Simon-
Thanks–I understand the math and the reasoning behind the CPA model very well. I’m pointing out that the model is so open to abuse that other models (rev share, % of depoit) should be looked at. And that affiliate programs should consider eliminating the CPA model because it’s so easy to abuse.
I know that if I were running an affiliate program, I wouldn’t even offer a CPA model. Period. Any CPA model that an affiliate program does run is going to have to factor in an average based on the amount of fraud because when you’re dealing with webmasters on the internet, you’re going to have a certain amount of fraud.
The CPA’s that are being offered are either taking that into account in their averages or they’re not. If they’re not taking fraud into account as part of that average, then the CPA program hasn’t been well thought out.
Originally posted by Simoneaton
Hi Randy,The CPA deals affiliates are from figures based on averages, and what happens is lets say the affiliate brings in the following players with the following deposits:
>> Player a, initial deposit $50, total deposits $500
>> Player b, initial deposit $10, total deposits $40
>> Player c, initial deposit $200, total deposits $3,000
>> Player d, initial deposit $20, total deposits $90If we set a limit saying the player must at least deposit and wager the CPA rate (lets say it is $100).
Then the affiliate would only make $200, when in fact the affiliate brought in 4 depositors and is a good affiliate for the casino on the whole and should earn the $400.
Affiliate programs on the whole like to be fair the affiliate as they know the effort put in to bringing a player.
Now lets take the fraudulent affiliates player base:-
>> Player a, initial deposit $5, total deposits $5
>> Player b, initial deposit $10, total deposits $10
>> Player c, initial deposit $7, total deposits $7
>> Player d, initial deposit $20, total deposits $30Total deposits for the casino is $52
Amount paid to affiliate is $400To get the perfect match is quite tough.