides the same agenda - signups and profits.

Why would the agenda change on a flat fee deal? You're still trying to deliver maximum value to the affiliate program - that way you can negotiate a higher deal in the future.

If you have large traffic, freebie players and bonus hunters then perhaps a fixed rate deal is a good short term idea for an affiliate - until your partner feels burned because they can't convert the traffic into profits. The program has paid out in advance and not got payback - bad news in he long term.

That's both a bad deal and a bad idea -- one that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

The idea is not to take an advantage of the affiliate program (or the other way around). Both parties can (and should!) benefit from the deal.

However, by taking a rev-share deal an affiliate is effectively backing themselves to provide converting players - at zero up front cost to the program - and typically that low risk arrangement for the program results in a larger share and more profitable agreement for the affiliate.

Would you somehow be less willing to provide converting players if you were on a flat rate deal, knowing that you probably wouldn't be able to renew the same rate if your conversions decline? Or that you probably would be able to negotiate a higher deal if your conversions improve?

In some ways, this might actually make you work harder to create conversions

I expect each of my players to be worth high xxx to low x,xxx on average to the program - some players turn out to be xxx,xxx (!!) and I can't find matching CPAs, fixed rates anywhere to tempt me off rev-share.

True, some players will be significantly more valuable than others, but the idea is to look at the average and get paid based on that.

[Sherlock]

I only know people who are on those deals. I do not know details, but they get a huge premium to display ads. The trick is that you have to be really special, like some main newspaper or clear #1 in some niche. But even with the premium I think it does not pay off longterm if you have a converting traffic.

For advertiser this pays off only if you have a good sales team, not so good traffic and you hit some big corp like Ladbrokes or Bwin, who just got their quarterly budget for burning (exactly this expression is being used and exactly that happens).

I agree there can be deals worth of it, but for sure not for one/few men show. Because most of the deals will certainly be bullshit. So I do not even read the offers, when I am getting them. I once explained the situation like that, ended with rev share by the brand and I think I did this right.

But I am not doing poker and I am happy I am not doing that, so there are still decent affiliate programs. Still I would rather stick with CPA than with flat rate, because CPA can be correlated with value of the traffic better.

PS. Flat rate is for me CPC, CPM or something like that, not CPA.

[WagerJoint]

Are there any affiliates here who have negotiated flat rate advertising deals? What kind of traffic were you getting as you negotiated the deal? Are you paid up-front? Do you negotiate monthly or is it for several months at a time? Have you been happy with the arrangement?

I have negotiated quite a few flat rate deals with affiliates. But usually it is upfront flat rate + revenue share or prepaid revenue + revenue share. If the traffic volume/quality is low or speculative then its an impossible deal to make.

But when the traffic volume and quality is high or known then I think the flat rate + rev share is a better deal for affiliates. The reason is that you can create a bidding war and create an artificially higher price. For example, I had a flat fee plus + revenue share deal last month where we paid $3k USD flat upfront + revenue share and the total revenue earned was only around $6k USD for the month. So the affiliate probably earned more than he would have compared to a pure revenue share deal. We took a loss, but I am ok with taking this loss because the idea is to have players long term and perhaps even hit a couple high rollers and we never would have had top placement without the upfront fee. Also, $1 today is worth a hell of lot more money than $1 1 year from now, thats finance 101 (time value of money), especially in this industry where regulation is constantly changing and programs are constantly closing and retroactively changing terms.

It is much easier for affiliate programs to pay a simple revenue share but if you have the bargaining power to negotiate a flat fee + revenue share then why not give it a shot.

[TheGooner]

Also, $1 today is worth a hell of lot more money than $1 1 year from now, thats finance 101 (time value of money),

These days with almost zero inflation and zero interest rates the rule is FINANCE 101A = it's pretty much the same value now or in a years time ...

[Gambleri]

These days with almost zero inflation and zero interest rates the rule is FINANCE 101A = it's pretty much the same value now or in a years time ...

It also has to do with being able to invest the money now and to (hopefully) make the money grow.

For example, if you get $10,000 now you can do stuff like...

