Should The 3rd Party Processors Do This...

[gaystoryman]

I am cranky this morning, but as I see it, it is the reseller's money, and if they don't make the minimum, then close the account, send them what is OWED them and that should be it. To me its like you hire a kid to mow your lawn, you tell him you'll pay him once a month, providing he mows your grass 4 times.

After the 3rd time he moves away, quits, goes back to school. You still owe him the money, to keep it because he didn't complete your 4th mowing doesn't in any way negate that he did cut it three times. You owe him for work done.

THese constant attempts to justify theft amazes me. It is the reseller's money. His traffic earned, he deserves it. I can accept minimum payouts, to keep costs down, but at the end it is 6the resellers money

[Lee]

After the 3rd time he moves away, quits, goes back to school. You still owe him the money, to keep it because he didn't complete your 4th mowing doesn't in any way negate that he did cut it three times. You owe him for work done.

Right, but then when he asks for the money for the 3 cuts, he gets it.

Exactly the same way that PPS sponsors operate when an affiliate only makes 1 sale then leaves the industry, if he hasnt made the payout threshold, the PPS sponsor still gets the money from the processor for the sale and only releases it to the affiliate once asked for it, by the affiliate.

I can accept minimum payouts, to keep costs down, but at the end it is 6the resellers money

Agreed it is the affiliates money, but why shouldnt the program owner get that money until the affiliate has met the minimum payout, rather than the processor keeping those funds, for potentially years earning thousands of dollar sin interest, that the program could be earning and using to improve their program?

Regards,

Lee

[Dzinerbear]

Agreed it is the affiliates money, but why shouldnt the program owner get that money until the affiliate has met the minimum payout, rather than the processor keeping those funds, for potentially years earning thousands of dollar sin interest, that the program could be earning and using to improve their program?

Because it's not your money to have. If the program gives you the money and the affiliate starts selling you again, then what happens?

As others have said, the only fair thing to do is after a year, cut the webmaster a cheque and inform him that you've closed his account. I don't care what the TOS says. TOS is just a bunch of BS people hide behind to make sure things go their way. The ethical thing is to pay the webmaster out.

And as far as giving the site owner the money so they can improve their site, give me break. Give the site owner the money so they can pay their rent, buy more cars, go on more vacations, buy more coke, buy iPhones, is more like it.

Michael

[Lee]

Because it's not your money to have. If the program gives you the money and the affiliate starts selling you again, then what happens?

It comes out of the programs next payout from the processor, there are ALWAYS funds in arrears at any processor.

What im suggesting, what a lot of you seem to be missing, is no different to what happens at PPS sponsors, they get ALL of the money for affiliate sales, even the $$ for affiliates that have only made 1 sale and not hit minimum payout.

So the next logical question to ask is...

Why is okay for PPS programs to do this and not revshare program owners?

Regards,

Lee

[Xstr8guy]

This is just another fine way for Lee to demonstrate just how cheap he really is. What? Do you have $73 sitting in your CCbill account that you just can't live without? I agree that it shouldn't just be sitting in CCbill's bank collecting interest for years and years.

Doesn't CCbill periodically reconcile accounts and make payouts? Surely most affiliates have multiple accounts merged and can easily make the minimum cutoff for a CCbill check. Isn't it just $25 minimum for a check anyways?

And another thing... if a CCbill affiliate has your program merged into a master account, he can still reach the minumum even if he isn't promoting your program anymore.

[Dzinerbear]

I agree that it shouldn't just be sitting in CCbill's bank collecting interest for years and years.

Why shouldn't they. It's their database, their storage space, and their accountants that have to keep track of it and carry it over month after month.

Michael

[Lee]

Why shouldn't they. It's their database, their storage space, and their accountants that have to keep track of it and carry it over month after month.

Michael

Because it isnt their money maybe?

The processors already take out their fees on every transaction.

Why shouldnt those funds be dispersed to the program owner and taken out of the next payout the program owner gets from the processor if and when the affiliates who are owed $20 asks for it?

Regards,

Lee

[Dzinerbear]

Tomaaaaaaaaaaato ... Tomahhhhhhto

[Xstr8guy]

Why shouldn't they. It's their database, their storage space, and their accountants that have to keep track of it and carry it over month after month.

Michael

All I'm suggesting is that CCbill should periodically reconcile inactive accounts (if they don't do this already). It is a common business practice and a generally accepted accounting principle.