Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    2,092
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 172 Times in 120 Posts

    Default Player Incentives triggering CPA commission. (CPA FRAUD)

    CPA fraud is seriously degrading the CPA model. I've found that it's hard to develop a long term relationship with the majority of CPA affiliates. We've been increasingly selective about CPA partners. Seems that most of them sign up, promise good traffic and ethical behavior, spam the hell of our brands, get shut down and disappear. Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for certain affiliates to seek out CPA deals for whatever reason. In my experience in the last few years 2 out of 3 CPA affiliates have brought in fraudulent traffic and in the best case scenario dubious traffic.

    One example is a recent affiliate who offers players 50 to sign up under his affiliate ID. His CPA threshold is 50, which then triggers a payout of 150. This is against our terms and unethical. We found out about it because he talked about it on a skype conversation.

    As an affiliate I appreciate the revenue share model. Retroactive studies have showed that revenue share model pays more than the CPA model in my case. The CPA model is fine when the affiliates are honest and bringing in legitimate traffic.

    I'm interested in what other casino affiliates feel about CPA vs. revenue share.

  2. #2
    oc+'s Avatar
    oc+
    oc+ is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2009
    Posts
    412
    Thanks
    90
    Thanked 43 Times in 31 Posts

    Default

    I think both affiliate managers and affiliates can learn from this. From my point of view, If I were an affiliate manager I would never offer that sort of CPA unless the affiliate had been fully vetted.

    1) How long had their sites been going?
    2) Had you met them in person to discuss the deal?
    3) Had you viewed (and analysed) their analytics?

    If it were a case of, "(1)oh about two months, (2)no, just on e-mail, and (3)no, they didn't have the stats to hand" then you will be open to fraud. IMO either rev share would show long term commitment or perhaps a hybrid (although still open to abuse) would be the better deals but again, only if you have fully done your homework.

    As an affiliate one would have to check the bookie or casino fully before plastering them all over the website (sure many don't check first) but sadly this business we are in is not the most honest, in fact I seem to remember CM once saying this was like the wild west (I may be wrong?) but it's true - whichever side one is on it's a good idea to keep your hand on your holster until you're really sure to get a deal going.
    BetHelp.com | Snack-Media.com | BlackFoxMedia.com

    Millions of Global impressions every month

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to oc+ For This Useful Post:

    LiveCasinoPartners (2 October 2011)

  4. #3
    FictionNet is offline Closed by Request
    Join Date
    December 1969
    Posts
    5,265
    Thanks
    1,437
    Thanked 1,252 Times in 653 Posts

    Default

    I didnt do CPA for many years but Ive recently allowed a number of CPA deals onto my sites. Ive also taken on some hybrids of prepaid CPA and postpaid rev-share. Im trying to mix things up and try different models.

    So far, the CPAs have done okay. Ive not had anything from the merchant regarding dodgy players but then again, Im not doing anything dodgy or offering player incentives to sign up.

    I like rev-share mostly - I tend to generate decent value players so it works out for me but if I have a month where loads of players have big wins then that can hit my revenue so a mixture of CPA chucked in there is a good way to spread the risk.

    As for how to avoid dodgy CPA players, Im not sure. Maybe set the CPA value to the minimum qualifying deposit amount, ie. pay $150 when the player has deposited $150 or more.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to FictionNet For This Useful Post:

    LiveCasinoPartners (2 October 2011)

  6. #4
    davemerry's Avatar
    davemerry is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    June 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    751
    Thanks
    332
    Thanked 229 Times in 181 Posts

    Default

    I agree with you totally Adrian, CPA models have rarely proved anything but trouble in my opinion. It is a shame because CPA models offer a good deal for both the operator and the affiliate in some cases, but I feel I am missing out on them due to cautiousness.

    I'm still open to the idea however I have to approach the affiliate, rather than them adding me or Skype or randomly emailing me. For me, if their traffic is worthwhile then they would have consistent long-term partners and wouldn't need to look for new partners so often.

  7. #5
    Anthony-Coral is offline Former Employee of Coral
    Join Date
    September 2008
    Location
    Gibraltar
    Posts
    1,217
    Thanks
    904
    Thanked 717 Times in 443 Posts

    Default

    In the last 4-6 months I've seen a significant rise in the number of affiliates asking for CPA deals and rejecting rev share. My guess is this is down to the economic climate at present.

