Life Lessons after 4 years as a CPA advertiser

2.2 - The Numberz (Advertisers)

This could run about 40 posts and still not cover all the intricacies of the "Numbers" as a CPA Offer Owner, so I'll start with djshorty's question about chargebacks. For some good background reading, I covered the basic math of starting a CPA offer here, and you should read penguinbc's excellent write-up regarding minimizing CBs starting here.

OK, so in the Numbers category, chargebacks are the biggest external threat to running a CPA offer for any length of time, here's why. All domestic MID providers have to play by the big boy's rules, the big-boys being Visa/Mastercard, and to a lesser degree American Express. Amex is their own brand of harshness, so basically no CPA offers even take Amex anymore (I finally stopped taking it on new signups this year).

The newest rules basically look at two "red flags" for chargebacks, percentage and count. Percentage refers to the magic "1%", once you pass 1%, they start looking at you a lot more closely. Domestic-issued merchant accounts are more strict about this then international merchant accounts. International tend to have much worse rates for the Advertiser and even more add-on fees. so if you are able to stay under/close to 1% (tough) then go domestic whenever possible.

The 2nd of the red flags, Count, is newer. In addition to the 1% rate, Visa/MC have also instituted a "hard-count" tripwire as well. Once you have over 100 chargebacks in a month, regardless of what actual % that equates to, you get some unwelcome attention even if you are well under the 1% rate. you could have a tiny chargeback rate as a percentage of orders, but if you do thousands of orders a month with any kind of CB rate, you are going to pop up on this radar pretty quick

The hard-count serves a slightly different purpose, it was put in place to stop people from being able to "scale" the types of offers/businesses that Visa/MC wanted to crack down on (*cough* most CPA offers*cough). Before, you could have a bunch of different merchant accounts that you would rotate between so that you could artificially dilute your chargeback rate by directing new vs rebill transactions (new signups have a lower chargeback rate than the larger rebill $$ amount), so you'd fill up your "bucket" of more-likely-to-chargeback transactions on one merchant account and then move to the next one until a later month when the CB rate had dropped down. In this way, a merchant could delay their "Day of Reckoning" for many more months, collecting rebills all the while. The hard-count makes a merchant have to get so many more merchant accounts, at a time when the review process is getting stricter, that it becomes unfeasible to keep that many accounts open, especially when getting shut down on just one (called TMF or "Matched") means the rest of the merchant accounts in your name get shut down too. Not any fun when you have dozens of merchant accounts each owing you money for daily batches, and probably each holding some of your money in reserve already.

In many ways, its a giant psychotic game of musical chairs, you are trying to move from merchant account to merchant account, while staying ahead of your CB rate catching up to you from the previous ~3 months worth of transactions, before the music stops. Once the music stops, bad things happen (Offer dies, reserves are lost, affiliates and networks get screwed, girlfriend leaves, dog moves to a shelter, etc).

The problem with chargebacks and how your % rate is calculated, is it lags. Unless you are precisely managing your growth rate month after month, the music is probably going to stop for you eventually, its just a matter of time. Here's why:

Say in Month 1 of your Offer, you sign up 10 free trial signups per day, for a monthly total of 300 "free trial signups". You rebill them on Day 15, so from Day 16 forward, you are going to have the 10 new FT signups, plus an additonal 10 rebill txns from signups during the first half of the month, for a grand total of 450 transactions in Month #1. Now in the first 15 days, chargeback rate is a non-issue (seldom do people chargeback just the FT txn, which is typically $4 or $5, by itself, unless you are really shady, or fraud affs have snuck into your program). Once the $90 or whatever monthly rebill hits the (sometimes) unsuspecting cardholder who thought they were only on the hook for $4 FT amount, that's when the chargebacks hit, and they hit hard.

so, say just 2% of the 150 rebill txns in Month 1 example do a chargeback (3 chargebacks) and just 1 of the FT txns does too, because their kid signed them up or they got cold-feet (happens all the time), so you have 4 chargebacks across 450 txns, for a monthly CB rate of .88%, under the threshold of 1%. Great, No problem, right? Nope, we now continue to Month 2..

