Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
It's also a great way to learn nats, get it fully tweaked out, understand it, books/payments worked out... then release when you know it's pimp!
Changing to a standalone backend doesn't mean more sales though, for sure not simply because of additional processors or cascades, but it does mean a larger potential for being able to generate more sales because some limits are lifted that can be taken advantage of.
The extra potential, over time... normally years, is a program taking advantage of those lifted limits and breaking outside the 'normal' setup. Nice thing is, the advantage starts the moment you take the first step to do something you haven't done before. So it really comes down to, what you're going to do once you have nats.
|
Cheers for the great advice, and this is something I'm considering. The thing is, for a medium-sized biz like mine, where I do 99% of the work involved, switching to a new billing system, even on the backend, is kind of like switching engines in the car while driving down the freeway. LOL Sure, it can be done, and in the way you suggested, but it all takes time. Frustrating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent 3dSexCash
Could the difference in ratios between ccbill and others be something as simple as the checkout pages? Doesn't ccbill identify the customers ip and give them the checkout page from the server closest to them?
If this is the case, and some of the servers are slow, the prospective customer may just give up.
I have no idea if any of this is accurate but we also have had dramatic ups and downs, and it seems that everyone with ccbill has these up and downs on the exact same days.
To be fair, we have briefly experimented with other processors and didn't find any improvement. Never tried Epoch though.
|
I would definitely recommend giving Epoch a shot, as this thread has mentioned the comparison between the two companies a lot. I have not tried Zambaio or Verotel or other processers so i cannot say about their ratios.
As for load times: I've done some speed tests, and have hired a firm to do so for my company back in May, and we both found that CCBill form load times can be anywhere from 1.1 second to 4.5+ seconds. When the cascade is switched to Epoch as primary, however, since I'm using the CCBill cascade system (not the Epoch cascade system, which is differant) there's a little "hop, skip & jump" when the surfer clicks a Join option as it cascades over to Epoch. So the overall load time is about equivalent. I've brought this up with CCBill and they say it's not a load issue. So there ya go. LOL