You said that was your conversion for "affiliate program upsell".. No idea what you were referring to either... Upselling other sites from within spookycash?

That's what I thought aswell.

If Amelia means direct traffic from blogs or whatever 1:1200 isn't too bad these days I don't think.

If that is member area upsells that seems pretty bad. But I dunno, not my stats to comment on.

I'm just guessing here, but usually programs that run NATS is don't count 1st page clicks and start counting the second page and are usually only counting uniques and not raw to the second page.

CCBill affiliate stats show 1st page clicks and mostly just raw. Some sponsors (like me) have enabled the affiliates to see the unique also.

To make a long story short, a 2nd page NATS ratio of 1:250 is equal to a CCBill ratio of about 1:1750 on average.

Apologies that was unclear. I meant programs I promote, as opposed to run. SpookyCash does not have members area upsells. The traffic is a mix of mostly the usual blogs, TGPs, and banner adverts, with a bit of non-affiliate tour exit traffic. (SpookyCash has separate tours for CCBill, Epoch, and direct traffic.) Although I've never really found an effective pop-up code for 2011, so exit is deeply not the portion it once was.

HOLY SHIT - so if this program were on NATS instead of CCBILL, I could expect ratios of what?

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/6...illsponsor.png

these are my real numbers for a ccbill program owned by someone who has been posting here for a long time

Probably, I'm not in the know of how the stats work 100% with NATS.

But even that ratio beats 1:4450 :winkwink:

Just saying anyway, I hate all the "adult is dead" "tubes are killing sales" threads. Because I don't think adult is dying at all, just the landscape is changing.

But, The way the ccbill sales have just dropped off though, makes me wonder why. It is only human to be curious.

You're guessing wrong. I know you defend CCBill blindly at every turn, and you're free to do so if you'd like, but please don't do so by making things up regarding NATS.

Been going on for quite some time. It almost seems as BV is a paid, how shall I say, ccbill fire putter-outer??

Why doesn't someone who offers CCBill only tours and also Nats option step in and just give a 2 month average unique to sales stats making sure apples are compared to apples.

Wouldn't that really help a lot? :2 cents:

I'm not going to even talk ratios. just overall sales. This week I decided I was done pushing ccbill programs unless its something amazing.

Its across the board regardless of processor, type of site, or size. I've talked to a lot of programs, small and large, that have unexplainable low sales. We can all see it, now wtf to do about it.

ccbills stats interface is the worst thing I've ever seen.

It seems that BV makes sales so he's happy.....I've also seen him bitch before...especially around two years ago so he doesn't portray shit as peaches and cream all the time.

Why would CCbill pay him? He's actually posted his stats up in here....

THIS truthful statement is very troubling.

I can't believe some webmasters are so NAIVE and STUPID that they blame CCBILL...

CCBILL is all fine and working.

The problem and cause of your bad ratio/sales is pretty obvious, do I need to explain it? Come on.. have you been on a box for the last 3-4 years?

I can't believe some people are so stupid and surprised of their bad sales and ratios.

CCBILL, Mr. Cadwell and their staff do an excellent job and they are one of the only (if not the only) company that is still ALIVE since the early days in a ruined business where hundreds of companies, sponsors and thousands of webmasters had to close their doors and quit in the last 2 years. Obvious reasons. At this point we don't have to explain why things are how they are.

double that

i've had a few days which were lower, but then fri, sat, and sun and i'm above average this week
my month with ccbill is pretty good

I think the problem lies here. the programs using cascade that are getting lost and not credited to the affiliate. thats my guess as one of the issues.

I'm not making things up about NATS. I'm making an educated guess that PROGRAMS that use NATS usually report second page clicks and don't figure 1st page clicks in their conversion ratio reported to the affiliate.

I know in the past this was the case (back when I used to promote other programs) and if one was to search here at GFY they could find numerous threads supporting my statement.

So which is the truer statement today: A or B or C

A: Most programs that use NATS report ratios using 1st page uniques.

B: Most programs that use NATS report ratios using 2nd page uniques.

C: Most programs that use NATS report both 1st and 2nd page ratios.

Please don't confuse my statement that NATS is not capable of counting ratios using 1st page clicks. I'm sure that NATS can and does. But it's my understanding that in the past many programs that use NATS report ratios using the 2nd page click in order to make their ratios look better to their affiliates than other programs reporting ratios with just 1st page clicks. (like CCBill)

Are you saying this is not true anymore? (as i know for a fact it once was)

Maybe both ratios are reported now (or capable of being).

When someone comes in here and says they have a 1:250 ratio I automatically assume 1 of 3 things.

1: that's a 2nd page ratio
2: they are extremely filtering their traffic before sending it through the affiliate link
or
3: they are lying

Because 1:250 (1st page click) ratios are a thing of the past and have been for quite some time.

There are a few exceptions but we are speaking here in overall average general terms.

I agree .... but I find that most 'new' sites that come out are really 'same old same old' ...

Our CCBill program is doing fine, converting at under 1:500 year to date.

were all fucked :2 cents:

The answer is A and always has been. 2nd page hits are referred to as qualified clicks in NATS. In NATS a uniques is a first page unique, a click through the tracking link.

If you would like to try to make a point, please use actual information, not guesses, assumptions, and made up facts.