“Hi <@U08LV0GL8G0>, I uploaded the cost files from our tracker's logs of Empfohlen and Testerup for August, can you please take a look and let me know if there are any issues? Thank you! :heart_hands:”
“Reco revshare offer is broken, alex discovered it after running with $0 revenue. The $ values are coming in as adv5 instead of amount”
“We ran a few thousand in revenue to Reco through ETC. quality was terrible ”
“yuvi called me yday saying david cut him too same deal that we have”
“the nice thing about this is we can make reco a public link and stop worrying about caps/quality.....”
“yeah we'll have to make that change let's leave the 500 $4 cap for ID 209 in case he wants to run it still everyone else will move to revshare only”
“Maybe let's open reco traffic rev share as the main option. And for prior affs leave the opportunity with cpa, but it's really way less than it was before with these PO and cap”
“We understand there is a correlation between the click ID timestamps and support ticket submissions you shared, however, provided that we ourselves saw a substantial increase in volume of these types of landing pages to _other_ networks from September 29th and days or even months prior (also cited by the Reddit articles you forwarded), and the fact that the nature of user retargeting lends itself to the same audience being repeatedly shown similar ads, it is extremely likely that these same users have been exposed to numerous instances of these uncompliant landing pages and claims before or after opting in via a funnel tied to our network. It is very reasonable that a TikTok user could have seen numerous uncompliant ad angles, eventually opted in through our compliant LPs, and created those support tickets due to a preconception of the app caused by those uncompliant angles; fully unrelated to our claims. There is no guarantee that the language used in these support tickets are directly caused or even influenced by our traffic. With this in mind, we feel that it is very aggressive to apply a chargeback of this size solely based on this. *Can you confirm whether or not there is any definitive evidence that links the uncompliant activity in question to us?* We have been very open and transparent with you on our compliance practices and have instituted many safeguards to ensure that our affiliates are not running noncompliant traffic for the health of your offer and the industry as a whole. Since the beginning of our relationship with you, we have promised to deliver clean, quality traffic and have enforced this policy rigorously within our network. As Carson mentioned, this has been the reason for our low volume as of recently: our affiliates are made very clear on compliance rules and regularly updated on any changes. Given how strict our procedures are, they choose to run this type of noncompliant traffic elsewhere that will accept it. We want to be abundantly clear on our position here that we take compliance extremely seriously. To reclarify our previous point, Mike's message was to confirm the compliance of the screentime angle we observed being scaled to other networks following a spike in volume from our own affiliates, out of concern that our sources may have been utilizing the same exploit. This was the reason for the pause in traffic, and after confirming at length that our affiliates were _not_ utilizing this landing page or any noncompliant ad angles, we allowed them to resume scale. This was the same procedure that we followed with July's sudden increase in volume, as we do not want to be in a situation where affiliates are scaling noncompliant or low quality traffic without ongoing knowledge about their campaigns. Our standard protocol is to completely pause affiliates scaling if there are any concerns about compliance. Aff 22 <https://nexvumi.com/|nexvumi.com> Aff 41 <https://change.loom-peak.com/qztbfhgiv?loc=__PLACEMENT__&subid=sub1example&utm_campaign=sub1example&utm_content=sub3example&mc_campaign_id=__CAMPAIGN_ID__&mc_adset_name=__AID_NAME__&mc_adset_id=__AID__&mc_ad_id=__CID__&mc_pub=__PLACEMENT__&ttclid=example|change.loom-peak.com/qztbfhgiv?loc=__PLACEMENT__&subid=sub1example&…> (needs to be viewed on mobile) <https://www.landpage-view.com/fc/english/1?mc_attr=c%3D341c2884-4d04-49e5-871e-f7c2659f5dc4..m%3Dmuyhezfeu2iddn7kzqszbd9xpr..d%3D0-0-0-0-3..l%3D17914001827..e%3Dexample..t1%3Dsub1example..t2%3Dsub3example..t3%3D__CAMPAIGN_ID__..t4%3D__AID_NAME__..t5%3D__AID__..t6%3D__CID__..t7%3D__PLACEMENT__..t8%3Dsub1example|landpage-view.com/fc/english/…/1?mc_attr=…>”