Month 2, you scale up slightly and are now signing up 15 new FT signups every day instead of 10, plus you have 10 rebill transactions from the prior 2-week period being charged every day from Day 1-15. In the first 15 days you have 450 transactions.

From Day 16-30, you are getting into the 2nd rebill of the people who signed up in the first 15 days of Month 1 (150 txns), the 1st rebill of the ones who signed up Day 1-15 of Month 2 (225 txns), and the 15 new FT signups for that period as well (225 txns), for total of 600 txns in Month 2, now here is where the math gets rough on you...

To Be Continued....
 


cont...

You'll have the same chargeback rate for Month 2's 450 new signups, (2%,or 9 chargebacks), but you'll also have "lagging" chargebacks from the people who signed up in Month 1, but you don't have the benefit of their initial non-chargebacked FT signup being in the same month to dilute that down (i.e. lower you CB % by spreading it across more total txns). So, you'll get (at least) another 3 chargebacks from past customers from Month 1 (customers have up to 6 months to initiate a chargeback, and most don't do it till at least 40 days after the initial charge), and 1 or 2 CBs on new-signup txns, just like the previous month. At best, you are now at 14 chargebacks in Month 2, across 600 total txns, for a chargeback rate of 2.33%.. Ruh Roh, now you bank/merchant account provider has you on their radar..

Month 3 - the real fun begins. Panicked that your CB was too high, your merchant account provider is now holding funds in reserve because you are a risk, you scale back down to just 10 new signups per day, like Month 1. You also do everything you can to cut chargebacks (easy refunds, hire 24/7 phone reps, cut off advertorial traffic, etc), and miraculously succeed in cutting your chargeback rate in Month 3 by 50%, so you are down to a 1% CB rate on the new signups. Unfortunately, still have 2% worth of CBs still rolling in from txns that occurred in Month 1 AND Month 2, and now you only have 300 total new "clean" txns at the 1% rate, but still have all these monthly recurring rebills from the earlier months that are now adding up at a compound rate, with less "total" transactions to dilute them across. Despite your best efforts and your 1% chargeback rate on the 300 new signups, you are getting crushed by 2% rates on the 600 previous Month 2 signups, and the stragglers from Month 1 who's banks are just now processing their chargebacks. You are probably now in your 2nd consecutive month of being over 1% CB rate, and your merchant processor notices your CB rate has increased every month for 3 straight months, so they do the only logical thing, they axe your account.
 
TL;DR Moral of the Story: when it comes to chargebacks as a CPA Advertiser, the only way to really stay ahead of the cold, cruel, lagging math, is to precisely control your growth rate, in the name of chargeback dilution. As long as you are growing each month, you have exponentially more "new" transactions to dilute the chargebacks coming in from previous months, going back 6 months. As soon as your growth rate reverses, or even tapers off, your chargeback rate is going to to look terrible for at least a couple months, even if you are doing everything you can to keep monthly rates below 1% (all of which cut into profitability). Once several past months of lagging chargebacks hit your account in a month where growth has fallen from the previous month (networks stop sending traffic, big affiliate loses a FB or PPC account, peeps leave to test a new high-paying newcomer offer, etc), you are pretty much screwed.

The only silver lining is, if you can keep your offer alive for about 5-6 months, then you "top out" on how many chargebacks from previous months can continue piling up on you, because cardholders are limited to a 6 month window to issue a chargeback. If you can control your growth rate as well as your chargeback rate and tread water for 6 months, you have a much better chance of your offer surviving. Now, count up how many offers you see running in the space that you also saw running 6 months ago, and you have a pretty good idea of just how difficult that is, and what the overall success rate of new CPA offers is.
 
Regarding chargebacks, what is stopping you from running non-rebill transactions through your merchant account just to lower your chargeback rate?
 