- Set-up a new website
- Purchase content for your current website
- Promote your current website

Whereas if you received the money in monthly installments over 1-2 years, you'd be able to do the same but at a significantly slower pace.

[baldidiot]

These days with almost zero inflation and zero interest rates the rule is FINANCE 101A = it's pretty much the same value now or in a years time ...

Even just sticking it in a long term bond would return more if you're literally talking about $100 now v $100 over 5 years. Rates may be rubbish, but you can get a couple of %, which is even more significant if there's no inflation. Invest it wisely and you can significantly increase those numbers (be it through your business or other investments).

I imagine rev share deals probably out perform tenancy deals though, unless you can get a big number. Having said that I can see a few times when it would be preferable:

- If your model relies on PPC or significant levels of paid advertising (having the money upfront allows you to reinvest and grow quicker)
- If the brand is great for the players, but you have issues with the affiliate program for whatever reason (eg: after the blue sq account base was sold to betfair, there's no way we'd promote a sportsbook operated by the rank group on rev share)
- For sites with a lot of traffic but low sign ups (sports news?) the reactivation value for an otherwise saturated brand may be worth them paying more than you would have got on rev share (due to the saturation)

Not saying I do any of the above, just that I can imagine scenarios where it may be beneficial.

Wasn't there someone on PAL (or maybe GPWA?) many years ago that basically held and auctions among their approved brands for their top spots. That's probably the way to do it - if your traffic is big enough to justify it and people are willing to fight each other for coverage.

[Renee]

Why do you presume the deal is not going to work? In many cases, you have plenty of statistics to work with. It's not rocket science. You could even agree to a 1-2 month test run where the pay is lower and agree that the rate goes higher if things work smoothly.

So far not a single affiliate that I have ever paid a placement fee to has made the money back (even the ones I've paid small amounts to). I have received guarantees from these affiliates too. Guarantee that if I don't get X number of new players in total or per month they will repay the money.

Do you think I've seen a cent of that money back? No.

I'm not talking about small affiliates either. One should have been able to generate what he claimed quite easily, but didn't. Another was doing PPC so should have also been able to deliver a small amount of players (I'm talking 10 in total).

So once we pay, we rely on you to deliver. If you are on revshare, we either both make money, or neither of us make money. One party is not winning over the other.

And even if an affiliate program overpays momentarily, you can just set a lower deal for the next month (and vice-versa). Why would it not working mean you automatically have to go back to revenue share?

For example, if we were to pay a $10,000 placement fee with the condition of at least 35-40 depositors from that, but you send me 40 players who all make the minimum deposit and never play again - if I told you the next month that because of the player value I could only pay you $800 for the same amount of depositors, would you be ok with that? Doubt it.

You might say "this would never happen with my traffic" but as it's mentioned, there are no guarantees.

The only reason I would be happy to pay you $10,000 again the next month is if we made a profit from your players. In that scenario, you're losing money.

What if one of your players wins the mega moolah jackpot for example? They play back 5 million bucks and you made your placement fee instead of 35% of that 5 mil. I'd be killing myself if I was that affiliate.

Nobody's implying the affiliate is going to screw over the affiliate program or hide any details. Quite the opposite, these deals should be made with transparency, in a way that both parties benefit from them.

As per my example above, it seems to be rather the norm that the affiliate screws the affiliate program and exception to the rule that it comes good in my experience. That's why I don't do placement fees any more unless I have a working history with the affiliate.

For the affiliate program, yes. Otherwise that’s crazy talk.

Not at all. As I mentioned before, if you are making money on revshare, so are we. If you're not making money, neither are we. It's fair, and it's win-win for both the affiliate and the program.

How much better off are the affiliates of Full Tilt Poker (2011), Lock Poker, Revenue Jet, Carbon Poker/Casino/Sports, even PokerStars (changes terms and shuts down affiliate accounts however they please). There are tens, perhaps hundreds of examples of similar incidents. Only one party benefited in those situations, and it sure wasn't the affiliates.