“Hi <@U08LV0GL8G0> thank you for the update, I will speak with our publishers and see if they can get up to the 1-1.5K install cap when they resume traffic tomorrow! Let me know also when the new quality dashboard is complete :hugging_face:”
“Hi Max, hi Carson, Thanks for the detailed reply and for the evidence packet. We've checked the packet against our data: that source is active on our side, and we're addressing it with the partner concerned. We also agree with your point that this mechanism is non-compliant regardless of how the landing page is worded. You asked for click IDs and timestamps. Here is what our position on affiliate 41 is based on: • _41_gempwb_ · click_id `cd03140b2f21497691cb3a298d36ffcb` · signed up Sep 29, 03:06 UTC. Later that day the user wrote to our support: "TikTok sent me here but it wasn't a video ad, it said I've been chosen… it was TikTok who did it." • _41_iyiyws_ · click_id `94680f85325e4d12a17702a97bffc467` · signed up Sep 29, 09:36 UTC. Seven minutes later: "how can I make money by scrolling on TikTok? with this app" Both are your click IDs, so you can trace the ads and landing pages behind them. This matches the rest of what we see: • On Sep 30, Mike wrote: "I know it's a 'screentime to cash' angle. Just wanted to make sure screentime angle is still fine." • Affiliate 41 had almost no Freecash traffic in the weeks before Sep 25, scaled sharply on Sep 29–30, and stopped within the hour after our message on Sep 30. • Carson mentions that publishers running this exploit have moved their traffic to other networks. It would help to know whether affiliates 41 and 22 were among them. For clarity, we're not relying on the Reddit screenshots or on <http://playrwd.com|playrwd.com>. _Where we are_ • _41_ ($93,909.70):_ based on the evidence above, we're applying the chargeback. If your review or the materials for these sub1s show something different, we'll look at it again. • _22_ ($47,342.80):_ we don't have user-level evidence here, so we're holding this amount rather than treating it as final. Please share the creatives, landing pages and TikTok ad IDs that 22_ ran on Sep 29–30 by _Oct 14_, and we'll review them. • The payable amount for Sep 28 – Oct 4 is $28,013.80 for now. It would also help to see affiliate 41's materials and ad IDs for the same period, and the outcome of your internal review.”
“Hi <@U06BTV7L1SP>, We disagree with this chargeback and cannot accept it as issued. We have spoken to the affiliates whose traffic is in question and they explicitly deny any association with this landing page. Additionally, we have spent all day investigating this ourselves and are unable to find any indication that these accusations have any standing. If you are going to make accusations of this severity against us, we at least deserve to be provided with evidence. A few things that stand out to us: *1. Nothing ties this traffic to us.* The Reddit post you cited contains no association to us, and actually precedes the traffic in question. Please send us any specific click IDs, corresponding network requests, landing page URLs, screenshots, artifacts, or general evidence from your records that indicate any association to the funnel in question, with timestamps. *2. This angle was running elsewhere long before Sep 29.