Regarding chargebacks, what is stopping you from running non-rebill transactions through your merchant account just to lower your chargeback rate?


Nothing, in fact I do it all the time. I never understood the Advertisers that "only" do free trial, there are so many advantages including that one to have a retail component going too. Especially since a popular CPA offer drives search traffic for the brand name of the offer, from peeps who may be "sold" on the idea of the product but don't want to sign up for a rebill transaction, but would happily pay $60 for a one-time retail order.
 
Nothing, in fact I do it all the time. I never understood the Advertisers that "only" do free trial, there are so many advantages including that one to have a retail component going too. Especially since a popular CPA offer drives search traffic for the brand name of the offer, from peeps who may be "sold" on the idea of the product but don't want to sign up for a rebill transaction, but would happily pay $60 for a one-time retail order.

I was thinking a bit further outside the box.

For example, one of my sites sells "something" for $2-5 each. If I took my second time buyers, the chargeback rate is around 0.05%, if not less. There are plenty of these kinds of sellers around to make up some serious volume. I'm sure if you covered their transaction fees, these folks would love to give you their transactions.

Take one of these guys that does say 1,000 transactions a month with. Dealing with their transactions would cost you ~$500/mo, but would drop your chargeback rate in half.

Seems like cheap insurance, or am I missing something?
 
I was thinking a bit further outside the box.

For example, one of my sites sells "something" for $2-5 each. If I took my second time buyers, the chargeback rate is around 0.05%, if not less. There are plenty of these kinds of sellers around to make up some serious volume. I'm sure if you covered their transaction fees, these folks would love to give you their transactions.

Take one of these guys that does say 1,000 transactions a month with. Dealing with their transactions would cost you ~$500/mo, but would drop your chargeback rate in half.

Seems like cheap insurance, or am I missing something?


I believe doing that would be against your merchant processing contract.
 
I believe doing that would be against your merchant processing contract.

If that's the case (I kinda figured it was) couldn't you take it one step further and bring whatever it is you're selling in-house? Take vinyl stickers, you could easily sell them at cost "for a cause".

"For $2 to cover shipping, we'll send you 10 vinyl stickers that say (obama smells funny / I love obama / animal cruelty is bad / guns ftw)"

Hire some minimum wage kid to print and mail them all day long.

Or buy out some site doing micro transactions. Someone who runs a shitty browser only game that does 1k transactions/mo at $2 each, should be willing to sell their site for $20-35k. You don't have to give a shit about the site, only that people clock up the transaction count.
 
Amoxicillin, I believe your strategy is good, but covers you only in front of your issuers, because they don't care if you're scamming people with rebills, they care about the money you give them and you to look good on paper. Visa and MC do though(my point is that they don't now, but will)
 
Amoxicillin, I believe your strategy is good, but covers you only in front of your issuers, because they don't care if you're scamming people with rebills, they care about the money you give them and you to look good on paper. Visa and MC do though(my point is that they don't now, but will) and when we are at the point when they decide to deal with this issue themselves you can kiss your online career goodbye. I believe that according to some people(I think OP is among them and mentioned it) this moment has come.

[/reading between the lines]

I don't want to give advice to anybody, we're all grown people and can make our decisions based on how we perceived risk/reward in a particular situation. All I wanted to say is that this thread is gold, but when most people see gold, they don't really see its true value. They see it in their framework. The gold that OP delivered is not how you can improve your framework. It is that this framework(making money through rebills) does not work any more, because of outside factors. What you're saying is like trying to suppress your cough when you have lung cancer.

This whole post was summarized in one short sentence previously - "Go legit or go home". While we are at it, on a side not: all I wanted to say at the topic of rebills was that it's all good to make few bucks when you're poor as fuck. Some people on this board(or at least who read this board) turned this into large scale operations and call it a business and are proud of what they "achieved" in life. If you made your initial capital, good, now think about how to bring a real product to customers and make money, while solving real problems, not praying on insecurities. If you can't, well, not everyone should be a businessman. We need workers too. If you don't have the vision, maybe you should be a worker(and invest in other people with vision with your capital to secure comfortable lifestyle).

