Typical finders fee is 25%
 

So why do programs pay webmasters up to 60% for finding a sale?

It's just plain ridiculous. And the people to blame for it are the programs themselves because I can remember way back when , when even 50% rev share was completely unheard of for simply getting someone to join a website.

In reality no one should be getting anymore than 25-30% for referring someone to join a site. That is the typical % people get when finding buyers for something.

How any of these programs make any $$ giving people upwards of 60% of their sales is beyond me.

5% of the affiliates make 99% of the sale revenue.

Simple solution: Skim the sheep to pay the whales.

:2 cents:

http://www.Busty-Bucks.com pays up to 80% plus a bonus, im happy with that

Typical finders fee for what?

:disgust If you want to offer 25% to your affiliates, then do so. What's your fucking problem??????? :disgust Affiliates don't make too much money, it's the most idiotic claim that i have read so far today.

I have always found this amazing as well. Nothing you can do about it unless the industry as a whole were to change it en masse.... which just won't happen. Everyone wants the affiliates for the sales... so there will always be someone paying more.. and therefore logistically getting more exposure.

My wife gets 3% sales commission on million dollar deals... Normal for sales is between .5% and 10%... nowhere near the 25% you state. 50% is outrageous... and at 80%.. why not just say the affiliates own the program and you literally work for them as an employee.

Thats why alot of programs go out of business and leave people hanging. You have to offer top-heavy pricing or no one will sign up. Affiliates would rather be with a program for six months and make alot of money in those six months only to have their sixth check never come or be doled out by the bankruptcy attorneys rather than deal with a program that has sound pricing and is sustainable.

Because there will always be someone willing to give a bit more money to make a bit more money.

If someone wanted to give your wife 25% on million dollar deals instead of 3% would she stay with the 3% people? or go for the bigger money?

I'm lost...

Yes... I know how economics works, thanks.

My point was in agreeing that shares of 50, 60, 80% are really out of whack... even though they are there and will continue to be.

Most companies outside of porn have to either use their profits to pay shareholders or re-invest in the business; thus you can't be giving away 50% of your revenue to the sales force. You need that money to keep the business going forward.

In porn, there are sooooooooo many 2-man outfits (wife as model, husband/boyfriend as photographer/webmaster,etc) that they have no issue sharing 50% or more. They typically have no intention of it being a forward going business... rather just a quick source of income for a few months to a year or two. You get enough of those as examples and the big programs then have to start competing at that level and then it just becomes commonplace. I don't agree with the percentages, but I don't have a choice and pay at those levels just like everyone else.

I totally agree.

If it wasn't for affiliates most of these companies wouldn't be in business. They spend a shit load on content, designs and so on but at the end of the day unless they have tons of traffic flowing through their network its money down the drain. Affiliates are important to the success of the companies and they know that. What you fail to point out is that the companies get the x sells and so on.

So whilst they are paying 60% on the $25 per month join fee, they are making a lot more than just 40% minus processing fee's. Trust me on that one. They wouldn't be able to offer promo days if they didn't.

Comparing our business to your wife getting 3% on million dollar deals is pretty stupid as well. Give me a job doing what you wife does any day of the week and I'd quit this business. I'd rather be securing deals like that than selling porn on the internet.

Stupidest thread of the week.

I think of affiliates more as franchise-holders than salespeople... especially the ones that know what they're doing. :2 cents:

This is bull....... the affiliate does all the work to generate the sale and therefore the affiliate should get MOST of the sale. If you dont generate sales your self. Affiliates are the solid gold of your program, learn to fuckin appreciate.

End of the day even if you pay them 80%, you still earn way more than 20% because your brand becomes much more recognised, you get non-tracked sales through people typing in your url and not all people who click through sign up straight away.

I forgot to include this in my previous message.

A picture worth a thousand words. :)

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/im...er-Posters.jpg

Good attitude there.

Selling is done in so many ways that everything pointed out so far is accurate and inaccurate at the same time. For the current business model, affiliates are very important. I have never said they weren't. I appreciate every single one of mine and do my best to treat them well.

