Should NATS pull the plug on non paying sponsors?

[tabasco]

There are some programs operating that just flat out stopped paying. I am not talking about one or two late payments - they just don't pay at all yet they continue to operate as usual and allow new webmasters to sign up.

I know some people say it has nothing to do with NATS and it's not their problem but I feel it's not a good look for them. Maybe something could be implemented to "keep the bastards honest"?

[kristin]

What about the processors? Host?

The thing is, some of these companies who owe WMs money are bought out and the WMs start promoting again. Or we've seen people fuck people over then still work in the industry for a new program and if it's a decent enough size PPS, webmasters turn their head to the previous fucking over. So if history is right, NATS, hosts, processors shouldn't do anything because eventually they will be back, one way or another.

[AdultKing]

As a business I do not want to be liable for what my customer does or does not do.

It's not NATS problem, IMHO.

[TeenCat]

it will be nice, but non paying is not nats problem and it may bring only problems for them. they are not customer police ...

[Lamis]

Unfortunately NATS will always deffend the sponsor, no matter what.

For NATS, the affiliates are a bunch of idiots who they would throw away in the garbage. They do not care about affiliates.

They only care about sponsors and about selling their worthless shitty platform programmed by a 7 year old kid with basic skills.

Period.

[tabasco]

Originally Posted by kristin

What about the processors? Host?

Yeah I know, where do you draw the line. For me though I feel because NATS is the system directly between the sponsor and the affiliate surely they have some obligation to the affiliate too. Without us they would not sell anywhere near as many copies of their software.

[ShellShocked]

Nats is a good product. With that said, they made it such a selling point on how they will disable any Nats program for shaving. However, nothing is done if they simply don't pay.

[Tempest]

Not NAT's problem... By that logic all processors, hosting, registars, MPA, content management companies etc. etc. etc. should also shut them off.

[tabasco]

Originally Posted by Tempest

Not NAT's problem... By that logic all processors, hosting, registars, MPA, content management companies etc. etc. etc. should also shut them off.

I don't see that as a logical statement. NATS in this case is the system between the sponsor and affiliate. Registrar's, content management, hosting and processors have nothing to do with the affiliate... Well you could say they were using a website for fraudulent purposes I guess.

[Harmon]

[Tempest]

Originally Posted by tabasco

I don't see that as a logical statement. NATS in this case is the system between the sponsor and affiliate. Registrar's, content management, hosting and processors have nothing to do with the affiliate... Well you could say they were using a website for fraudulent purposes I guess.

There's only one part of NATs that handles affiliates.. The rest of it manages the site join pages, interfacing with the processors, user management etc. etc. etc.

So why is it their responsibility? It's not... And why does NATs get mentioned but MPA or any others don't? I'm not a fan of NATs but the scum bags that rip us off aren't breaking any NATs licensing terms so there's nothing NATs can do about it. I understand the desire to get back at the scumbags but this is all about trying to get someone else to do it for you.

[tabasco]

Originally Posted by Tempest

There's only one part of NATs that handles affiliates.. The rest of it manages the site join pages, interfacing with the processors, user management etc. etc. etc.

So why is it their responsibility? It's not... And why does NATs get mentioned but MPA or any others don't? I'm not a fan of NATs but the scum bags that rip us off aren't breaking any NATs licensing terms so there's nothing NATs can do about it. I understand the desire to get back at the scumbags but this is all about trying to get someone else to do it for you.

I mentioned NATS because they are the most used and co-coincidently or otherwise out of all the programs that have fucked me each and every one was using them. But yes I include the others too.

Perhaps there should be something in the licensing terms...

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by tabasco

I mentioned NATS because they are the most used and co-coincidently or otherwise out of all the programs that have fucked me each and every one was using them. But yes I include the others too.

Perhaps there should be something in the licensing terms...

Why? You are comparing apples and oranges here. That's like saying I should stop drinking pepsi becauuse the steak I ordered for dinner was terrible. It makes no fucking sense.

Mods, please lock and delete this thread.