Good luck in biz.


PS: edit just for 10 minutes and I decided to be more blunt after I posted :(
 
Visa and MC do though(my point is that they don't now, but will)

Would you mind elaborating on how Visa/MC come to the conclusion that you should be investigated if your numbers all look good? I can't see anything fraudulent in what I'm suggesting either, as the transactions are all legitimate customers; it's not like you're charging your own CC $1 1,000 times each to lower your chargeback rate.

I mean, chargeback rate and chargeback count aren't exactly the most enlightened metrics. There wasn't exactly a PHD going over transactions to come up with those metrics. Visa/MC aren't the brightest crayons.
 
The gold that OP delivered is not how you can improve your framework. It is that this framework(making money through rebills) does not work any more, because of outside factors. What you're saying is like trying to suppress your cough when you have lung cancer.

The same thing was being said in 2010 and every time a policy changes or the FTC gets involved. It will continue to be said.

Credit card re-bills are just as dead as mobile subscriptions are, which are just as dead as toolbars, adware, mortgage leads, payday, email, etc...

The reality is that "unnecessary" subscription products will continue to be sold, and at least once a year there will be some adjustment to the rules, and at least one form of relaxing the rules. The lung cancer will go back into remission and a year later it'll flare up again. The trick is knowing when to shut your doors, when to open them again, and knowing what too much risk is.
 
Would you mind elaborating on how Visa/MC come to the conclusion that you should be investigated if your numbers all look good? I can't see anything fraudulent in what I'm suggesting either, as the transactions are all legitimate customers; it's not like you're charging your own CC $1 1,000 times each to lower your chargeback rate.

I mean, chargeback rate and chargeback count aren't exactly the most enlightened metrics. There wasn't exactly a PHD going over transactions to come up with those metrics. Visa/MC aren't the brightest crayons.

What you're suggesting, is not fraudilent.... according to the T&Cs. In those T&Cs though it is written that you can be denied the service at their descrition. And what you're suggesting will not pass a manual review on your account, because you have 40% CB/refund on your high ticket transactions/lower number transactions and 0,05% CB/refund on low tick/high volume transactions. What you're trying to do is dilute your books. This does not fix the problem that Visa/MC have. Their problem is not with your numbers. Their problem is with what your numbers are representing - model you're exploiting. And in order to fight their problem, they made the rules for minimum CB%+minimum transactions. You're not trying to make your business follow those rules, you're trying to evade them. Not solving their problem, but "solving" the solution they had for the problem. Kinda like "don't-call-them-loopholes" loopholes in tax regulations that APPL is on the heat right now for. For such scenarios there are manual reviews. The differences are 2; 1) You're not as big as APPL and 2) Manual reviewers from .gov have to follow the rules that are written for them. Manual reviewers from VISA/MC are allowed to give you a sanction at their "own discretion". If you think when a manual reviewer, whose job is not to look for people with bad numbers(they have comp. algos for that), but to look for people who are trying to game said algos, sees your sheets will say "Yes, this guys is legit as fuck", well, good for you.

I made tons of edits of my previous post, adding more senteces, in order to explain what I to said in a better way. Perhaps you didn't read the last version or perhaps you don't share that point of view. Which is good as far as I'm concerned. As I said, I don't give advice to anyone. I just saw a thread, where good discussion can be held and wanted to participate.
 
The same thing was being said in 2010 and every time a policy changes or the FTC gets involved. It will continue to be said.

Credit card re-bills are just as dead as mobile subscriptions are, which are just as dead as toolbars, adware, mortgage leads, payday, email, etc...

The reality is that "unnecessary" subscription products will continue to be sold, and at least once a year there will be some adjustment to the rules, and at least one form of relaxing the rules. The lung cancer will go back into remission and a year later it'll flare up again. The trick is knowing when to shut your doors, when to open them again, and knowing what too much risk is.

