CPA or commission?

[poker-casinoguide]

Hi,

I am new to this and have had this question on my mind from the beginning. Which is more profitable in the long run, CPA or commission?

Shaun

[edmc]

In the current climate CPA looks a safer option

[SunPoker.com]

This debate has been discussed on this forum many many times before. I would definitely try to search on the topic and see what comes up. There have been extensive threads on the subject and many different opinions. At the end of the day, some use commission, and some use CPA.

Do a quick search and you'll find plenty of information.

Regards,

Mark

[AcceleratedMarketing]

Residual income is always better in the long run than a singular sale. I'd much rather pay a $200 CPA than a rev share for a lifetime of a player. The question is what level of players can you refer? If you can only gain access to small time single depositers then a CPA is best. If you can get access to real players, rev share is hugely profitable.

[bahh]

I would say CPA for poker and Rev Share for Casinos. But as Accelerated said it depends on the quality of the traffic youre sending. Try both and see what works best for you.

[Itay]

we are a (super) affiliate. We like to do CPA for 3 reasons:

1) Faster ROI (allthough for long term ROI is lower...but faster)
2) Lower risks if property is sold/closed/integrated
3) We pay our affiliate multiple CPA so it makes sense...

hope it makes sense to you as well.

[Randy]

Asking whether CPA or revshare is more profitable is a big oversimplification. It depends on so many factors that there is no definite answer. You have to loo at the amount of the CPA, the percentage of the revshare, and the average player value at the poker room. You also have to take into account unknowns like how long a given poker room is going to keep accepting US-based players. (If you're on revshare and the poker room ditches USA players one day, your profits all just dried up.)

[AceHigh Pino]

I think for most affiliates who are in this profession for the long term definitely choose revenue share when making a decision on CPA and MGR. Once you've built up a great network of sites and start bringing in more targeted traffic, it just doesn't make sense to only get paid one lump payment on a player who could potentially bring in a lot in MGR over a few months/years.

Don't get me wrong though, I've been known to give in to healthy CPA's in the past if the $$ is right. We all have our vices in the affiliate game sometimes, right? lol.

[PPP]

Actually most large affiliates who don't do paid advertising primarily do CPA. It's mid-range affiliates who generally choose MGR.

[Jeremy]

I can only speak for PokerNews as I know all these deals. I would say a large % of our business is CPA driven. For smaller rooms we will usually only take CPA deals. This is because we can send large volumes of players and essentially we are helping the room build the brand as well as contributing to the overall rooms liquidity. However we also know that the player values will not be as high, which keeps us from doing long term rev. share.

We do however have either hybrid deals or straight rev. share deals with a couple of the bigger rooms that have proven to have good long term player values and retention.

I don't necessarily think one is better than the other. I think it really depends on each individual affiliate.