why sponsors cancel low performing affiliate accounts

[Cumslut]

Recently I have seen posts where why sponsors cancel low performing affiliate accounts, this had me thinking after reading this post by tacnet .

The bandwidth used up by affiliates sending hits without making a join must not only cost the sponsor money but mean they need more servers to handle it.
What do you think of my theory?

[TheButcher]

I have always liked traffic and what better than free traffic sent by affiliates. They either make a sale where the program owner makes money or they get more exposure and branding for their paysites. If I was a sponsor I would let them keep on sending traffic even if it did not make a sale for 100 years but that's me.

[tacnet]

Recently I have seen posts where why sponsors cancel low performing affiliate accounts, this had me thinking after reading this post by tacnet .

The bandwidth used up by affiliates sending hits without making a join must not only cost the sponsor money but mean they need more servers to handle it.
What do you think of my theory?

Good point but bandwidth costs these days are minimal. I think if a sponsor is cancelling low performing affiliate accounts in order to save on bandwidth costs then they cant be making much money and will likely go out of business very soon.

In our affiliate area, we have over 14,000 hosted video trailers, nearly 15,000 hosted galleries and 160 full length hosted videos. All of which can be hot linked directly from our servers using our bandwidth. With over 2000 affliates, you can imagine that's a lot of bandwidth but its not only sales that a sponsor has to think about. Every back link is a vote for your site as far as google is concerned so the more the better, even if some of them hardly ever make a sale

We have 5 load balanced servers (plus a couple of development servers) to handle the load but the hosting costs are minimal compared to the overall revenue

Thats how we see it anyway

[BrasSmonkey]

sponsors like gammae don't do stupid shit like that... it's a numbers game... everybody knows that.

[GRXlinks]

Hosting expense is a legitimate business expense so why worry about this

[monsta]

Too many in this industry do not make decisions based on sound business principles

[nudelinks]

Exposure exposure exposure works for me - cost of hosting is not important send me all the traffic you do not want even if it makes no sales.

PLUS

Backlinks think of all those sites linking into your site for free, no recip back form your site.

[bestfreeporn]

Exposure exposure exposure works for me - cost of hosting is not important send me all the traffic you do not want even if it makes no sales.

PLUS

Backlinks think of all those sites linking into your site for free, no recip back form your site.

Back links are worth the bandwidth expense

[jag]

Tubes do not care about the cost of bandwidth, they want views to sell ad space.

[BHT]

Recently I have seen posts where why sponsors cancel low performing affiliate accounts, this had me thinking after reading this post by tacnet .

The bandwidth used up by affiliates sending hits without making a join must not only cost the sponsor money but mean they need more servers to handle it.
What do you think of my theory?

They are dumb as you can be if you turn away free hits that might end up making you a sale.

[mybitches]

Good point but bandwidth costs these days are minimal. I think if a sponsor is cancelling low performing affiliate accounts in order to save on bandwidth costs then they cant be making much money and will likely go out of business very soon.

What else can it be

[PornPete]

If they cash you out earnings then whatever fuck them

[born2bewild]

If they cash you out earnings then whatever fuck them

Perfect reply, get paid stop wasting your traffic.

[fappmaster]

Dumb thing for any sponsor to do.

[GlennfromLA]

They need their heads seen to if they are cancelling low performing accounts.