I saw this as a feature of MPA and was wondering what everyone thought about this business model?
It would seem to be that it could be both profitable for the program and the affiliate webmaster whilst at the same time, also being unfair to the affiliate.
Just wondered if anyone knew of a sponsor that paid out on this basis and if so, had you tried promoting them and how well did the sponsor do for you?
Regards,
Lee
as a webmaster i would never use a program that only paid out on rebills... I dont see a reason why i shouldnt be paid for the initial signup..Originally Posted by Lee
Ok, why would this be better for affiliates again?
For owners it would be great... I agree. I just can't see this being accepted by any saine affiliate. Or am I missing something vital here?
Nevermind, i forgot most people on GWW werent around when being paid for 'active' members was big.
Regards,
Lee
hehe i was around but i personally think there is a reason why PPS and normal revshare beat the "per active member" dont you ?
but i would like to hear how you see it as being good for both the program and the webmasters, especially since if you compare it to normal revshare the webmaster looses the money he would have earned on the initial sign up?
Well imho, the webmaster doesnt have to have lost money on the member, the good thing about paying on the rebill, is that you can pay the affiliate more than just a single rebill value, for example, $40 on a $29.95 rebill beause the surfer has already billed once and the affiliate should be compensated for that initial sale... Thats actually a higher payout than on a regular 50% revshare basis too.
For the program owner its good because you actually build up a base of customers who dont lose you money because of high affiliate payouts on the initial sale and the affiliates actually end up making MORE so the program will attract a larger affiliate base.
The downside however is that most affiliates today want paying now, right now, without any delays because we have conditioned them to have the mindset they should be getting paid right after the surfer becomes a member, and they should be getting paid $40 on a $1 sale.
Regards,
Lee
well i can see that one as the payout would be better but if you have a long recurring member it wouldnt be too hot for the program unless i misunderstand you... with the numbers above it would be a direct lose for the program or am i misreading you ?
i agree that the "pay me before the member even signs up" mentality of some of the affiliates are becomming too much but the program owners have themselves to thank for that one.. imo the average webmaster is pampered too much and every idiot and their mother can get started with little or no investment...
Why would it be a direct loss for the program?
Initial sale - $29.95
Rebill value - $29.95
On revshare, affiliate payout would be around $30 - The program would make $30.
On the model i described above, payout would be $40- The program would make $20.
Whilst there would be a loss on the initial to rebill to the program, you also have to take in to account initials that wont rebill, which the affiliate wont be paid for on the 'active' business model... Making the program a whole $30 instead of $15 on the revshare business model.
Of course with month 2, 3, etc rebills the affiliate would be paid less over time however, in the long term, the affiliate still makes more than on a standard PPS or revshare business model as does the program owner.
That being said, for the affiliate there will be a point of diminished return on the member but the affiliate has still ultimately made more money on the initial join just as the program owner does.
Regards,
Lee
I would have no problem trying out the payment structure. I would have to have a look inside the sites and make sure that I personally like them, and make sure there's enough quality content inside to keep the member paying every month.
I wouldn't be at all happy if I signed up 100 one-month-wonders and 2 rebillers. I suppose I'm stating the obvious, but even so, wouldn't be happy.
The problem from my point of view is that once I've sent my traffic, it's out of my hands. It's up to the program to do its sales. If I do my job badly then tough shit, it's my own fault, but if they do theirs badly there's nothing I can do to rectify it except send my traffic elsewhere.
But yeah, I'd give it a bash if the insides were good.
Blum
well yea, if you dont offer a 3 day trial at $4.95 ... but then again most sites do
Which is a major reason why affiliate payouts are so high, because most affiliates dont see why they should only make money when their traffic makes a profit, they want to be paid even if the traffic is unproductive.well yea, if you dont offer a 3 day trial at $4.95 ... but then again most sites do
IMHO there is going to be a major shift in the way affiliates and programs make money in the next couple of years (if not sooner) with VOD sites picking up steam and subscribers on an almost daily basis, the days of PPS and revshare business models as we know them are numbered.
Smart programs, companies and affiliates look for ways to adapt to these changes in billing preferences by surfers.
Regards,
Lee
Agree, the pay per sign-up market has really fucked up some aspects of this business but i though we where talking about a normal revshare vs only paying on rebills ?
if that is the case, i remember still being paid 50% on the initial sign up and then 50% on the rebills...
with your model i wouldnt be paid 50% on the initial sign up but more on rebills, so what i am trying to point out is that this is a bad idea for the program if they offer trials at a lower price.. now if they dont offer trials , it would be a good idea for the program but probably a bad idea for the webmaster as they risk loosing on it in case the surfer doesnt rebill..
all in all i would say that its a bad idea for the affiliate - and so far i am not swayed by your arguments to prove differently ...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks