Freeones - Major Drama - Page 3

Quashe · April 25th, 2008, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kefir

But not in public on boards probably

Please note that we didn't post it our selfs

Cyberpod · April 25th, 2008, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quashe

Please note that we didn't post it our selfs

Even so, imho it would be in the best interest to explain your side asap. I have stated I really don't have a good grasp on the claims here... Looking at the response to this thread, you have some folks in your corner right now. Prolly wanna make sure they are not made to be fools if theres something more to this story.

DamageX · April 25th, 2008, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyberpod

Even so, imho it would be in the best interest to explain your side asap.

I'm pretty sure they did, albeit not necessarily in this thread.

Quashe · April 25th, 2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyberpod

Even so, imho it would be in the best interest to explain your side asap. I have stated I really don't have a good grasp on the claims here... Looking at the response to this thread, you have some folks in your corner right now. Prolly wanna make sure they are not made to be fools if theres something more to this story.

http://www.xbiz.com/news/93013

Cyberpod · April 25th, 2008, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quashe

http://www.xbiz.com/news/93013

ok, I read the story. If I were a partner of yours, I would need to decide if your part of my income was enough to allow the change. If I needed you to continue being profitable I might go along with it. I might also tell you to go pound your pud. I kinda think it's crappy, but it would be up to me either way. Like it or leave it. Seems to me all your partners could turn around and do the same thing. You are making a business decision that is either gonna work or backfire and you'll loose those same partners you make money with.

Quashe · April 25th, 2008, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyberpod

ok, I read the story. If I were a partner of yours, I would need to decide if your part of my income was enough to allow the change. If I needed you to continue being profitable I might go along with it. I might also tell you to go pound your pud. I kinda think it's crappy, but it would be up to me either way. Like it or leave it. Seems to me all your partners could turn around and do the same thing. You are making a business decision that is either gonna work or backfire and you'll loose those same partners you make money with.

The funny thing is that a lot of webmasters ask for higher payouts and I don't really see what the big problem is. Ok maybe the way it came over but in the end it's just a request for a higher payout. If you don't want to do it than don't, easy as that.

Anyway, I am done with this. It's weekend for me and this thread is just started to try to stir some shit by my old friend krome.

Enjoy

AmateurFlix · April 25th, 2008, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyberpod

ok, maybe I misunderstood. Is it being claimed that in addition to Freeones demanding a higher cut, they are mandating that others NOT get that same amount? I must have missed something along the way.

maybe I didn't make myself clear

this was not in referance to Freeones

I was merely saying that I'm surprised what Freeones did caused such a stir, when the pricing variances which I mentioned seem to be such a widespread practice on many review sites.

Smart Fred · April 25th, 2008, 09:47 AM

When I've started my first pay site using CCBill in 2005, I put 50% revshare. As Freeones and PornstarGals were the only sites to make regular sales for it, I've moved them to 60% three months after.
They don't claim for it but I thought it was a smart way to manage my affiliates.
So, no drama for me.

Cyberpod · April 25th, 2008, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

maybe I didn't make myself clear

this was not in referance to Freeones

I was merely saying that I'm surprised what Freeones did caused such a stir, when the pricing variances which I mentioned seem to be such a widespread practice on many review sites.

so we are on the same page after all... LOL

Toby · April 25th, 2008, 12:32 PM

Just an obeservation, after taking this all in for the last two days.

I don't think people really have as much of an issue with high volume affiliates getting a larger percentage.

I think it was more the somewhat heavy-handed way the "request" was presented, combined with the fact that many of these sponsors are also non-US and therefore also faced with the same realities of dealing with a declining dollar.

It's no big surprise that many programs are increasing their efforts at generating non-affiliate sales.

ideaworx · April 25th, 2008, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quashe

The funny thing is that a lot of webmasters ask for higher payouts and I don't really see what the big problem is. Ok maybe the way it came over but in the end it's just a request for a higher payout. If you don't want to do it than don't, easy as that.

Anyway, I am done with this. It's weekend for me and this thread is just started to try to stir some shit by my old friend krome.

