Are PTP Programs Killing Themselves?

[BehindBlueEyes]

The first trend is for programs to offer higher PTP rates for upgraded members or to make the PTP available only to upgraded members.  This results in the program having huge numbers of upgraded members (disproportional to the ratio in non PTP programs) with very often large amounts of monthly ads.

This may be a great way for a program to sell large amount of upgrades and ads initially.  They can do super fast payouts for several months just from the initial purchases.  There's not much rush to make sure that the PTP earns its keep or to seek outside sales.  A program can look like the greatest one around with a genius PO for 4-7 months... Then, uh oh, not enough money coming in to make payments.  New sales will be dismal because there is no need for members to buy more ads when they already have monthly ads. 

The second trend is to cap the amount that a member can be paid monthly.  I understand that programs aren't banks and that hoarding for a big payout can be a problem.  That becomes self defeating for many programs when it's easy for members to exceed the monthly cap?  They must keep redeeming for ads.  Often the members exceeding the cap are upgraded (for PTP reasons... see above) and they wind up with more ads than they can use effectively and thus are forced to redeem for pages at costs they will take a loss on.  Click rates will drop because... what's the point of clicking more than the minimum in that environment? 

Both situations create unhappy members.  Unhappy members will stop clicking, upgrading and joining.  After just so many losses, unhappy members will say "I'm done" and start quitting programs eventually leaving the industry taking their potential spending and their unique IP with them.     

[wagdoll]

I think that regarding the first point you make, that it boils down to running a program sustainably.  If the upgrade is sustainable and if the PTP rates are set within reason compared to what revenue the PTP can bring in, then the money paid for the upgrade needs to cover every month's ads inside the upgrade. If you spend all the money that they paid for the upgrade in month one, then something's gone wrong, surely?

It's hard for the members to be able to see what's happening behind the scenes with the finances in some ways.   For a time, a site will run unsustainably and still be able to pay on time because the debt is building up behind the payout queue and the site 'loans' itself the member's earnings to pay the currently outstanding debt.  Eventually the game runs out of steam and the site gets behind on payouts.

It must be boring for those who have been reading the forums for years to see people constantly harp on this sustainability thing. But it boils down to having something like a vat of water and turning the tap on it each day and taking out a litre of water. You can do that for so many days and everything's fine and no visible problems. But if you don't replace every millilitre that you take out of the vat, eventually the tap will stop running nicely, and slow to a trickle, then it will dry up completely.

Wouldn't it be nice to not have to keep jumping ship to the next *hot* site because the old one can no longer pay you what's in your account?

[danddwah]

Your "vat of water" analogy is a good one wagdoll as people can picture it in their mind rather than just look at a page full of numbers. But basically it's no different to running a household budget or a big business for that matter. You have incomings and outgoings and they must at least balance for long term stability. Surely it's not so difficult a concept to grasp.

As with any business if you can survive the hard years then when the good ones come you prosper.

The problem with the PTR industry is there is no accountability or regulatory authority. Anyone can setup and run a PTR site and when it fails due to mismanagement the PO does a runner and there is no comeback whatsoever. It's the poor old members losing their hard earned cents yet again. I can't see a Class Action to recoup a few hundred dollars or even a thousand ever occurring 

Forums such as this are one great step towards looking after the interests of members, it gives the faceless masses a voice but we need something with more teeth. 
Dave

[BehindBlueEyes]

Your "vat of water" analogy is a good one wagdoll as people can picture it in their mind rather than just look at a page full of numbers. But basically it's no different to running a household budget or a big business for that matter. You have incomings and outgoings and they must at least balance for long term stability. Surely it's not so difficult a concept to grasp.

As with any business if you can survive the hard years then when the good ones come you prosper.

The problem with the PTR industry is there is no accountability or regulatory authority. Anyone can setup and run a PTR site and when it fails due to mismanagement the PO does a runner and there is no comeback whatsoever. It's the poor old members losing their hard earned cents yet again. I can't see a Class Action to recoup a few hundred dollars or even a thousand ever occurring 

Forums such as this are one great step towards looking after the interests of members, it gives the faceless masses a voice but we need something with more teeth. 
Dave

I've heard the accountability complaint since 2004 and little or nothing has changed, which is a shame.  Often there are red flags present when a program is failing, but few will speak to point them out for various reasons. 