You do have to recognize though, that there has to be a brand to sell. It's a partnership. One that with the right set of partners, can make a great amount of money.

My wife's typical sales cycle on large deals is between 90 days and 18 months. An affiliate has 15 seconds with each client, if they are lucky. Different worlds, but still selling. When an affiliate gets to 5 million in sales (if they could) in the space of 3 months or 18 months or even 5 years, giving them 50% of those sales vs. 3% or 10% in mainstream work is the comparison I am making. Yes it's high risk selling, but you won't find mainstream sales routes that can survive giving away 50% of the revenues. This is an industry where it happens.

Excellent point. I would love to use that quote on my program page.

No one says we don't appreciate. It's all business. Business is about making money. I want to make as much as I can, as do the affiliates. It's strictly negotiation and nothing personal or hating. I love an attitude of a great affiliate.... I can't stand the ones that think they are more important than the program... they will last for a handful of sales and bounce to another program, then another, then another. If someone has me by the balls at 60 or even 80% and treats me like you did with your "learn to fuckin appreciate" attitude, I would rather drop that person and find someone who can do more and make less. One good thing about a saturated market... Even though there are lots of programs out there, there are also hungry affiliates that either need money to live or want to prove something. Affiliates with power attitudes are easy enough to shake hands with and say I appreciate what you have done, but this just isn't working for me anymore... no harm, no foul. Nothing personal.. it's just business after all.

80% of a $30 sale is $24 each month. That means I have $6 from that sale to operate on. I already know that my customer will cost me between $7.50 and $9 at regular usage, so no, I don't earn way more. I lose money on that sale.

Yes non-tracked sales and time-lagged signups make a difference. Absolutely. But not all of those can or should be attributed to efforts by affiliates (unless a program relies solely on affiliates for sale; which I don't.... It's that whole eggs in one basket cliche') There has to be some way to pay for promotional days where the margin is cut to nothing or less.

There has to be a program to sell. Just selling it isn't always the most important part. It has to be done to stay successful, but someone also has to retain members and create product to attract new ones.

ROI for my wife's sales job is a minimum 10:1. Generate 10 times more revenue than she is costing the organization. That is very standard ROI. In this industry ROI is 1:1 or less when using affiliates.

Out of curiosity, how much does a good affiliate make? $100K? 200K? 500K? If I hired one for $250K/yr (which in the sales world is a kick-ass base salary), could they generate $2.5 million in sales for me? And if they wanted commission on sales as well, can they go at a 10:1 ROI as well??? I am serious.. i would love to know this... or are we arguing that affiliates are independent contractors that work with tens or hundreds of programs and therefore the 50% is necessary for them to get the numbers that they want due to saturation of products?

Have you ever seen the member section of most paysites? Once you visit a few of them, you'll understand why they can afford to give 60% to affiliates. In fact, some paysites should be paying 90% to affiliates:winkwink:

I assume you mean the one's that suck ass really bad.... does this mean that conversely the good ones shouldn't have to compensate as much because the sale is that much easier and worth more to the customer?

totally true, although the good ones kick ass....

In our market research we got trials to 20-30 sites and some of them were awesome... others really pissed us off (even though they had a lot of exclusive content).

But there are a lot of great paysites (We're coming out with one soon)

I dont think so - they will make their money with higher retention rates

but maybe this does make sense for revshare, sites with great retention shouldn't have to pay as much but they can afford to.

well.. his comment was tongue in cheek I am just not sure which way to go with it.

Yeah.. I have always thought perhaps a program with a nice initial share sale and then decreasing downstream revenue sounded nice as it's the programs responsibility to keep members, so they should get the lion's share...

But then again, someone could come out with an 80% initial sale with 40/30/20 in subsequent months and 10% at month 5 and beyond... and it would just be trumped by a program that went higher.. then higher... then we would be right back to everyone at 50% forever... then 60.. then higher.

So many different ways to compensate.

Attribute the quote in context, and feel free to use it as you see fit - with my blessings. :thumbsup

Cabbage is $1.99 per pound, why do cars not cost the same?