we designed our own custom cascading system a while ago

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=308821

affiliates saw first hand how few signups that are declined by primary go thru the secondary.

But after all is said and done there is no way to make everyone happy, there are positives and neg, with everything

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup
CCBill has been by far the strongest.
Not saying anything bad about the latest billers, but from going back 7 years to now, ccbill has been there and solid.

If you send to 50 sponsors then - relatively speaking - sales at each individual sponsor will be infrequent. With ccbill you'll get a regular check still, with individual sponsors it could be a while between checks. (Not to mention having to track 50 stats interfaces, 50 payouts, deposit 50 checks etc)

the time can very, but with each program you usually have to hit a certain min.. and if you spread out to alot of programs, this can take some time for some.

with ccbill program you can merge them all together and get all the pay weekly from all the programs.

Doh yeah you can have them set the retries to 0 so it automatically kicks it to the decline url you have or paycom if thats your next in cascade.

Ccbill didnt seem to promote it, but NATS tells you when setting up the cascade to ask them to do it.

interesting i didn't know ccbill had standin mode. They always denied it. I just noticed they allowed multiple transactions over the past hour that were bogus info and now they just deleted them all. Mark does that mean ccbill is having some processing issues right now?

Hey guys where can i change the number of denial attempts with ccbill? I've gone thru their admin and I don't see it anywhere.

Cascade billing is over rated and no way does it increase sales 20%, not even 1% !

At this point, processing is going through as normal. Stand-in processing (we call it batch-processing) happens automatically if there are issues with any point of the processing network, it happens rarely and normally for only a short period of time?this may very well have happened, shap

Processors without a stand-in/batch mode, would just be throwing transactions away, rather than giving them a chance to process

Cool. Thanks. A few months ago i remember getting an email from you guys that you hadn't used batch processing in the last 3 years. That's why i was surprised by it. Thanks.

I sure wanna know too!

you can set your decline url through the admin, is my understanding. I think that the techs may need to set the number of decline retries/time before the redirect...either way, if you call client support, they should be able to help you out with these sort of changes, i know a lot of our clients had made adjustments in these areas

so, as it stands, we are able to cascade, you are able to setup a decline url for your consumers, adjust the amount of decline attempts, and adjust the amount of time before the redirect

Thats correct, you set the denial url yourself in the admin, but you have to email support @ ccbill to get them to manual set your decline attempts to the number you want before the redirect.


- Brent

Thing you don't seem to get is if traffic is being rejected by one biller it's likely to be higher risk traffic as it's already being flagged. Couple that with a low processing volume through your secondary CAN lead to problems. He never said it always happens, and obviously a lot of people cascade (we do) but the CB ratios WILL be higher on your secondary billers even if it's by a neglagible amount.

There are also a number of accounting and logistical issues involved as far as dealing with payouts and accounting that are simplified by the CCBill system.

last month stats:

Cascade 1
Biller A: 89% of CC transactions.

Biller B: 11% of CC transactions

hopefully next month will catch more with a 3rd biller in the bottom slot.

if you aren't getting 1% with your 2nd biller in your cascade wither your 2nd biller is scrubbing too hard or your first biller isn't sending em over IMO <--

right, I understand what you are saying and perhaps in my case since Paycom is in the first slot they are just scrubbing harder, and the second in my slot is more lenient on the countries or whatever, and the CB ratio for me is the same +/- any given month at both processors.


>> but obviously not enough of a risk to not use cascade billing at all <<<

let me also take a moment to mention that, as far as ccbill goes, we have made upgrades/tweaks/improvements in our scrubbing system in such a way that our declines (not those by the bank) had decreased by 2/3 over the past 2 years, with no increase in cb/ref.

so another scenerio is that the primary is just not rejecting a whole lot of transactions that the secondary is accepting

Do Paycom or Epoch have upsells?

yes they do

Excellent point!