Review and rating sites are not accurate or impartial because they are too often based on either popularity or consist of only sites that the owner/manager belongs to or has a vested interest in. In too many cases the sites that are recommended are real skunks, but members join under the impression that it is good because the site has received an award or a number of votes or stars...     

GPTB was an excellent resource in the day when sites would have memberships of thousands and larger payouts it was easy to find enough brave souls to talk about problems with a site.  Now, most programs have only a few hundred members and low payouts, it's easier to just write off the loss and move on silently.  I've been guilty of that more than a few times.  Even when a program makes the boycott list as in BGPayMail, sites still send ads for it even though their banned list states "No programs on the Boycott list..."

So... the tools we have aren't effective.  I would love to see something with more teeth based not on popularity or vested interests but on facts.  I'd like to see a peer review data base and to keep the peer reviews anonymous so that there would be no fear of repercussions if reviews are not favourable.  By anonymous I mean that the reviewers (and there should be 8-15 of them) not be named.  Similar things have been tried, and failed, but I think it can be do-able.     

[danddwah]

snip ....  I'd like to see a peer review data base and to keep the peer reviews anonymous so that there would be no fear of repercussions if reviews are not favourable.  By anonymous I mean that the reviewers (and there should be 8-15 of them) not be named.  Similar things have been tried, and failed, but I think it can be do-able.     

Doesn't ptrinfo.com give the opportunity for anonymous reviews 

[danddwah]

Another aspect of PTR sites that I cannot understand the logic behind is lifetime ..... whether it be affiliate pages or upgrades. Why offer them when they add pressure to the site sustainability equation?

I can understand the appeal to long term PTR addicts as they will end up being a worthwhile investment (provided the site is around long enough). Yes they give a site an injection of funds to be able to buy plugins and the like but they are a noose around the neck of the PO. Unless the thinking behind them is the hope that the purchaser doesn't stick around long enough to reap the benefits. Either that or sell some lifetime upgrades and affiliate pages and then sell your site lol.

Am I missing something here (it wouldn't be the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last  )

Dave

[BehindBlueEyes]

snip ....  I'd like to see a peer review data base and to keep the peer reviews anonymous so that there would be no fear of repercussions if reviews are not favourable.  By anonymous I mean that the reviewers (and there should be 8-15 of them) not be named.  Similar things have been tried, and failed, but I think it can be do-able.     

Doesn't ptrinfo.com give the opportunity for anonymous reviews 

Yes it does.  And even though I own 50% of it, I feel that it's flawed in some aspects and not as reliable as it could be because it's based on voting which makes the reviews and votes based on popularity or in some cases unpopularity and not sound business principles.  Those reviews are too open to be misleading because they are frequently based on personalities... such as whether or not the PO is fun or the sympathy vote if the PO is having a rough personal life.

What I would like to see is a group of experienced POs and members evaluate programs based on an impersonal outline of specific criteria... eg: The BeenPaid page-average time between request and payment, Click requirements- yes(specifics)/no, changes of ownership, lifetime packages, etc. Things that would indicate the health of a program which standard member reviews would not cover.       

Just made it more confusing, didn't I?   

[danddwah]

snip ....  I'd like to see a peer review data base and to keep the peer reviews anonymous so that there would be no fear of repercussions if reviews are not favourable.  By anonymous I mean that the reviewers (and there should be 8-15 of them) not be named.  Similar things have been tried, and failed, but I think it can be do-able.     

Doesn't ptrinfo.com give the opportunity for anonymous reviews 

Yes it does.  And even though I own 50% of it, I feel that it's flawed in some aspects and not as reliable as it could be because it's based on voting which makes the reviews and votes based on popularity or in some cases unpopularity and not sound business principles.  Those reviews are too open to be misleading because they are frequently based on personalities... such as whether or not the PO is fun or the sympathy vote if the PO is having a rough personal life.

What I would like to see is a group of experienced POs and members evaluate programs based on an impersonal outline of specific criteria... eg: The BeenPaid page-average time between request and payment, Click requirements- yes(specifics)/no, changes of ownership, lifetime packages, etc. Things that would indicate the health of a program which standard member reviews would not cover.       