[tabasco]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Why? You are comparing apples and oranges here. That's like saying I should stop drinking pepsi becauuse the steak I ordered for dinner was terrible. It makes no fucking sense.

Mods, please lock and delete this thread.

Actually what you just said makes no sense... no surprises there.

[Kiopa_Matt]

You do know TMM is a software company, and not a law firm, right?

TMM is there to sell software to program owners, not settle disputes between companies and their affiliates.

[MrDeiz]

if there would be any chance to have payments processed like it's at ccbill - nats would be priceless.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Lamis

Unfortunately NATS will always deffend the sponsor, no matter what.

For NATS, the affiliates are a bunch of idiots who they would throw away in the garbage. They do not care about affiliates.

They only care about sponsors and about selling their worthless shitty platform programmed by a 7 year old kid with basic skills.

Period.

The sponsors are the customers of NATS.

Affiliate needs were put in front of members needs and now you want it repeated with NATS. Grow up and learn what "Being in business" is about.

Did you ever figure the reason the sponsor can't pay is he was too busy looking after affiliates rather than his members or not looking after affiliates well enough. Which ever way you're not the business. You're simply glorified advertising men whose needs were for too long too important.

[tabasco]

I don't understand. Shaving is bad and results in suspension -> http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=643011

Not paying? Well that's okay

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Lamis

Unfortunately NATS will always deffend the sponsor, no matter what.

For NATS, the affiliates are a bunch of idiots who they would throw away in the garbage. They do not care about affiliates.

They only care about sponsors and about selling their worthless shitty platform programmed by a 7 year old kid with basic skills.

Period.

For the best part of 12 years affiliates have been the most important part of the adult Internet for most sites and maybe for the online porn business. And let's see what that meant.

An enormous, expensive buffer between the customer and the supplier. That always competed with the supplier for sales. Even in the very earliest of days traffic off a TGP was lucky to convert at 1-100. That's 99 people consuming free porn rather than paying for it. Not clicks on a banner to a site, clicks on the free porn alternative to paying.

Some thought this system worked so well they made it really easy for affiliates to give away free porn, they gave them all the support possible and paid them as much as possible. And the buffer grew and became even more attractive to people surfing to NOT pay for porn.

Eventually, prior to Tubes, the ratio on free surfers to buying surfers might of been as high as 1-1,000. We all know in 2007 the biggest problem after getting a gallery on the top 5 TGP sites, was paying for the BW and getting enough buyers to make it worthwhile.

If affiliates needed exclusive content because non exclusive couldn't be used on TGP sites, they got it. Even though for members it was often crap. Members needs were less important than affiliates needs. And that's just an example of the way the business was run.

If a sponsor is caught shaving affiliates, NATS would ban him. If the sponsor was caught scamming customers nothing happened. Did NATS ever pull it's program from a sponsor using cross sells or a dating site conning members that theres a girl in the next town waiting for a date with me or penis pills that are useless, or any other underhand dealings toward customers? No way, the collective opinion was.

Screw the customer, he will keep buying. Even though the proof was clear many weren't. The ship wasn't sinking and a few were making some money. If you read Lamis's comments about affiliates, I'm sure many thought the same about customers,who were putting the money on the table.

That's the only place this industry earns money. The guy who gets his credit card out and joins a site is the only source of income this industry online has. And his needs became secondary, or even third.

Fast forward to 2011. If you want free hosted 6 minute clips for your Tube, there's tons who will offer them, if you want automatically updated blogs there are tons of them. In fact what ever affiliates want is supplied. And the ship is sinking under the cost of free online porn. So let's put up more.

And why? Because without 10,000s of affiliates giving out porn, the surfer would never find a site to join.

Well they seemed to have found the free sites well enough.

Why do Tubes truly exist, is it because of BW costs or the return on adverting because of the inflated "traffic" budget?

Why are there 10,000s of affiliates, or were, is it because they sent so much traffic to sites or they were paid and helped too much?