Enjoy

Enjoy your weekend Roald, and dont let the haters get to you mate!

Viper · April 25th, 2008, 07:38 PM

Oh good.. GFY comes to ADX.. A stupid post with absolutely no substance...

ideaworx · April 25th, 2008, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viper

Oh good.. GFY comes to ADX.. A stupid post with absolutely no substance...

Must say, i think that is the 3rd or 4th retarded waste of drama post for mr.bluepayer, congrats to him on that!

Pornonada · April 26th, 2008, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viper

Oh good.. GFY comes to ADX.. A stupid post with absolutely no substance...

+1

Jensen · April 26th, 2008, 01:01 AM

The request is fine and they can ask whatever they want. The big "drama" her is the way they asked. "We don't make as much as we used to due to the dollar and would like more to stay profitable" is just awful to write when a ton of sponsors like myself are struggling with exactly the same problem.

Heck, the dollar is worth half of what it paid in 2000 up in Norway and I'm paying more for my burgers up here than they do down there. You can't write bull**** like that Quashe and not expect people to react.

If I were them I would push the same stuff they are claiming in all threads, "We are going to push the highest paying sponsors more, if you raise your payout you can expect more signups". Would sound a lot better?

Have a good weekend all, including you Quashe

Head Boy · April 26th, 2008, 01:12 AM

Well given that review sites leech the targetted traffic found by other affiliates, I think they should be on a lower payout. Or even made to find another source of revenue like the non-internet review services.

Why should sponsors give even 50% to review sites when it's probably the sponsor's advertising that found the surfer in the first place.

AmateurFlix · April 26th, 2008, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head Boy

Why should sponsors give even 50% to review sites when it's probably the sponsor's advertising that found the surfer in the first place.

most of my review traffic comes from hardlinks on my freesite network. most of the SE traffic comes from various long-tail SE results.

if anything I should be getting paid a higher % than someone using up a bunch of the sponsor's content and b/w with TGP/MGP galleries. All my promotion requires is a hardlink, and the only b/w it consumes from the sponsor is from the tour pages. I don't need custom ads/buttons/banners/galleries/attention from reps/etc, my promotional method consumes far less overhead than that of nearly any other affiliate, meaning the sponsor makes more $ per sale from me than they would with nearly any other affiliate.

Pornonada · April 26th, 2008, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

most of my review traffic comes from hardlinks on my freesite network. most of the SE traffic comes from various long-tail SE results.

if anything I should be getting paid a higher % than someone using up a bunch of the sponsor's content and b/w with TGP/MGP galleries. All my promotion requires is a hardlink, and the only b/w it consumes from the sponsor is from the tour pages. I don't need custom ads/buttons/banners/galleries/attention from reps/etc, my promotional method consumes far less overhead than that of nearly any other affiliate, meaning the sponsor makes more $ per sale from me than they would with nearly any other affiliate.

Bandwith isn't the only factor. Using human resources as well. There are more factors involved that make sense. For example a high volume traffic sending sites helps a lot of "branding" a given site. It also increases the chances that the visitor may bookmark a site and eventually a lot later checks it again. And of course sending a huge amount of sales/signups helps reducing the human resources cost at the affilate programs end.
Again just for example, every affilate program has costs beginning from employees, office rent and whatever not. So in case a program makes 100 sales per month these costs should be divided with 100 to see, but if someone additionally sends another 500 sales per month the costs are divided by 600 and of course extremely less. It's not yet about profit, because profit comes after expenses. It's of course much more complicated, but just an example on how volume sales can have a very very positive factor other than just wasting bandwith...

AmateurFlix · April 26th, 2008, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pornonada

Bandwith isn't the only factor. Using human resources as well. There are more factors involved that make sense. For example a high volume traffic sending sites helps a lot of "branding" a given site. It also increases the chances that the visitor may bookmark a site and eventually a lot later checks it again.