Just made it more confusing, didn't I?   

On the contrary, no you didn't. I know I'm a sad case but statistics that are facts appeal to me more than opinions. There is the old saying "lies, damn lies and statistics" and to some extent that is true as you can make numbers show what you want depending on how they are presented.

Notwithstanding that, a rating system which is based on measurable performance data is an excellent way to benchmark programs. What you need to be careful of is if you then assign a weighting to each of the performance measures as that then introduces a judgemental affect. I think that a group of experienced members would be a better forum to achieve an outcome that is as impartial as practicable. It would also then be a guide to POs as to what members feel are important measures rather than what we think members think.

To start the brainstorming and in no particular order:-
Payment within Terms yes/no
Average no of days payout-request
% of payouts within terms
Downline %
% Activity required to earn from downline
minimum Payout
maximum Payout
% members active
Average email clicks per day - raw value and/or as a % of the active membership
Average ptc clicks per day - raw value and/or as a % of the active membership
% personal earnings requirement PTP
% personal earnings requirement Affiliate Pages
Timely response to support inquiries (this is a bit rubbery)

And here I was saying it should be mainly members input lol

Dave

[BehindBlueEyes]

I come from a science background, give me facts, and data.  But... I know what you're saying about using stats to show what you want them to.  One of my exams had one sheet of data and 2 questions:  #1 Use the data to show that the Atlantic Cod are endangered and the fishery should be closed"  #2 Use the data to show that the Atlantic Cod stocks are healthy and the fishery should be open. 

To add to your brainstorm list:

Member groups tiers able to receive payment. (All/Tiers 1 & 2/Specific Country Restrictions)

Historical data:  Ownership changes

Points:  Cash value of $xx per thousand/redeem only

Activity Rewards average monthly cash value


 

[crash]

I think that regarding the first point you make, that it boils down to running a program sustainably.  If the upgrade is sustainable and if the PTP rates are set within reason compared to what revenue the PTP can bring in, then the money paid for the upgrade needs to cover every month's ads inside the upgrade. If you spend all the money that they paid for the upgrade in month one, then something's gone wrong, surely?

It's hard for the members to be able to see what's happening behind the scenes with the finances in some ways.   For a time, a site will run unsustainably and still be able to pay on time because the debt is building up behind the payout queue and the site 'loans' itself the member's earnings to pay the currently outstanding debt.  Eventually the game runs out of steam and the site gets behind on payouts.

It must be boring for those who have been reading the forums for years to see people constantly harp on this sustainability thing. But it boils down to having something like a vat of water and turning the tap on it each day and taking out a litre of water. You can do that for so many days and everything's fine and no visible problems. But if you don't replace every millilitre that you take out of the vat, eventually the tap will stop running nicely, and slow to a trickle, then it will dry up completely.

Wouldn't it be nice to not have to keep jumping ship to the next *hot* site because the old one can no longer pay you what's in your account?

Excellent points Wagdoll, but in particular the portion I bolded, Unfortunately it is almost guess work to figure out who will continue to pay out month to month and within a reasonable time frame, even a solid reputation for paying only goes so far, once the slide begins it is already too late for most members.

[BehindBlueEyes]

This might be adaptable.  It would take someone with a lot more technical skills than I have and it would need more than routine updating... but I think it could be do-able.   



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[BehindBlueEyes]

One of the other huge problems I see rampant is the inter reliance of one program on another. 

When it becomes obvious that program "A" is in trouble and has stopped paying, the other POs who have invested in upgrades or aff pages there are going to not be paid too.  So when I see the PO of sites "B, C, D and E" promoting site "A"  ptp links and aff pages I become disinclined to trust or invest in sites "B, C, D and E" as well as a result because I know they will be taking a loss from being vested in site "A" 

[wagdoll]

One of the other huge problems I see rampant is the inter reliance of one program on another. 

When it becomes obvious that program "A" is in trouble and has stopped paying, the other POs who have invested in upgrades or aff pages there are going to not be paid too.  So when I see the PO of sites "B, C, D and E" promoting site "A"  ptp links and aff pages I become disinclined to trust or invest in sites "B, C, D and E" as well as a result because I know they will be taking a loss from being vested in site "A" 

It seems sort of similar to how the HYIP (autosurf) programs invested in each other. It doesn't really lead to stability to intertwine the risks in this way, it just leads to a domino effect.