What would of happened if the bar for being an affiliates was 10 times higher, say no support and 5% rev share. Would there be more or less joins? Anyone who thinks less isn't thinking straight. Affiliates don't create traffic, they only steer it to a site. By over paying and supporting them you create a great reason not to buy. By disappointing customers, you make that reason even more attractive.

Surfers who found The Hun, could of found Bang Bus as well. If they were that stupid, they wouldn't of found The Hun in the first place. And what's to stop sponsors submitting to TGP sites. Or affiliates having to make it pay for 5%?

But I don't understand Online porn marketing.

You're dead right, marketing is meant to build sales, not give customers a better alternative to buying.

[Paul Markham]

And no doubt a few trolls will post what many think.

"Let's go back to when porn was shrink wrapped and on tape."


Thinking they are so brilliants and witty.

Imagine an online porn business that spent 5% on "promotion, 30% on keeping customers satisfied.

And porn consumers having to buy porn to enjoy it.

Fucking crazy thought I know. But it would mean Bangbros instead of being millionaires, they might be billionaires. With all the extra joins and retention.

[tabasco]

What are you prattling on about you senile old goat? Another of your essays with little to do with the actual point of the thread

[Pornopat]

This is very much so a problem for Nats as it reflects on Nats.
Affiliates used to think they were safe with Nats because of the reputation that shaving is impossible. We have seen a lot lately that these programs can still choose not to pay out. There is no more reason now for an affliate to pick a nats programs over another program so the value of nats has diminished.

[just a punk]

MissionDollars.com is the first candidate.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by tabasco

What are you prattling on about you senile old goat? Another of your essays with little to do with the actual point of the thread

No I'm just pointing out this is another demand by the least important people in the online porn business. In fact the culprits for it's decline.

Of course it flew over your head, it's above your pay grade.

Keep trying to earn a buck from your banner, don't suppose you own that company. LOL

[MrMaxwell]

Too much works for the program owners. They don't work for affiliates.
Enough said.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

No I'm just pointing out this is another demand by the least important people in the online porn business. In fact the culprits for it's decline.

Of course it flew over your head, it's above your pay grade.

Keep trying to earn a buck from your banner, don't suppose you own that company. LOL

I like this
"it's above your pay grade."

[tabasco]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

No I'm just pointing out this is another demand by the least important people in the online porn business. In fact the culprits for it's decline.

Of course it flew over your head, it's above your pay grade.

Keep trying to earn a buck from your banner, don't suppose you own that company. LOL

You really have no idea you arrogant old prick.

As for the sig. Well you can see from my low post count I don't post here for sig views.

BTW how come you had an affiliate program at one stage for your shitty teen site???

[tabasco]

Originally Posted by JFK

I like this
"it's above your pay grade."

Fuck you old cunts stick together!

[u-Bob]

Does TMM have 'an obligation' to pull the plug on nonpaying sponsors? NO, they don't.

However, the fact that they don't have an obligation to do so, or the fact that other companies (processors, hosting companies etc) continue to do business with non paying sponsors, does not mean it would be a bad idea for TMM to pull the plug on non paying sponsors.

They used to promote NATS as a shave proof solution. By using NATS, a sponsors could tell his potential affiliates "Look we're using NATS, that means we're not shaving, join us and we can make money together". So TMM is not just selling a software solution, they're also selling as it were the right to say you as a sponsor are using a script that you wouldn't be allowed to use if you were shaving. So using NATS is in a way similar to having a 'TMM seal of approval', a kind of 'quality label' that says you are not shaving. So TMM could improve the attractiveness, the value of their "seal of approval" by expanding it from "not-shaving" to "not-shaving and pays on time".

The question of whether or not it is a good business decision to do so entirely depends on TMM. I can imagine it would be good idea for an emerging company to do so in todays market where tons of sponsors suddenly stop paying. I doubt a company with a large market share would make the same decision.

[grumpy]

Originally Posted by tabasco

There are some programs operating that just flat out stopped paying. I am not talking about one or two late payments - they just don't pay at all yet they continue to operate as usual and allow new webmasters to sign up.