Welp, here we are figuring out, is there a point in "killing it" with such business models when you're not poor as fuck, instead of trying to solve real problems. I am baffled by the number of people involved in such business. It's not only rebiils/adware/bizops. The "real" world is filled with them too.

The best managers I've seen work for coca-cola. Brilliant people, trying to solve one problem and one problem alone - how to sell more. How to make more money. They are not concerned that they are selling posion. They just want to make more money. Why? Because that's their way to compete(and they need to compete).

So... at what point do we stop chasing money(emphasis on chasing). Money doesn't buy happines, but buys you comfortable living, sure. But at some point brilliant people invest their energy in things for faulty reasons. And those brilliant people do harm to everyone, in order to profit(not only money) themselves. My point is that these people forget that they were just trying to make a buck and start to work at a really large scale.

To put the metaphors to use again. Sure, the cancer can go into remissions again and again(this particular one may not go into one though), but we might cure cancer once and for all, if we're not trying to put into remission, but actually try to cure it.

Once more, I'm not trying to give advice no anyone, because I'm nobody. These are just my thoughts and as I said, I think this thread has the potential for a real good discussion(rare) and this is where I'm heading. Not trying to argue and convince, but hear the input of other people and hear their thoughts as well.

I tried to be helpful about your particular questions - and will repeat my answer(may as well not be right), because I've wrote a lot of senteces and my emphasis is elsewhere: your tactic works to solve your problems with computer algos and your issuer. If VISA/MC are on hunt for people trying to game their rules and catch you, they will love you tenderly.

Another thing, I'd like to repeat - is that, when people see gold, they think it's valuable, because they see they can buy some things they need with it. I believe this thread is indeed gold, but not because you can ask a successful rebiller how you can become one too, but because we can have a little bit of discussion about vision. If I'm mistaken, mont, I've made a giant fool of myself infront of a lot of people, for which I apologize. It's a good thing for that I don't care :)
 
I like where this discussion is headed.

To address Amoxicillin's questions, Yes, you can (and probably should) add more transactions to offset/dilute your higher-chargeback traffic, and try to keep that overall rate under the magic 1% rate. It's not quite as simple as suggested though, because the thing you absolutely don't want to end up doing is adding these new, non-profitable transactions to dilute your overall chargeback rate, and end up getting new chargebacks on these transactions, which can happen pretty easily by accident.

The "micro-payment" examples touched on above, where you run a bunch of transactions through for small amounts to get your count up can and does help if done properly. (I should mention here that the "CB %" flag isn't only done on total txn count, but dollar volume can be watched too, so 50 transactions of a dollar each aren't exactly the same as 50 txns of $80 each, but most banks/ISOs don't really notice this, yet, so it works for now.). Running a bunch of these cheapy transactions of a different merchant's/product's can bite you in the ass though, because your credit card descriptor may confuse the customers, so they end up charging back that $1 transaction because they don't recognize it, which really stings. Now, instead of diluting your CB ratio, you are making it worse, on txns that make you no money and cost more in chargeback fees (typically $25 a pop) than you could ever hope to make off them, so its a double-whammy.

Say your product is called "Diet Berriez 360", it does 1000 txns a month,and it has a 2% chargeback rate on its volume. Ideally, you want to keep getting those same 1000 (profitable) txns per month, but you also want to add 1000 new "low-risk" (read: non-profitable) txns to your volume to dilute that overall monthly CB rate down to 1%. You hit up your buddy Joe with a gaming site, SuperMario360,com, and tell him you want to have him push a $1 (loss-leader) gaming tips membership or ebook. He says great, he sells it on the site to 1000 of his customers at a great value(for no profit, probably even a loss) and runs the 1k new transactions of a buck apiece through your merchant account. Great, now your chargeback rate is down to 1%, right? Wrong..