I think this quote from another thread is part of the problem too:

The members have turned into the main source of program income. Members should only be seen as  "Accounts Payable" not as "Accounts Receivable".

It's like a program owes $500 to the members, and asks the members for $500 so that the program can pay. Where is that money ultimately coming from though?  The members are mostly assuming that the money will come from another program that has basically the same plan, so the same virtual money goes round in a circle, from program to program. But each month you have to take out the hosting fees and the cost of buying a PTP plugin on your new site or whatever, so each month there's less money circulating.  Part of this money is imaginary money that's been factored in just because the site would "like" to pay it to the members, but hasn't got any way of getting that money ... part of it is imaginary money in accounts receivable at some point in the future IF the third party banner network will pay for the increasingly crappy traffic we're sending them, as if we're doing them a favour, so that's not to be relied upon too heavily.

Wouldn't it be fascinating to do a system-wide audit of how much money is owed and how much money there really is to cover what's owed?  You can pretty much add up 90% of sites' debts as one object and then ask them to pool all their cash - and perhaps they could pay off one (small) site's full liabilities with that money - because that is effectively the plan they have.

[BehindBlueEyes]

I've spent the morning counting cpm ads on ptp pages and knowing the rates of the various companies, it's not hard to calculate the revenue that my view will generate for the program.  I'm seeing on average 35cpm for my view + possibly 20 cpm for the rotator for a total of 55cpm maximum.  That's for my unique view to those banner networks.  That's about the break even/profit rate for most POs, because cpc banners and rotator views can bump that up and not every view I give will be valid for the promoter.

So far so good.

But... knowing the inventory served by those networks, after I've viewed one (I'm not picking any specific one out, because with only a few exceptions they're almost all falling in that 3rd party revenue range)  ptp 10-15 times that revenue for the PO drops by half, although I'm still generating valid views for the members for which the PO has to pay their full rate for.

Simple math (very simple, only based on cpm banners vs valid PTP views): 
0 -15 views  --   the PTP earns the PO max 55cpm.
16-30 views  --  the PTP is earning the PO max 28cpm.
31-45 views  --  the PTP is earning the PO max 15cpm (although quite likely 0-5cpm).
46 + views   ---  the PTP earns the PO 0cpm.

If there are 50 promoters and I give each one a valid view, the PO owes those members (based on a ptp rate of 50cpm which is roughly industry average) 2.5 cents while the PO has only earned 1.225 cents. Bear in mind, I can only see cpm inventory targeted to Canada and this does not take into account cpc and cpa, so the cash value may not be precise overall although the rate of cpm decline is very close.   

This drops even further when one takes into account that the same cpm networks are being used by almost all ptps. 

Those networks will only pay for my unique view once per ad served (usually, there are some rare exceptions)  The cpm company only serves a limited inventory to incentive sites.  If I've viewed that inventory on ptp "A" when I see it a second time on ptp "B", the advertiser of that piece of inventory only (usually) pays the cpm company for the first one that my IP registered on.  That loss of uniqueness gets passed on to the publisher (the PO of the ptp) or the cpm company pulls out because they are now losing money and advertisers.   

So now we have the real worth of that ptp to the PO not the 50cpm the PO is paying members but closer to 15cpm by days end. Rotator views if they have a good inventory tops that to 25 cpm)

This is further self defeating by click quotas and % earnings which drives the end of day value of the PTP down more and more.  Less is actually more based on the value of the cpm networks to ptp.... so why must we click click click to further drive down the end of day value? 

In an ideal environment the solution would be 0% activity to prevent the 3rd party cpm decline due to repeat IP hits. 

Other possible (and far from ideal) solutions could be:

Instead of minimum click requirements have a maximum daily click cut off on sites.  You can only click x links per day at each program.

Ad inventory control.  Sites will only have available x number of ads for any specific PTP page.  For instance 50 Donkey, 30 Vale and 10 of each other PTP.   

Those possible solutions open up other problems, like declining sales even further. 

(now my head hurts and I need Tylenol and coffee)