I know some people say it has nothing to do with NATS and it's not their problem but I feel it's not a good look for them. Maybe something could be implemented to "keep the bastards honest"?

ask the elec company to pull the switch on them. I bet they will listen.

[Harmon]

[Pornopat]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Does TMM have 'an obligation' to pull the plug on nonpaying sponsors? NO, they don't.

However, the fact that they don't have an obligation to do so, or the fact that other companies (processors, hosting companies etc) continue to do business with non paying sponsors, does not mean it would be a bad idea for TMM to pull the plug on non paying sponsors.

They used to promote NATS as a shave proof solution. By using NATS, a sponsors could tell his potential affiliates "Look we're using NATS, that means we're not shaving, join us and we can make money together". So TMM is not just selling a software solution, they're also selling as it were the right to say you as a sponsor are using a script that you wouldn't be allowed to use if you were shaving. So using NATS is in a way similar to having a 'TMM seal of approval', a kind of 'quality label' that says you are not shaving. So TMM could improve the attractiveness, the value of their "seal of approval" by expanding it from "not-shaving" to "not-shaving and pays on time".

The question of whether or not it is a good business decision to do so entirely depends on TMM. I can imagine it would be good idea for an emerging company to do so in todays market where tons of sponsors suddenly stop paying. I doubt a company with a large market share would make the same decision.

We are on the same line.

[Kiopa_Matt]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Does TMM have 'an obligation' to pull the plug on nonpaying sponsors? NO, they don't.

However, the fact that they don't have an obligation to do so, or the fact that other companies (processors, hosting companies etc) continue to do business with non paying sponsors, does not mean it would be a bad idea for TMM to pull the plug on non paying sponsors.

Personally, I think it'd be a horrible idea from a business perspective. First, TMM would have to raise their license fees by probably 10% to fund the new disputes & resolutions center, where every affiliate who has a payment problem would lodge a complaint. Then there's the ordeal of having to decide who is and isn't a paying affiliate, which is almost never black & white. Then there's the legalities side, and TMM getting sued for punitive damages for unjustly shutting off a license. And the list goes on, and on, and on.

[DWB]

They claim they don't allow shaving and will disable anyone who they catch. Which is a good thing. That puts them into the position of making a call based on if their customers are honest or not. They have made that issue their problem. Which is a good thing.

So I don't have an issue with them disabling non-paying customers of theirs. That is just taking that honesty a step further.

But there is zero accountability in this business, and it's easier to say, yea but what about the billing and hosts. I say, if they KNOW their customer is doing something wrong and do nothing about it, then they (anyone who does business with them) are equally as guilty and are profiting from it.

[Kiopa_Matt]

Originally Posted by DWB

But there is zero accountability in this business, and it's easier to say, yea but what about the billing and hosts. I say, if they KNOW their customer is doing something wrong and do nothing about it, then they (anyone who does business with them) are equally as guilty and are profiting from it.

The electricity you're currently using is being powered by a dam that left 3000 people homeless, so you should stop using electricity. Same concept.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by tabasco

You really have no idea you arrogant old prick.

As for the sig. Well you can see from my low post count I don't post here for sig views.

BTW how come you had an affiliate program at one stage for your shitty teen site???

I have every idea. You have nothing to contradict my argument so sink to abuse.

Adult Internet marketing = Giving away tons of free content and paying a lot to do it.

Result = Little left for the product and free is better than paying for it, for a vast number of surfers.

But a few of you converted at 1-500 and thought you were top guys. Fuck you lost 499 potential sales and would of been kicked out of any other business but adult.

If Tubes are destroying the industry with free content. It's only because you can't keep up with the loss of buyers. That started 10 years ago.

But you're not bright enough to realise the money we made from the members site was just the 4th tier of our income.

Keep making demands on sponsors so even more free content lands in front of surfers.

Your original post shows the level of your business acumen. If any 7 year old could program a site, why didn't you open one?

If you know so much, why didn't you become a sponsor?

Yes, not good enough.

If you send traffic to a shitty site, you're too blame. That's what being self employed means.

If you send traffic to a shitty site scamming customers, you're living off the scamming. Like crap sites or dating sites.

