Quote:
Originally posted by Broda
Id doesn't really matter HOW many cookies a surfers browser can hold.. that be 1 or 300.. the issue is COOKIES...
A real good chunk of surfers have cookies turned off... 30% is a pretty safe asumption... so 30% of surfers sent to a ccbill program relying only on ccbills own cookie tracking are never tracked upon signup.
Want to contradict me? Wannt share some stats? Show us all your OWN sales NOT sent from an affiliate WITH referring urls from where the surfer originated and I am pretty certain you will see that you, as a program owner, have been getting quite a few signups that were supposed to have been affilate sales.
Not saying YOU as a program owner are doing anything wrong, the error is on ccbills end. But, you could be proactive and pay out 70%+ to counter the known error... I would never ever ever ever promote any pure ccbill proggy and be satisfied with less than 70%.. in their terms, 70% equals roughly 50% in real life.
I've used ccbill plenty, even promoted ccbill programs, and know plenty of webmaster program owners using them... so ;)
C'mon prove me wrong 
|
I certainly agree many surfers have cookies disabled - But where do you get your figures from?
My own opinion - Less than thirty - Much less - However, yes, we programme owners do benefit this way.
I would not deny that.
To counteract that, we ssi all hits across our xits, 404's right down to our dump site, so affilates have better chances to sale somewhere on our sites -
We pay 65% or 30$ joins - Not one cent higher because it would be foolhardy to commit an unrealistic figur to rebilling that may never happen ($30 joins I am talking of)
65% will also remain the same - By the time you look at incurred costs such as hosted galleries, I am certain you would NOT even slightly dream of paying 70% yourself should you be running a programme)!!!