- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Welcome to CAP Alex!
Well, Referspot is not a member here, so we can’t ask them directly.
With the recent increase of CPA fraud however, I must assume that is the way they protect themselves. Some programs, such as Adriches, have recently totally removed the CPA option.
I personally don’t do CPA, I find it a money loser.
But I know some of the other members here do, so stay tuned for someone with a better answer.
That’s a pretty rotten CPA deal. Part of the value of the CPA model is transferring the risk of winning players back to the casino. Here you’ve traded away a lifetime of commissions for a flat $50, but you still have the risk of not being paid if a player wins. And of course, $50 is an abysmally low amount for CPA in the first place.
I’d run the other way.
One more thing, a pet peeve of mine: Players don’t ‘loose’, they ‘lose’. Loose rhymes with goose.
Hello TurtleD and welcome to CAP. :wavey:
Almost ALL CPA programs have a minimum purchase requirement. $50 is very conservative. Many range as high as $100 – $200 minimum purchase in order to receive your CPA commission.
This is an absolute necessity or the programs would be too wide open to fraud. Even with these checks and balances in place CPA is a tenuous proposition for any casino. There have been numerous occasions where fraudulent “affiliates” have sent casinos bogus players then split the CPA payment with their accomplices.
I am surprised you never heard of a deposit requirement if you have done CPA promotion in the past.
Hope this helps and good luck.
:bigsmile:Hey Prof, I don’t think he was unhappy about a deposit requirement. It’s the LOSS requirement that is unusual here.
If I have a CPA deal with a $50 deposit requirement, I want to get paid even if my player cashes out as a winner, as long as he deposited at least $50.
If I deposit $50 and dont play or play only $10, then you get paid your CPA and after your paid the next month I withdraw my $40 or $50 what happens?
If the player is not required to wager thru the $50 then a minimum deposit requirement is worthless. Or am I missing something here?
Thats the risk the casino / program takes by giving CPA deals.
To require players to lose before you can get paid is NOT a CPA deal at all! I agree with BJinfo – what happens when a player deposits $50 and wins? You as an affiliate have fulfilled your obligation to refer a player, but under this particular program you would not be entitled to your payment.
Are you saying it’s perfectly fine to have programs require that you refer only losers? That’s a horrible deal! The $50 is extremely low, and on top of that your acquisition has to be a loser or you don’t get paid? Lose / Lose situation for the affiliate and a win/win for the program … RUN RUN RUN
A wagering requirement is completely different than a losing requirement.
Casinos can have any policies they want of course, but if this losing requirement isn’t in their terms and conditions then they are crooks. And if it is in their terms, remove them from your site anyway as it is a pitiful policy. Work with more sensible casinos.
No I am not saying anything of the sort.
All I am saying is that they probably require $50 play thru. If the player doesnt play $50 then they are NOT a player. Again read what I said, if I got you and bb1 and Dom and Fergie and Randy and the Captain together and I said “Hey guys, take $50 go over to Referspot and deposit it in a new account. Dont play just deposit the money or at worst spend $5 or $10 bucks if you want. Then quit playing till I tell you. Once I have been paid by the casino I want you to withdraw the $40 or $50 and I will send you $25 for your troubles” I just cleared $25 profit from everyone I get to go in with me on this scam.
This HAS Happened to casinos who do CPA deals.
All that being said I want to reiterate my position on the CPA compensation model in general, IT SUCKS and it invites fraud. It’s a form of compensation where at least ONE side loses, no matter what. So I always recommend to EVERYONE, casinos and affiliates alike, do not do CPA deals. Stick with Net Win or Net Deposit, its the only fair and equitable form of payments in the real world.
I’m even OK with a deposit/wagerthrough once requirement, to address Professor’s $10 wagering example.
But imagine this player: He clicks through turtleD’s link, and deposits $1000. He plays slots for two days straight, wagering over $100,000. He hits a jackpot for $10K, but plays it all back, and he finally cashes out for $951.
turtleD doesn’t get paid a dime for this player.
Now that we’ve each provided extreme examples at opposite ends of the spectrum, let me recap my point:
A program is welcome to require a certain deposit amount, or even a certain wagering requirement, but the customer’s net win or loss should not be a part of the criteria.Obviously, we live in a free market world, and if some affiliates are less picky about CPA deals, then perhaps this idea will succeed. But I won’t be signing on to any.
PS I am saying what Classics basically just said. A wagering requirement is common. The term losing is not really applicable as once the player has played thru or wager $50 or more the affiliate should be compensated.
I think the rep from Referspot was confused when they used the term “loose $50”.
At least I would think thats what is going on here. Since I dont work with Referspot and they arent certified I cant be 100% sure.
Originally posted by Professor
All that being said I want to reiterate my position on the CPA compensation model in general, IT SUCKS and it invites fraud. It’s a form of compensation where at least ONE side loses, no matter what.[/B]On this we’re in total agreement.
I hope Referspot Kevin meant “playthrough” not “loose” (sic). Obviously that is simply unacceptable if he meant lose.
But imagine this player: He clicks through turtleD’s link, and deposits $1000. He plays slots for two days straight, wagering over $100,000. He hits a jackpot for $10K, but plays it all back, and he finally cashes out for $951.
No I think he certainly should recieve compensation on this type of player. He exceeded $50 in play thru or wagering and was a REAL player. The casino had their shot at his money and the affiliate did his part of the deal by bringing in a REAL player.
I think Referspot was really trying to say they require a minimum deposit and wager thru to qualify as a player.
Originally posted by Professor
All that being said I want to reiterate my position on the CPA compensation model in general, IT SUCKS and it invites fraud.Yes unless it is an over and beyond CPA deal we are in agreement on that. And no I wasnt trying to put words in your mouth – I know you were concerned with fraud.
It seems this all boils down to what Kevin meant …
The fraud is rampant lately and casinos need to protect themselves a lot better or we all will lose the option to do CPA.
I don’t think though that the $50 (and yes, $50 is abysmal) should have to be lost. It should be played, but win or lose should not enter into it at all. That makes no sense.
I can’t get over the lousy $50 though either.
I did CPA years ago and could get a lot better than that. A lot!