I promote a lot of sponsors with cascading setups, one of those sponsors hasn't paided me in months and there is another one that I have had to remind to pay me and it's looking like I'm going to have to "remind" them to send me payment this month again :disgust

CCBill on the other hand, never missed a payment, on time every time :thumbsup

I'd love to test your theory, but you guys rejected my site when every other biller said it was fine.

yea? strange, email or icq me the site name pls, ill check it out

[email protected]
45471840

Are those stats from your program, or from a sponsors?

There could be many reasons why you have so many cascade sales.

It could be something as simple as the sponsor himself rotating in a new biller a small % of the time in order to spread their eggs out a bit.

BVCash has had cascade billing since 2003 with ccbill & paycom and I can tell you for me its around 1%<.

I also have other standalone ccbill (no cascade) paysites sites for comparison, sometimes you will get 2 or 3 denials in a row from one customer and then you will see after the last denial a new sale comes thru and he finally gets signed up using another card or what have you. With a cascade system these sales would be passed on to a second biller. I suspect this scenario makes the majority of most cascade sales.

these are from my program, not a sponsor. if you are less than 1% makes me think you are either not getting all your rejects over to your 2nd biller, or your 2nd biller is scrubbing as hard as the first.

my 1st biller is Epoch, then gets sent to Clearcard, I'm guessing your first is CCBill 2nd is Epoch, a 1% might make sense then since from what I can tell they scrub using same techniques, you should try a month using Clearcard in your 2nd slot and see if you can pick up closer to 10% like me and a few others I know. Clearcard has better processing rates too and you don't need $750 visa approval on setup.

how many times are you guys going to have to see one of these new alternative processors go tits up with your money before you understand that unless a 3rd party processor is a legitimate IPSP with lots of merchant accounts they are going down in flames sooner than later?

these guys aren't going anywhere, it's the fine folks at cyberage that own it. they are reputable, and I doubt you can find anyone in this industry that is legit themselves to say otherwise.

I do know some of the sponsors you mention have a specail arrangement with CCbill that are only offerd to real players I guess your not Important enough to know that.

whatevah playah :1orglaugh


whatever the deal is, I doubt it makes up for not having a cascade unless it's a shave the affiliates deal, which I highly doubt but you never know in this industry.

Don't agree with you. Even if it was less than 1%, any money left on the table is money left on the table.

B'cause he dont need to.........

http://www.ftvgirls.com/sl55/Img0110.jpg

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...ht=lamborghini

right, that was my previous conclusion, they just don't give a shit just like how most of the older bigger sponsors don't give a shit either until shit goes bad.

Likewise, instead of giving away a free car, 10 wide screens and 25 PS3s we are going to increase payouts from $35 to $40.... That way everyone gets something.

What kind of volume do you guys think you should be doing before you consider implementing a cascading system into a program?

if you can makeup the $750 visa fee in a month, I would do it, although I did it as soon as I got up and running.

Good for you! I Would take the same road.

If you have a solid program that converts you don't need to give out TV's and PS3's to get people to send traffic.

How many of you remember how much traffic BangBus got back when they got started? How many PS3's were they giving away?

Same reason small companies do? It's simple and you know the affiliates are getting paid. On that note see my request thread... http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...1#post11957544

You went from 10-20&#37; lost sales due to lack of cascading down to 1% This shows you had a wrong impression about declined sales and a cascade solution when you started the thread.

Do you know there are only like 20 aff.programs that tweak/optimize their tours and promo materials? As affiliate I would worry primarily about that since its impact is tremendously more important in generated revenues. There are so many things done wrongly or not done at all by an avg aff.program that makes cascade billing a drop in the ocean ;-)

no, I was basing the 10-20% on my own stats, I am at the low end of that, and I figure a bigger program would be getting a larger variety of tricky to bill surfers so they would benefit more. I just used the 1% later in the thread because that is what a few others started posting saying 1% is no big deal, which is rediculous for a big program, which I am sure you know, and you wouldn't let 1% slip by your deal... right??

true, I agree with you as an affiliate, more stuff, tweaked tours are great, however as a sponsor myself, I cannot believe adding a cascade would be a "drop in the ocean" it's an easy bottom line booster IMO.


as I stated before in the thread my conclusion is:

These guys just don't give a shit, they are making enough money not to care, and they won't care until things slow down for em.