Sure programs might close down or change their terms, but then that's why you wouldn't put all your eggs in one basket. There is an element of risk in everything you invest your money in. Look at the stock markets, housing investments etc. I bet noone thought the GBP would drop so much on Friday. I'm not saying it's right for these things to happen in regards to programs/affiliates, but not every program out there is going to do that to you. Again, eggs in different baskets.

Why would the agenda change on a flat fee deal? You're still trying to deliver maximum value to the affiliate program - that way you can negotiate a higher deal in the future.

That's both a bad deal and a bad idea -- one that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

The idea is not to take an advantage of the affiliate program (or the other way around). Both parties can (and should!) benefit from the deal.

Would you somehow be less willing to provide converting players if you were on a flat rate deal, knowing that you probably wouldn't be able to renew the same rate if your conversions decline? Or that you probably would be able to negotiate a higher deal if your conversions improve?

In some ways, this might actually make you work harder to create conversions

True, some players will be significantly more valuable than others, but the idea is to look at the average and get paid based on that.

The agenda may not change but most affiliates who want placement fees or prepaid deals are not able to guarantee conditions on which the program is happy to pay it.

For example if you're getting your traffic via SEO. What happens if your rankings suddenly take a dive and you're getting no traffic? Or your site gets sandboxed for some reason. On a placement fee, you'd still be fine because you have your money already, but you're no longer delivering any players and it's not by your own choice. If you were on revshare in that case, you'd still be making money from your player base, but the program wouldn't have made a loss paying you for something you can't deliver.

I'm not arguing just for the sake of arguing. I'm trying to point out both sides of the coin from the affiliate program POV. I hope my explanations have helped.

[Gambleri]

So far not a single affiliate that I have ever paid a placement fee to has made the money back (even the ones I've paid small amounts to). I have received guarantees from these affiliates too. Guarantee that if I don't get X number of new players in total or per month they will repay the money.

Do you think I've seen a cent of that money back? No.

I'm not talking about small affiliates either. One should have been able to generate what he claimed quite easily, but didn't. Another was doing PPC so should have also been able to deliver a small amount of players (I'm talking 10 in total).

What you say here makes no sense. Have the affiliates either met the guarantee (in which case you should be satisfied) or not (in which case you've gotten a refund)? How are you not getting a cent of the money back?

For example, if we were to pay a $10,000 placement fee with the condition of at least 35-40 depositors from that, but you send me 40 players who all make the minimum deposit and never play again - if I told you the next month that because of the player value I could only pay you $800 for the same amount of depositors, would you be ok with that? Doubt it.

I guess you can make any kind of an arrangement look bad if you go for the impossible/extreme scenario. If my average player deposits $x and $x is much more than the minimum deposit, what's the likelihood of all of my customers suddenly turning into minimum depositors?

If the affiliate and the affiliate program have no history, it might make sense for the affiliate to give the first month (or two) at a discount with the understanding that the rate will increase from there.

However, if you have been getting months worth of traffic from an affiliate, you should have an idea of how much an average player from that affiliate is worth. If it's a huge site, getting visibility for your brand will deliver additional value.

Obviously, as an affiliate, I would never do business with an affiliate program that has my depositor history and is only willing to pay me based on the idea that I suddenly start referring minimum depositors only. Aside from being insulting, it would demonstrate how radically the affiliate program undervalues my referrals.

Then again, I'd have my existing revenue share referrals stuck with that casino. Win-win, huh?

The only reason I would be happy to pay you $10,000 again the next month is if we made a profit from your players. In that scenario, you're losing money.

Why am I losing money because you're making a profit?

Do you make any deals unless you stand to profit from them? I assume (and hope) you're making a profit from those revenue share deals?

If I'm happy getting paid $10k a month and you make a profit, what's the problem?

What if one of your players wins the mega moolah jackpot for example? They play back 5 million bucks and you made your placement fee instead of 35% of that 5 mil. I'd be killing myself if I was that affiliate.

Again, kind of an extreme scenario. This is an absurd way of thinking. Nobody runs their business thinking like this.

As per my example above, it seems to be rather the norm that the affiliate screws the affiliate program and exception to the rule that it comes good in my experience. That's why I don't do placement fees any more unless I have a working history with the affiliate.