I was merely giving an example. No matter how you slice it, an affiliate using nothing more than a hardlink - be it from a review site, link list, SE landing page or whatever - is going to incur less overhead to the sponsor than someone using the sponsor's b/w for galleries, the sponsor's resources and money to pay designers to make the galleries, to pay someone else to handle the affiliate backend and list and sort the galleries, etc.

Of course those costs might be minimized if the sales volume is high enough; and due to the extra type-ins generated from branding and the nature of promoting via videos, it is conceivable that it might be even more profitable, but that would be due to flaws in affiliate tracking, seems unlikely, and anyway would be impossible to track.

So back to your example, the cost per sale for a hardlink-only affiliate should not include the same overhead costs as that to determine the cost per sale of someone using all of the above mentioned resources for free content. To determine the correct cost per sale, using your example, you wouldn't divide the total costs by 600, you would divide the costs incurred for the one affiliate group by 100 and for the other affiliate group by 500, to tell you which promotional method is more profitable.

By combining them all together, you may find that some other third group is running at a loss, but when combined with the others you would not see that.

Trixxxia · April 26th, 2008, 09:42 AM

Here's my point of view - seeing that most affiliates are on a PPS model, those are the affiliate's that 99% of the time benefit from bonus days, higher payout in the case of exits & overall they get 'more' rightaway, whereas a Revshare affiliate is riding the risk with you and doesn't get the opportunity to benefit from any bonus. Personally, I don't see it as being an 'abnormal' request - not in the least - moreso, with the current climate of this business.

I don't know what kind of payout they were requesting these increases on - however, I don't see it as being 'abnormal'. I've seen cases where an affiliate can bring in 200 sales a day a get paid $50 upfront - and the company still make money off it with rebills & I've seen cases where an affiliate is getting 75% and the company making little, but the volume is enough to make it worthwhile.

I can see this being a problem for smaller programs and although I can understand FreeOnes stand on it - they also have to factor in that if they want to remain unique and an added benefit to their surfers/members, they need to be showing more unique stuff than *only the sponsors able to afford to pay them more* or they'll be showing the exact same thing as every other tom, dick and harry. It's not only development and ad-buys that increase your profits - increasing the income value from the surfers/members you currently have is no added cost to you - remaining unique and having more to offer than the next guy is going to keep them there and eventually buying more from you without an increased cost to you.

In the end, it is up to the program to view how much they 'do' make from them - if the affiliate 'sells' your site properly and the site does enough to maintain the member, increased volume in sales = increased profits if you don't have increased costs with it. The other thing to factor in is 'if' they decide to stop promoting you or promoting you less prominently, how easy will it be to find someone to compensate for that loss of business? If it hurts your bottom line, then you should look at your numbers more and discuss what 'would' make sense to you...

But maybe we're missing some pieces in this discussion.
As for the USD - everyone is suffering the same 'loss' of income compared to their own currency - heck for me it's a 60% loss since the 'good days' but you learn to adapt & try to keep your 'bigger costs' in the same currency as the one you are earning (although if you have in-house employees, it's a little harder to do). **at least, that was my solution to it**

**I babbled in a few directions here - just being the devil's advocate**

April 25th, 2008, 12:32 PM	#50 (permalink)
Toby What are you wearing? Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 1,190	Just an obeservation, after taking this all in for the last two days. I don't think people really have as much of an issue with high volume affiliates getting a larger percentage. I think it was more the somewhat heavy-handed way the "request" was presented, combined with the fact that many of these sponsors are also non-US and therefore also faced with the same realities of dealing with a declining dollar. It's no big surprise that many programs are increasing their efforts at generating non-affiliate sales. __________________ *My TGPs: Bevy Of Babes \| Babes In Boots \| Well Heeled Women \| Dressing For Sex \| Stocking Vixens*

April 25th, 2008, 07:38 PM	#52 (permalink)
Viper Traveling a circular path Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: West Coast, BC, Canada Posts: 1,591	Oh good.. GFY comes to ADX.. A stupid post with absolutely no substance... __________________