    We're not averse to CPA deals but only with an initial trial and consultation period so we have a route out if need be.

  8. #6
    Christoff is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    August 2007
    Location
    Dunmow
    Posts
    337
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 79 Times in 55 Posts

    Default

    Many affiliates want high CPAs with minimum deposit requirements - whilst this is ok for long & established affiliates who do this, I believe affiliates should prove themselves to an extent.

    Test/trial periods should be the way to go in my opinion till everyone is happy to do a more full blown campaign. In addition to what HodgeyBoy said, setting a timeframe or number of players initially is a good way to start.

    Demanding $300 CPA for every customer for minimum deposit (with no negotiation) is not the way to do business in my eyes.

  9. #7
    jarvi is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    December 1969
    Posts
    3,310
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 438 Times in 273 Posts

    Default

    The increase in affiliates asking for CPA deals might be the fact 'life time revenue' doesn't seem to mean the what it sounds like for many programs. Affiliates are tired of building up a decent number of players only to see the terms change and the life time revenue is much less than originally agreed to, or in some cases non-existent. Kind of the bird in the hand is better than two in the bush scenario.

    That said, from the program side, there are a lot of downsides and it is open to abuse. I don't think a hybrid deal solves the problem completely, just not sure what does provide a good solution for all parties.
    James

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to jarvi For This Useful Post:

    EugeneK (7 October 2011)

  11. #8
    TheGooner's Avatar
    TheGooner is online now Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,259
    Thanks
    1,949
    Thanked 4,211 Times in 2,004 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveCasinoPartners View Post
    One example is a recent affiliate who offers players €50 to sign up under his affiliate ID. His CPA threshold is €50, which then triggers a payout of €150. This is against our terms and unethical. We found out about it because he talked about it on a skype conversation.
    Seriously? Are you REALLY surprised?

    While it's just a rumour - I've heard that the internet is full of rogues and thieves that will try all sorts of scams. Password phishing, lottery wins, fake inheritance ... so why wouldn't they try to take advantage of this high paying opportunity. You've just set up a system where unscrupulous people can make Euro 100 per signup - spend Euro 50 to make Euro 150 - a significant amount for internet users in many countries and territories.


    Of course I'm not endorsing what is happening - but please try to not set yourself up to be a victim. At the moment you're acting like a tourist walking down Barcelona's Las Ramblas with a 100 euro note hanging out his back pocket. We all know what will happen next ...


    Display some business acumen and at least set-up the deal so that EASY money is not available and make the minimum deposit player deposit value equal or above the payout either via tiered payments (Dep 50 earn 50 - Dep 100 earn 100 -Dep 150 earn 150) or some sort of requirement for active play-through ...

    -----

    Oh and BTW - it's rev-share for us all the way on all gambling products ... far more lucrative for affiliates than CPA .. I'm sure that we are well aware that the average GENUINE player value is far more than the CPA being offered - otherwise the gambling places would not still be in business.
    Last edited by TheGooner; 3 October 2011 at 5:57 pm. Reason: answer OP question about CPA v rev-share

  12. #9
    grem's Avatar
    grem is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2010
    Location
    CBN
    Posts
    1,451
    Blog Entries
    19
    Thanks
    254
    Thanked 418 Times in 205 Posts

    Default

    Why not add in terms such as must refer at least 5 depositing players for first payout.

  13. #10
    1331's Avatar
    1331 is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    September 2011
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    I agree. "Live time" is a very big word. I'm surprised that some companies are using it in their marketing. I think that alot of people are leaning towards CPA deals after Black Friday.

    Quote Originally Posted by jarvi View Post
    The increase in affiliates asking for CPA deals might be the fact 'life time revenue' doesn't seem to mean the what it sounds like for many programs. Affiliates are tired of building up a decent number of players only to see the terms change and the life time revenue is much less than originally agreed to, or in some cases non-existent. Kind of the bird in the hand is better than two in the bush scenario.

    That said, from the program side, there are a lot of downsides and it is open to abuse. I don't think a hybrid deal solves the problem completely, just not sure what does provide a good solution for all parties.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •