Originally Posted by PPP 
"I am just talking about sheer numbers PPP, if poker news gets 10K visitors a day and I get 300, then the odds of one of my visitors having been to poker news already is much greater than the odds of their visitors having already been to my site. Its just a numbers game."
Yes, and you can't ignore the math of it. It's not raw numbers, it's a ratio. If 10% of "your" players that went to pokernews first get tracked to poker news, and 10% of "their" players that came to you first, then it's a wash... not in terms of raw numbers, but in terms of the effect.
Not a hard concept PPP, if there are 100,000 potential prospects on the internet, and pokernews gets 10K visitors a day and I get 300 a day, then what percentage of those 100,000 potential visitors already have the cookie on their computer that would negate the next affilaite from making money on them. Does the guy who gets 10K hits a day have more cookie imbedded customers out there or the guy that gets 300 a day? But really I could care less who is right here. I could very well be wrong? I am not a mathmatecian.
But the reality on top of that is the effect almost certainly benefits the smaller affiliate as the larger affiliate will 1) likely have slightl better terms to offer the player, and 2) greater site stickiness so pokernews is far more likely to be able to convert "your" players on the players sixth or tenth or 23rd visit to pokernews, since the player is somewhat less likely to visit the smaller site than the larger site 23 times.
You really need to look at this without tunnel vision, and see how cookies protect small affiliates and benefit them more. Still though, the ratios are probably close enough to just not matter.
The thing is some people seem to onlu focus on the players they LOSE, while ignoring the players they GAIN. You can't have it both ways.
I never said it doesn't work both ways, only that its retarded to even put affiliates in the position to make it have to work both ways in order for it to be fair.
"But this really doesn't make a shit, my whole deal is if they navigate away from my site then I obviously didn't give them what they wanted, so I don't deserve to make any money on them."
Hardly. If a friend tells you to check out a TV show, and then a second friend does, and then a third friend does, and then you watch the show, it's silly to suggest that ONLY the third friend's opinion counted. In terms of poker, the first impression is USUALLY the most important. That is, if you convince someone to check out Full Tilt, if they don't sign up the first time it is either because 1) they simply chose not to at that time, or 2) they will very likely NEVER check out the site again because they didn't like it. The first look is USUALLY the most important.
With all due respect PPP, what a moronic way to justify giving another affiliate credit for my conversion. I guess the poker rooms should just go ahead and pay my commissions to the wsop for creating the interest of online poker on tv.
There is no perfect way to assign value here. There is only choosing the best of several flawed methods, and first visit is plainly superior to any method that favors fraud or non-productive affiliates. (Affiliates who only move a player from one tracker to another are of no value to cardrooms.)
"Again I am not talking about players that already downloaded the software ppp."
And you should be. Again, you just can't IGNORE the greater implications of what you are saying. It's the same tunnelvision that ignores players other sites convert for you while complaining about players you convert for the other sites.
"so that the affiliate that actually gets them to download the software and deposit actually gets paid his/her efforts."
Whoa, and now you MIX the two. You really need to think this through more. Downloading software does NOT mean a player deposits.
For the 27th time I am talking about surfers, I told you 4 posts ago that if an affiliate makes that player deposit or download the software, they earned the sale in my opinion.
Your position only makes sense if you look at it from an incredibly simplistic perspective that simply does not exist in the real world. I know you don't mean it this way, but your position would mean cardrooms should pay a different affiliate if they cause a player to make a second or third deposit! You want to stop the "last affiliate" at some random point, and it makes no logical sense on the one hand, and would be a complete nightmare for cardrooms.
To my knowledge poker rooms don't pay commission on players that already have an existing account. So I doubt its a big nightmare to make the cookies so that the affiliate that actually gets them to download and deposit gets the credit. Anyway, I've had enough drama with this thread. I respectfully disagree with everything you said. There is just no reasoning with a guy who is never wrong. Good luck.
|