[tabasco]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Your original post shows the level of your business acumen. If any 7 year old could program a site, why didn't you open one?

It wasn't even me that made the "7 year old" comment... this new fangled internet is confusing isn't it?

You'd think a very rich man like you would have better things to do in life than troll GFY all day every day. I mean with your level of expertise in every facet of porn and working for a million years you must be a billionaire by now surely!

[Sausage]

Originally Posted by tabasco

It wasn't even me that made the "7 year old" comment... this new fangled internet is confusing isn't it?

You'd think a very rich man like you would have better things to do in life than troll GFY all day every day. I mean with your level of expertise in every facet of porn and working for a million years you must be a billionaire by now surely!

Trillionaire!

He invented magic join links. ;)

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Sausage

Trillionaire!

He invented magic join links. ;)

Now we have porn failures contributing. Couldn't cut ti in adult, scammed a few content providers and gone to mainstream.


Sorry for mistaking tabasco for lamis. Same level of business acumen.

Real world.

Company sells DVDs to a shop and the shop doesn't pay. They cut off supply and go to the courts. If the shop goes bankrupt, they share in cents on the dollar. Most give up and move on.

Adult Internet market.

Affiliates squeal that other companies should cut off services and lose revenue so they get paid. And do fuck all else after they cut the traffic.

tabasco this is the real world. Even though you seem to think others should take a loss, risk a law suit just so you get paid. It isn't likely to happen. Cut the traffic and move on. That's it because your chances of getting paid are low.

If you cut traffic and the sponsor doesn't pay, he can't be bothered with your traffic or going broke.

You've learned the lesson, choose better sponsors in the future.

I'm here to laugh at clowns like you a frankfurter.

[munki]

This thread demonstrates a critical misunderstanding of what NATs is and how TMM as a company fundamentally operates. They are not a middle man, processor, etc... They sale and lease a software suite.

[ShellShocked]

Originally Posted by DWB

They claim they don't allow shaving and will disable anyone who they catch. Which is a good thing. That puts them into the position of making a call based on if their customers are honest or not. They have made that issue their problem. Which is a good thing.

So I don't have an issue with them disabling non-paying customers of theirs. That is just taking that honesty a step further.

But there is zero accountability in this business, and it's easier to say, yea but what about the billing and hosts. I say, if they KNOW their customer is doing something wrong and do nothing about it, then they (anyone who does business with them) are equally as guilty and are profiting from it.

Yes

[Klen]

They have no obligation to do anything,but still it would be nice if they would do,and not just them hosts and other parties involved too,since then internet business would be literally without scam.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by DWB

But there is zero accountability in this business, and it's easier to say, yea but what about the billing and hosts. I say, if they KNOW their customer is doing something wrong and do nothing about it, then they (anyone who does business with them) are equally as guilty and are profiting from it.

Does that include affiliates sending traffic to crap sites, scam sites, etc?

No, so long as the affiliates get paid.

[Barefootsies]

Should NATS pull the plug on non paying sponsors?

It's not NATS responsibility to police the internet. Plus they would open themselves to lawsuits for the so called, 'greater good'.

[V_RocKs]

12 business people
40 pure consumers

That is where this pole stands right now. NATS is a software company that provides software. That is all. They offer a license and the product that goes with that license. They are not the police. They are not the government. They don't play politics.

[TeenCat]

sure client is client ... affiliates.flixpremium.com/external.php?page=sites&

[Fabien]

Originally Posted by tabasco

There are some programs operating that just flat out stopped paying. I am not talking about one or two late payments - they just don't pay at all yet they continue to operate as usual and allow new webmasters to sign up.

I know some people say it has nothing to do with NATS and it's not their problem but I feel it's not a good look for them. Maybe something could be implemented to "keep the bastards honest"?

EN TABARNAKE
100%

I know they will defend the sponsors but in a way, aren't they "ok" with it ?
None paying programs can have their licenses revoked for shaving stuff and screwing webmasters regarding signups and rebills. Isn't the same thing ?