Even if all the customers of the video game site love the $1 ebook/membership, some percentage of them will see that line on their credit card statement that says "Diet Berriez 360" and "WTF, my skinny ass dont need no diet, I'm charging that back" and they do, probably at a rate of greater than 2% even over a buck. It's pretty near impossible for an Advertiser to change their merchant descriptor back and forth (plus you can get slapped with an instant 20k fine from Visa for having a "misleading CC descriptor, which really sucks). Now, instead of diluting your CBs, you have compounded the problem, on sales that have made you no money.

The way to do it best, in my opinion, is through some kind of cross-sell/up-sell of a same or similar product that fits under the same CC descriptor and brand-name, and that is such a clear value that no customer would ever charge it back (some will regardless, but you just have to deal with it). Usually these are add-on products, such as wrinkle remover to add to a skin cream offer, or a jump-rope to a diet pill, anything that the customer perceives as adding plenty of value for just a tiny cost. You will never make a profit off these add-on products, but you could save your merchant account. It's good customer service/karma too, work to add value in their eyes and you are less likely to end up in a bad spot in the rebill game to begin with.

I know Advertisers that charge the product cost and its shipping cost as 2 separate txns, just to up their txn count. That can blow up in your face too though, because a customer angry about the rebill may also chargeback the other shipping charge too, giving you 2 CBs instead of 1. Some merchants "split" larger transactions into multiple smaller ones, like turning a $90 rebill into 1 $50 txn and 2 $20 ones. I dont personally do this, I know peeps who do, and I think it's a dangerous game. Strictly speaking, Visa has new rules that technically prohibit this, but its awful hard to catch. You still have the risk of an angry customer getting multiple CBs against you off the same transaction, plus pissing off Visa, so I recommend against it. If you are going to split larger $$ amount purchases into multi smaller txns, be sure to space them apart as much as possible. First, customer is less likely to notice 5 charges from the same merchant one after the other, Second, banks are less likely to process a later CB if they see the customer has had multiple historical "purchases" over a period of time from that same merchant, its hard for the to say "fraud, never ordered" when they have other transactions from months before that they never complained about.
 
None of these are RTB. Yes they are remnant



Didn't say they were, hence the "/" between RTB and Remnant, as well as between brokers/sellers. To clarify my sentence, These are all general categories of traffic sources for CPA offers, the few examples I listed happen to be mainly remnant fixed-CPM sellers. All of these types of traffic sources, plus others like FB ads, are going to work basically the same way for purposes of this discussion.

For those that care, examples of RTB traffic sources are EngageBDR, OpenX, Sitescout, etc. Principles are still the same, just different way of "slicing and pricing" the traffic.
 
.... 2) Manual reviewers from .gov have to follow the rules that are written for them. Manual reviewers from VISA/MC are allowed to give you a sanction at their "own discretion".


I think this is a really good point that a lot of people miss, and its related to why I rank Visa/MC as a bigger threat to Advertisers than FTC/AG stuff.

The FTC/AGs can make life difficult for anyone, and there are certainly worse things in the long-term they can do to Advertisers (e.g. criminal penalties), but they are slow-moving and rule-driven. You have certain due process rights with them, they have to at least jump through certain hoops, go through typical gubberment bureaucracy stuff, give you appeal rights, etc.

Visa has no such holdbacks, if they don't like what you are doing, they can just fine you or terminate you, literally overnight. You have no right to appeal, no neutral third-party that can overrule their decision, nothing. Plus, they move a LOT faster than any government organization can. If you get an inquiry from the FTC or a state AG, you can spend months and years going back and forth on things, and be cleaning up your act in the meantime. If Visa/MC/Amex decide arbitrarily they dont like something about you, including your ugly face, they can terminate you and make sure you never process a credit card payment again in your life, and you have no recourse. Much like Google, when you are the 800-lb gorilla in private industry, you can do whatever you want, and Visa and Amex throw their weight around a lot. I could tell you horror stories of what happens when they do (as Jon and I have discussed frequently) but the moral of the story is, if given a choice, I'd rather piss off the FTC than I would Visa, at least I would have a few rights left when dealing with the FTC...

Tread carefully bros..