Printable View
I just dont get it, NATs isnt shave proof (even though the creators say it is) is a program owner wants to shave sales, he/she will find a way to do so and no software in the world is going to 'stop' that from happening.
I really dont see why affiliates are on a big 'NATs' crusade over the past couple of years as the only real difference between that and similar products is that they claim its impossible to shave when program owners use NATs.
So whats the big deal?
Regards,
Lee
In addition to the anti-shave, NATS does offer the affiliate some easy-to-use ad tools with the affiliate code pre-appended, supports seamless integration of hosted galleries, and has very good reporting.
Yes, it's a little buggy, and has some shortcomings, but from what I understand and what I've seen of other applications, it's the mix of features, ad tools and reporting that sponsors and affiliates seem to like.
nats gives some useful information in the stats and also makes having a variety of linking options easier. also cascading can mean making an extra 10 - 12%.
Ofcoarse any program isn't shave proof but Nats constantly checks to see if things are working correctly and if they see any shaving your going to be in deep shit. Our sales increased over 20% when we started using Nats. I would suggest cascade billing to any program regardless if it is Nats or not. Also Nats constantly updates their software to be on top of the game.
Mark
I heard that NATs maker would remove the license if the program got caught shaving. Thats a big dis-incentive to shave.
I just like the reports format, its so easy to use as an affiliate.
TMM has previously terminated affiliates for attempting to tamper with NATS, and they are, I think, very sincere about making their product as robust as possible.
However, Lee's point was that it's possible to shave an affiliate before the sale ever gets to NATS (or any other affiliate management tool), and I'm inclined to think he's correct, so ultimately, I think that affiliates have to, at least to some extent, trust the programs they are working with.
NATS definitely makes it harder to shave, so it's one of those "locks keep honest people honest" things.
NATS beats the hell out of a single processor solution by a good 20%, thanks solely to cascading. The stats are far superior than any ipsp's stats, giving affiliates campaigns and tracking tools. And thats not even taking into account other back-end superior features like geotargeted billing and instantly being able to add/swap/remove billers from cascades.
But really, it comes down to money. After moving to NATS, HunkMoney has seen an amazing 300% increase in affiliate payouts.
This and how fast and easy it is to navigate thru the interface.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilihost
Was anyone else aware that the NATs site was hacked today?
As of yet no 'official' announcement from TMM has been made as to what, if any data was compromised due to this hacker gaining access to their system.
Just another reason why third party applications are not always the best solution when running an affiliate program.
Regards,
Lee
NATS has to be preferable to CCBill or any processor stats. Epoch's offering of MPA3 is awesome though imo.
The downside with all of these types of systems is that you don't have access to the source code....which sux from many, many perspectives. Open source is definitely the way to go.
Of course... the downside to open source is the program operator could modify it to shave the affiliate...
I agree that open source is preferable, but I can also see why Zend-encoded code might feel more secure for the affiliates and therefore more trustworthy.
It's an interesting point Chip:
I wonder how many affiliates feel this way? Considering it's your comment and I have no idea how to, may I suggest starting a poll to explore this?Quote:
the downside to open source is the program operator could modify it to shave the affiliate...
Or does Lee need to do this?
I think anyone can start a poll :)
As has been stated elsewhere, a sponsor that wants to shave will figure out how to shave regardless, so I think it's a mistake to rely on NATS or anything else as the sole assurance that a sponsor is honest.
And I think that sponsors who have developed a reputation for fairness and honesty could probably use a custom-developed solution or one that doesn't make use of third-party encoded scripts without a problem.
I think it's the sponsor developing a name for itself or the affiliate that's been repeatedly burned that a solution such as NATS is most beneficial... but it would be interesting to see responses from a bunch of affiliates on the issue.
NATS is great. I cringe every time I have to sign up for an affiliate program that doesn't use NATS. For one, I know if a program isn't using NATS I'll be missing out on somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of potential sales that cascading billing probably would have snagged otherwise. Then there's the simplicity of setting up advertising campaigns. Plus there's the familiarity factor: You log into any affiliate program using NATS and unless they've gone and picasso'd the layout, you know exactly where everything is. I hate having to find out how to set up an advertising campaign, or worse, spending 30 minutes trying to figure out how to set up a campaign only to find their shitty software doesn't support it.
I don't buy into the no-shave thing at all. It's an advertising gimmick and they've done a great job with it. But in my opinion, it has very little to do with the popularity of NATS,
Well said I think most affiliates that use Nats would agree. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by chodadog
Mark
i have herd that you get lower ratios with programs that change to nats from epoch and ccbill
it also depends on how the program owner sets it up too even though they dont have a built in shaving plugin like mpa does there are still inbuilt things with nats that will allow you to shave over on gfy a few months back flashcash was caught shaving using something like a verified sales plugin with nats
I have never heard such a thing. Nats has already terminated a company for not letting them post rebills to the system. They are quite anal when it comes to anything they find that is shaving. The funny thing is when we were first with CCBill's affiliate program we didn't have something setup correctly and let's just say affiliates weren't being credited for sales. It was a very simple thing that I won't post here. That was a long time ago but let's just say that just because a program is on CCbill etc. doesn't mean it is shave proof. At least with Nats they are another party watching us, they actually look for shaving because if someone does shave it can ruin their rep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baghdad Bob
Mark
go and search on gfy there were 3 or 4 pages in the thread about them shaving even though they were using nats
there are also lots of others who have said on gfy there sales ratios dropped when a sponsor has changed to nats
there are also lots of others who have noticed some programs dont set nats up properly so they arent getting full credit for sales
i know you are probably to lazy to go to gfy and search so here are some threads for you to look at
http://www.gfyboard.com/showthread.php?t=712257
http://www.gfyboard.com/showthread.php?t=683171
http://www.gfy.com/showthread.php?p=11352117
http://www.gfyboard.com/showthread.php?t=705919
so it isnt crazy a lot of people have noticed what i said going on just because you are using nats on your program dont try fooling people to thinking it is good when there ar eobvious problems with it somewhere because of the script or because of programs not setting it up right!
I rember reading that thread about FlashCash on GFY and how they had a modded version of NATs to only credit affiliates with 'verified' sales after a couple of days.
I also recall there was a major issue with Fleshlight after they switched over to NATs and how everyone was complaining their sales went to shit on the very same day the change happened, not sure what ever became of that but i do know the guys at Fleshlight arent as 'visibile' on GFY any more $0.02
Regards,
Lee
Thanks for the infos about NATS.