The weekly billing model comment reminds me of discussion I had when
new rules first became apparent...

What came out of it finding best ways to leverage those members you know are 'good' by stimulating an increase in their total transaction #s. Switching from monthly to bi-weekly memberships on these individuals would give them 2x the power as new unproven member. Over time one could have same number of bad transactions as right now, but at 1/2 the penalty due to good transactions counting double while bad ones aren't.

Surfers (and webmasters alike) will do anything you ask if offered the right carrot at the right time...

I see new membership prices as the first step to reduce the risk in this business, but there are several other steps to make, before we as an industry will be ahead of things... I dunno if people are ready for them, but I am certain that evolution will force us to make these steps - no matter how much we try to fight it.

We used to run a $9.99 monthly membership on one of our site for about two months (no cross sales). The chargeback ratio was lower than with paid trials, the number of initial signups decreased about 20%, the retention was about the same. The profit was much lower and so we switched back to $2.95 / 3 day trials again.

So basically, if you are a paysite owner and you want to decrease your chargeback level, this $10 monthly memberships will work. But if you are an affiliate, stick with converting programs paying $35+ per paid trial, you will make more money. My CZK.

Dumb "I don't know nothin' bout no CC processing" question - doesn't VISA/MC etc charge per transaction? If so, how much extra would it cost to bill 4 times a month as opposed to once a month? Or am I grossly misinformed? (not MISFORMED!!).[/b][/quote]
i"m pretty ignorant when it comes to processing as well.. but I think if you were to bill someone 4 times at $10/month.. that would only lead to 4 cbs... it would also look like a mistake on most peoples cc statement.. and if they opted for an xsell it could be as bad as 12 potention CB's.. vs 3... IMHO

And the moral of the story is promote CHECKS MORE!

ACH Debit, baby!



Less returns

More cleared checks

Cheaper processing costs

Cross-sells and Loyalty programs

PPV and Pay per download applications

i"m pretty ignorant when it comes to processing as well.. but I think if you were to bill someone 4 times at $10/month.. that would only lead to 4 cbs... it would also look like a mistake on most peoples cc statement.. and if they opted for an xsell it could be as bad as 12 potention CB's.. vs 3... IMHO[/b][/quote]
I am no processing guru but I would also think a surfers credit card statement comes monthly so 4 charges would stick out like a sore thumb and that could lead to 4 chargebacks.

I agree with you there simon.. and the logic is sound that more transactions = more opportunity to charge back... BUT.. and this is a huge but...

When somebody signs up with a paysite right now it is quite likely that they will see 3 or 4 39.95 charges on their cc anyways because of xsells... so while i would definitely say a weekly billing model wouldnt work if you were ALSO doing xsells..... but if you did no xsells i think it's a no brainer.

I mean, whos going to charge back more.. a customer who knowingly gets billed 7.00 a week for a membership they were aware of.. of a customer who gets billed 39.95 3 times for a monthly membership they didnt mean to let convert and 2 other sites (sometimes more) that they didnt necessarily even realize they were getting into.

Dont get me wrong.. i LOVE xsells.. just that the chargeback argument carries no weight when discussing weekly billing. It's all about the transaction fees.

Hooper, I got the same extensive detailed response as you ...

>>>We will not do this.
>>>
>>>Clay

and something about reducing the cost of the trial (which is $4.95 for 3 days) to reduce chargebacks on the initial transaction ... ???

i swear sometimes i think certain processors only want a few select 'buddy' companies to stay in business ... finding answers is like extracting an ingrown toenail :headwall:

... And links list owners won't allow you to serve your content from a single place or domain (which would make for a logical structure and less overhead) because they say then you might be hotlinking from someone, so freesite webmasters have to copy their images a hundred times over on their servers ...

... And TGP owners won't allow rotating sponsor banners (which would allow you to better check your CTRs and which sponsor and banner best pull for you) because they say you might put up a sponsor they don't like or allow, so if you want to compare sponsors you need to make HTML 1.0 pages and try to compare results over a few months (making that useless) ...

It's getting to the point where if it's logical, practical, remotely intelligent, can make you more money, increase your ROI, or be a more productive business model, then some group in control has banded together and decided you cannot do it! :shooter:

I agree with you. I think it will back-fire and in the long run create more chargebacks and kill what could have been a great concept of cross marketing. Leave to adult internet to do that.

Here’s what I want to know… is anyone building a plan for when MC/VISA ends rebilling for adult products?

If you notice we have a backlash effect in the industry. This has been proven so why not learn from mistakes past? If everyone is getting down to business basics then what about building brand and looking towards the future?

This is my Goddess forecast for 2004 – no pop-ups and consoles, more states adopting anti-spam laws and direct marketing with more rules. Tighter controls on content and domain names. Then MC/Visa pulls the NO REBILL out of their hat. Now what?

How do you keep your customers around and keep them in your web?


Dianna
:rolleyes:

Not that I agree with this type of thing but it does make sense.

Companies that have a large bank-roll and ready to take these type of risk for signups take them. Smaller webmasters convert affiliates that way. So it's not your sale, per say but you're still getting the comission. That is pretty clever ... took me a moment for get it. duh

But still, like I said above...it's just a matter of time.

Someone from this site approach me with that a few months ago actually. hmmmmm

Clay, I see the point you are making here but webmasters who use PPS programs don't just do so to be able to scam the program - sure the instance is higher, but many legitimate webmasters just want to make the most money possible as quickly as possible - because they can!! How can we blame the webmasters for their 'take take' attitude when we created it ourselves?

We have made webmasters expect $40 per signup - why would someone take $15-$30 (@ 50% recurring) over $40?

Relationships between affiliates and programs have gone 2 ways in the last 6 months - much better or much worse - try being a webmaster program dropping payouts and trying to explain why to affiliates when there are still programs paying $40 ... webmasters are going to hang on as long as possible and go for the higher paying programs.

Although it would be smart for reducing chargebacks to switch to partnership programs, you may as well just hand your webmasters to someone else & hope like hell they come back when the axe drops ... I don't think PPS programs are going anywhere, but hopefully there will be more folks being creative (like ars & others) with their payouts so we can move away from the rediculous $40+ per signup

The catch 22 - billing effects payouts and payouts effect billing - which one goes first?[/b][/quote]
When I used to promote different programs I prefered recurring rather than a higher once off sale. Because of this I have stuck to a 50% recurring on my reseller program and my CB ratio is averaging .07%

Granted I'm not the size of you guys and don't have the huge amount of members you have :P

Weekly billing is a very high risk numbers game that no one I know of is really considering right now. I've made arguments for and against for the past three months on behalf of a couple of people...

The problem with attempting too many changes in the midst of coming into compliance with a 60% reduction in allowable chargebacks is that the margin for error is non-existent.

Billing someone 4 times a cycle is most likely more apt to catch their eye, the wifes eye, etc and draw more attention to the charges -- EVEN if the surfer had to agree once a week to be billed in email etc.

There is a potential way it could be done but the risk at the moment is just too great to most site owners imo.

That's likely because CC statements come out once a month... Like it was said, if I'm a surfer and see 4 EXACT charges on my statement, I'm figuring you charged me 3 extra times and charging back... B)