Why CPA is worth considering

[gaffg]

In a perfect world, affiliate programs wouldn't go out of business, rogue, terms that allow a program to cut your commissions and close your account or anything to disrupt your life time revenue share. Over the years it seems that life time revenue share can't always be counted on from every program so it raises the question if affiliates should consider CPA or other alternative commissions than just revenue share.

Naturally for programs you have the highest trust in, you know your commission deals are safe but for everyone else should you consider more CPA deals?

http://gaffg.com/blog/cpa-over-revenue-share/

[-Shay-]

In a perfect world, we'd encourage our target audience to refuse to deal with programs who go rogue.

[baldidiot]

In a perfect world, we'd encourage our target audience to refuse to deal with programs who go rogue.

Problem is there's no way of knowing who's going to suddenly do a jekyll and hyde.

Other issue is when brands shut out markets. A few years ago the betsson group had a habit of buying casinos that accepted UK players then closing to the UK. We lost tons of accounts this way. Plus absolutely no way of predicting who was going to get bought.

Personally I still opt for rev share pretty much 100% of the time, but I do get the angle the article is coming from.

[TheGooner]

Naturally for programs you have the highest trust in, you know your commission deals are safe but for everyone else should you consider more CPA deals?

No.

You should put programs you trust on rev-share.
For programs you don;t trust you should AVOID ALTOGETHER.

Do not send players to shonky programs.

[gaffg]

I wasn't saying to send players to shonky programs or work with programs you don't trust. My point is there are programs that you can trust today that you might lose that trust in tomorrow. Giving a big list of examples of things that have happened to programs that some initially trusted but changed:

- Affiliate Hub /skybet closing affiliate accounts
- Grand Prive fiasco, they were popular until that happened
- Pokerstars terminating revenue share on big affiliates after Amaya acquisition
- Smarkets terminating affiliates with a vague explanation
- Fortune affiliates enjoying traffic from hacked websites
- Rewards Affiliates adding cross promotion without tagging back in 2011. The program has informed us that they haven't done this in years
- sporting bet terminating their affiliate program and later reopening

I'd agree that if more affiliates had tougher standards of whom to promote and worked with programs that treated players fairly, there would be less issues but that certainly doesn't make you immune to any of these problems.

No.

You should put programs you trust on rev-share.
For programs you don;t trust you should AVOID ALTOGETHER.

Do not send players to shonky programs.

[MrDeposit]

As helpful as CPA deal would be starting out. I wouldn't dare accept a CPA deal. I know the type of players I bring to gambling sites. Its like chopping off one hand for a two hand job. No thank you, I get what you was trying to say in the article but the smart thing to do is take a rev share deal or hybird deal if you really need up front cash to keep doing business.

[gaffg]

It is more than just that. I think everyone would agree in theory revenue share is better than CPA but it is with an idea that a player has a value for a period of time. Yes CPA is upfront money. One issue is what happens when you have a program that you think is good, treats players excellent but the commissions never add up despite referring a decent number of players. When it comes to CPA, it's hard for a program to shave this if they wanted to. When it comes to revenue share, how many have noticed an odd number of cashouts or wins at the end of the month. Without naming any programs, if you talk to enough affiliates, there are programs that they might have trusted on revenue share but when the commission isn't there over a number of months and a number of players, something doesn't add up and you are left having to trust a program that you might not be able to prove shaving was happening. When you have worked with a program for a longer period of time then maybe the idea of CPA becomes less of an issue to consider as if the program closes, you might have earned more than you could have on CPA.

Ultimately my point is programs that you don't fear they will go out of business, go rogue or won't sell their site to another company that doesn't care about affiliates, these programs you'd trust on a revenue share deal. Up until weeks ago I didn't think a company like Smarkets which I think had a lot of promise, would consider zapping affiliate accounts knowing the likes of betfair and skybet have already pissed off a lot of webmasters. It was an opportunity for them to pick up more webmasters. How can anybody know that a program is just going to close your account because it's in their terms and conditions?

As helpful as CPA deal would be starting out. I wouldn't dare accept a CPA deal. I know the type of players I bring to gambling sites. Its like chopping off one hand for a two hand job. No thank you, I get what you was trying to say in the article but the smart thing to do is take a rev share deal or hybird deal if you really need up front cash to keep doing business.

[MrDeposit]

As I said before you made good points, I understand what you're saying but I also know the type of players I bring. Having a CPA deal is like robbing myself. If I have a thought that a program just might do something shady like shave commission or close my affiliate years down the line even though I trust them (to a degree) then I will go with a hybird deal. The moment I feel like my commissions aren't adding up right then I would promote another program more than said program. Sadly, this is the world we live in and have to adjust to things as they happen.

Also, with all of these programs losing our (affiliates) trust these days. It will only leave a few trusted programs over the years to come. I wouldn't mind watching all the programs that do affiliates wrong crash and burn. It should be good entertainment for us all while we promote the programs that treat us (affiliates) right.

[Triple7]

GAFGG is making some valid and good points, but I don't know if a CPA is the solution. I agree with many here that it is better to avoid rogue brands. I think if you do some research about their business ethics, how they treat players, affiliates, etc everybody is able to avoid doing business with a big part of the rogue section.

I always wonder why some people think that they will be an exception for a brand that doesn't pay their players, isn't responsive to player complaints, doesn't pay affiliates, breach their own terms, etc.

On the other hand, some brands go rogue after some time or in individual cases they do something that is the best thing for the respective affiliate. But I dunno if CPA is the solution. CPA to me feels like robbing myself.

And, like some others say here, scammers will be scammers anyway. If they scam you with rev. share, they will do the same when you're on a CPA-deal. I think it would be better if affiliates just do not work with rogue programs. They are rogue because they can. And they can because always some people will (continue) work with them.

They just want their players as cheap as possible and they know who to scam: the smaller affiliate, because the smaller affiliate depends on a few brands where he has a decent playerbase and won't start any legal proceed. Many new trends are also not positive for smaller affiliates, like activity quota or the 3-months-agreement. That last thing I see more and more. Every 3 months you have to negotiate again your %, which means they can put your whole base on something like 15% if they feel they have to do so.

[BetsGalore]

In a perfect world, affiliate programs wouldn't go out of business, rogue, terms that allow a program to cut your commissions and close your account or anything to disrupt your life time revenue share. Over the years it seems that life time revenue share can't always be counted on from every program so it raises the question if affiliates should consider CPA or other alternative commissions than just revenue share.

Naturally for programs you have the highest trust in, you know your commission deals are safe but for everyone else should you consider more CPA deals?

http://gaffg.com/blog/cpa-over-revenue-share/

RS or Hybrid is definitely the way to go.

Many new operators will offer you unrealistic CPA amounts per new FTD but in reality will never be beneficial for both parties.


I remember Winner offering $240 per new FTD casino player...and then refused to pay out as it wasn't cost effective for them (Obviously)


If you are in it for the long term its not the way to go

[TheSpry]

I do rev for much of my business but I like CPA simply because I am not concerned about future earnings if a program does something that I don't like. I'm free to cut bait and switch to someone new. In today's more matured gambling market thought I agree rev is the way to go if we are in this for the long term. I especially like CPA in emerging markets.