I'm sorry that you're used to dealing with scammers but that doesn't mean us legitimate affiliates have to make bad business deals. It goes without saying that in order to create a long, successful partnership, both sides of the table have to be satisfied with the arrangement.

Not at all. As I mentioned before, if you are making money on revshare, so are we. If you're not making money, neither are we. It's fair, and it's win-win for both the affiliate and the program.

How's this for an extreme scenario: If you wake up one day and decide it's time to reduce my revenue share, remove players from my account or even stop paying me altogether for existing customers, you're allowed to do so.

Look at how many complaints we have just on this forum re: affiliate programs changing terms, withholding payouts, manipulating referral stats, etc. This happens all the time. And it's because we, the affiliates, let them.

By agreeing to a revenue share deal, you give the affiliate program the right to do whatever they want.

Sure programs might close down or change their terms, but then that's why you wouldn't put all your eggs in one basket.

Right, so revenue share is not always better in the long run.

I'm not saying it's right for these things to happen in regards to programs/affiliates, but not every program out there is going to do that to you. Again, eggs in different baskets.

And not every affiliate is going to tell you their player value is $x when it's $y, or look to trick you out of your money in any other way for that matter.

The agenda may not change but most affiliates who want placement fees or prepaid deals are not able to guarantee conditions on which the program is happy to pay it.

Then there's no deal. That's OK.

This sort of an arrangement requires a basic understanding of business for both the affiliate and the affiliate program. It goes without saying that you, the affiliate program, should not make deals with every affiliate in the world. Just like we, the affiliates, should not make deals with every affiliate program in the world.

[TheGooner]

Gambleri - you offer a lot of discussion on the subject ... but not much in the way of example.

You clearly think it's the way to go - is it based on prior experience?
If so, please share.

Have you successfully negotiated flat deals with programs ?
How did the deal compare to previous rev-share deals with the program (or comparable rev-share deals?)

[FruityJelena]

Affiliates have different traffic and operators also and convert differently, so I think the best thing is to find the most suitable solution for both sides in every single case, but both sides should be honest to each other about quantity, quality and variety of their traffic. I believe it's a bit hard, because usually both sides want to sell and praise their product, take advantage and take/save money.
I also think it's not everything in asking for flat fees and selling spots, because sometimes, especially in the long run, it's better to feature brands that convert best for you as an affiliate, than to give it to non-performing brands for some fixed price.

[Renee]

What you say here makes no sense. Have the affiliates either met the guarantee (in which case you should be satisfied) or not (in which case you've gotten a refund)? How are you not getting a cent of the money back?

No, the terms were not met and the affiliates did not refund the money. I thought that point was clear. My apologies.

I guess you can make any kind of an arrangement look bad if you go for the impossible/extreme scenario. If my average player deposits $x and $x is much more than the minimum deposit, what's the likelihood of all of my customers suddenly turning into minimum depositors?

If you have 1 month of a placement fee to prove what your traffic is worth, and you send me players who only make the minimum deposit and never play again, that is a perfect example of what your traffic will be like moving forward. Why would I keep paying an exorbitant price for those players when I will never see a profit from them?

If the affiliate and the affiliate program have no history, it might make sense for the affiliate to give the first month (or two) at a discount with the understanding that the rate will increase from there.

That would be ideal, but I've never seen it happen.

Obviously, as an affiliate, I would never do business with an affiliate program that has my depositor history and is only willing to pay me based on the idea that I suddenly start referring minimum depositors only. Aside from being insulting, it would demonstrate how radically the affiliate program undervalues my referrals.

But (hypothetically) *if* that's what you can/have delivered, why would you expect to be paid more?

Why am I losing money because you're making a profit?

Us making a profit doesn't necessarily mean you're losing money, but in that example you could be making more money.

If I'm happy getting paid $10k a month and you make a profit, what's the problem?

Sure, if you are happy for that to happen, there is no problem with it. I was just pointing out that you could be making more money while both parties profit.

Again, kind of an extreme scenario. This is an absurd way of thinking. Nobody runs their business thinking like this.

I had an affiliate in a similar scenario back in the day getting paid 10c per click. I've also had an affiliate more recently in this same situation who is getting paid CPA.

How's this for an extreme scenario: If you wake up one day and decide it's time to reduce my revenue share, remove players from my account or even stop paying me altogether for existing customers, you're allowed to do so.

Look at how many complaints we have just on this forum re: affiliate programs changing terms, withholding payouts, manipulating referral stats, etc. This happens all the time. And it's because we, the affiliates, let them.

By agreeing to a revenue share deal, you give the affiliate program the right to do whatever they want.

I'm not saying this can't happen. I can only speak for our program. When we wanted to cut off a commission model that wasn't working for us, we gave people the chance to remain on it if they told us so and gave them almost 3 months to decide on that. We didn't just cut everyone off. Again, I can't speak for anyone else. I can only speak for us. I never said that there won't be affiliate programs out there who screw affiliates over. As you've pointed out, it has happened time and time again.

I feel like you're not open to any advice that opposes your thoughts so I will stop here unless I can offer anything else that may actually be useful. You sound like you've already made up your mind so no point beating a dead horse. Good luck and I hope you are able to get what you want out of those deals.

[Gambleri]

If you have 1 month of a placement fee to prove what your traffic is worth, and you send me players who only make the minimum deposit and never play again, that is a perfect example of what your traffic will be like moving forward. Why would I keep paying an exorbitant price for those players when I will never see a profit from them?

You wouldn't. Obviously you're willing to pay what they're worth minus your profit margin.

But (hypothetically) *if* that's what you can/have delivered, why would you expect to be paid more?

I wouldn't. No sane person would. The price has to be set accordingly.

Us making a profit doesn't necessarily mean you're losing money, but in that example you could be making more money.

Sure, if you are happy for that to happen, there is no problem with it. I was just pointing out that you could be making more money while both parties profit.

Even if the affiliate program wants a higher profit margin for a flat fee deal, getting the money up-front vs. over the next couple of years allows the affiliate to re-invest it now. Since the affiliate's getting paid up-front, there's no risk of the affiliate program shutting down, changing the terms, etc. And the stability of income helps.

I understand why the affiliate program thinks revenue share is the best model. It makes sense: no up-front costs, no risk, all the control.

I struggle to understand why revenue share would be the superior model for affiliates in general when they're usually in the opposite situation: up-front costs (creating the account, review, getting links set-up, etc.), lots of risk and zero control. By referring increasing amounts of rev. share players, you're effectively digging yourself a deeper hole.

It may be a good solution in some scenarios, but especially for an affiliate who seeks to grow, it's a slow and (potentially) risky way of doing so.

I had an affiliate in a similar scenario back in the day getting paid 10c per click. I've also had an affiliate more recently in this same situation who is getting paid CPA.

Exactly. You've had two of these. One "back in the day" and one recently. If you're running a business, however, you worry about the average player value.

I never said that there won't be affiliate programs out there who screw affiliates over. As you've pointed out, it has happened time and time again.

No, but you said "revshare is always going to be better in the long run."

I feel like you're not open to any advice that opposes your thoughts so I will stop here unless I can offer anything else that may actually be useful. You sound like you've already made up your mind so no point beating a dead horse. Good luck and I hope you are able to get what you want out of those deals.

Huh? I don't think you've provided any logical explanation for why revenue share is the superior advertising model for affiliates.

Hopefully, as a result of this discussion, some of the affiliates here consider the structure of their advertising agreements. The more affiliates require these types of deals, the more common they become which is good for gambling affiliates as a whole. Flat fee advertising takes some figuring out because you can't mindlessly get on revenue share but it may make a lot of sense for your business.

[Renee]

Huh? I don't think you've provided any logical explanation for why revenue share is the superior advertising model for affiliates.

If I read your initial post, I think I added logical explanations. You are just not open to them because your mind is already made up. I can see at least one other person above (an affiliate at that) who wrote similar to what I did, I just chose to elaborate. But thanks for your feedback. I'll keep that in mind next time I come across a thread of yours and think about wasting my time contributing.