April 26th, 2008, 01:01 AM	#55 (permalink)
Jensen UnrealBank.com Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Norway Posts: 207	The request is fine and they can ask whatever they want. The big "drama" her is the way they asked. "We don't make as much as we used to due to the dollar and would like more to stay profitable" is just awful to write when a ton of sponsors like myself are struggling with exactly the same problem. Heck, the dollar is worth half of what it paid in 2000 up in Norway and I'm paying more for my burgers up here than they do down there. You can't write bull** like that Quashe and not expect people to react. If I were them I would push the same stuff they are claiming in all threads, "We are going to push the highest paying sponsors more, if you raise your payout you can expect more signups". Would sound a lot better? Have a good weekend all, including you Quashe __________________ UNREALBANK.com** - New paysite : FistorDie.com (anal fisting) - 50 new DevilsPen galleries: click here to import them ICQ: 62973182

April 26th, 2008, 01:12 AM	#56 (permalink)
Head Boy Guest Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: England Posts: 7,430	Well given that review sites leech the targetted traffic found by other affiliates, I think they should be on a lower payout. Or even made to find another source of revenue like the non-internet review services. Why should sponsors give even 50% to review sites when it's probably the sponsor's advertising that found the surfer in the first place. __________________ I apologise to ADX members for my constant reminders that Lord Aga and Netpond are scammers Money Bookers - now with ATM withdrawals via MasterCard

April 26th, 2008, 09:42 AM	#60 (permalink)
Trixxxia Psycho Work-a-holic Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Canada Posts: 278	Here's my point of view - seeing that most affiliates are on a PPS model, those are the affiliate's that 99% of the time benefit from bonus days, higher payout in the case of exits & overall they get 'more' rightaway, whereas a Revshare affiliate is riding the risk with you and doesn't get the opportunity to benefit from any bonus. Personally, I don't see it as being an 'abnormal' request - not in the least - moreso, with the current climate of this business. I don't know what kind of payout they were requesting these increases on - however, I don't see it as being 'abnormal'. I've seen cases where an affiliate can bring in 200 sales a day a get paid $50 upfront - and the company still make money off it with rebills & I've seen cases where an affiliate is getting 75% and the company making little, but the volume is enough to make it worthwhile. I can see this being a problem for smaller programs and although I can understand FreeOnes stand on it - they also have to factor in that if they want to remain unique and an added benefit to their surfers/members, they need to be showing more unique stuff than only the sponsors able to afford to pay them more or they'll be showing the exact same thing as every other tom, dick and harry. It's not only development and ad-buys that increase your profits - increasing the income value from the surfers/members you currently have is no added cost to you - remaining unique and having more to offer than the next guy is going to keep them there and eventually buying more from you without an increased cost to you. In the end, it is up to the program to view how much they 'do' make from them - if the affiliate 'sells' your site properly and the site does enough to maintain the member, increased volume in sales = increased profits if you don't have increased costs with it. The other thing to factor in is 'if' they decide to stop promoting you or promoting you less prominently, how easy will it be to find someone to compensate for that loss of business? If it hurts your bottom line, then you should look at your numbers more and discuss what 'would' make sense to you... But maybe we're missing some pieces in this discussion. As for the USD - everyone is suffering the same 'loss' of income compared to their own currency - heck for me it's a 60% loss since the 'good days' but you learn to adapt & try to keep your 'bigger costs' in the same currency as the one you are earning (although if you have in-house employees, it's a little harder to do). at least, that was my solution to it I babbled in a few directions here - just being the devil's advocate __________________ Patricia ~ Trixxxia ♥ EvolvingCash ♥ PherAmour Pheromone Cologne for Men Email: patricia at evolvingcash dot com ICQ: 465.826.441 Yahoo: trixxxia_me MSN - GTalk - Skype: trixxxia

April 25th, 2008, 09:47 AM	#48 (permalink)
Smart Fred Traffic Guru Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: France Posts: 375	When I've started my first pay site using CCBill in 2005, I put 50% revshare. As Freeones and PornstarGals were the only sites to make regular sales for it, I've moved them to 60% three months after. They don't claim for it but I thought it was a smart way to manage my affiliates. So, no drama for me.