* These posts show the same pop-up and screen-time-to-cash creative from earlier dates: • <https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTok/comments/1t9us20/earn_while_scroll_pop_up/|reddit.com/r/TikTok/…/earn_while_scroll_pop_up> • <https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTok/comments/1ugsgcx/screen_time_to_cash_creator/|reddit.com/r/TikTok/…/screen_time_to_cash_creator> • <https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/1wpdrvl/had_this_pop_up_in_the_middle_of_an_interesting/|reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/…/had_this_pop_up_in_the_middle_of_an_interesting> The last one was reported on a day we sent under $500 in US traffic. Whoever is running this has been doing it for weeks through other networks. *3. <http://playrwd.com|playrwd.com>.* Attached is the full click export for every click in our logs from <http://playrwd.com|playrwd.com>. It is a domain owned by affiliate ID #46, who's traffic is not even in question here, as they have not ran traffic to Freecash in over a month. Additionally, this domain has never sent any clicks to Freecash, it is exclusively used for sweepstakes offers. We don't understand where the "$1,000 for three offers" claim came from or why it's tied to us. *4. Mike's message was a question, not a confirmation.* He asked whether a "screentime to cash" angle was allowed because he'd seen it scaling on other networks. He also said in the same message that he hadn't seen the actual ads. We asked because we check before running anything, not because we were already running it. *5. The volume drop was our doing.* We raised this angle to you ourselves, and we paused the affiliate in question entirely so we could conduct an internal investigation to ensure all materials were compliant. This is our standard internal policy, as we have zero tolerance for uncompliant behaviors. That is why volume was stopped. And as aforementioned, the investigation returned with no indication that any materials used were uncompliant or even similar to the ones we stand accused of using. Given this information, the $141,252.50 chargeback you have proposed is not supported by what you've sent. Going forward, we're happy to share new sub-publishers and sub1s before they get traffic, and confirm creative angles in writing if desired, but we are formally requesting reconsideration and a presentation of evidence on this matter.”
“atp either prescott actually has a lower 4.5 bid or they're taking $1 margin per cv which still leaves us in a better position”
“i think their portal has the cap rates mixed up <@U09U4TK8QCW> looking at our messages from september 1st-september 3rd we had a cap of 2500 reg september 3rd onwards we had cap of 3500 reg with updated 7.10 rate they're "withholding" overdrawn cap which is based off an old cap that was never updated”
“Hi team, Following up on Moritz's messages from Sep 30. On Sep 29–30, traffic from your network ran through creatives and funnels that are not permitted under our Partner Advertising Policy: • On Sep 30 at 08:57 CEST we asked you not to use any scroll angle. The same day, Mike confirmed in this channel that your publishers run a "screentime to cash" / "get paid for your screentime" angle. • Funnels on <http://playrwd.com|playrwd.com> promised users "$1,000 to claim after completing three offers", with Freecash as one of the offers. • The ads were also flagged publicly: <https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTok/comments/1wtyy5z/anyone_else_get_this/|reddit.com/r/TikTok/…/anyone_else_get_this> In the same window, 53 new sub1s were launched, drove almost all of the week's volume, and stopped right after we raised the issue. Traffic generated through prohibited claims is not payable. **Chargeback: $141,252.50**, the full spend on these 53 sub1s, Sep 29 – Oct 4: • `22_`: $47,342.80 • 52 new `41_` sub1s: $93,909.70 Please apply it to the invoice for Sep 28 – Oct 4. Total spend for that period is $169,266.30, so the payable amount is **$28,013.80**. The 52 `41_` sub1s: ``` 41_ohygat, 41_hwglme, 41_zldtxx, 41_burytt, 41_apgslk, 41_bxuxnq, 41_suptsp, 41_zbcgej, 41_mmxzcb, 41_rhxvqc, 41_mlndmp, 41_iyiyws, 41_nbqwpx, 41_ifdizq, 41_ybzqnl, 41_newgyu, 41_caxbvd, 41_xjjkjy, 41_gempwb, 41_llpfga, 41_dqvyxt, 41_mncfut, 41_fnvcea, 41_wpjrmj, 41_cdmsbm, 41_hevigz, 41_yvizzr, 41_mlxtwk, 41_cridzt, 41_akrsjo, 41_afjpch, 41_oxkzko, 41_wbtpmh, 41_atdxwg, 41_hmesmq, 41_polbzp, 41_mxtffg, 41_hrlqfl, 41_oddvws, 41_iwjwmt, 41_tgmrip, 41_jvfinp, 41_agnamh, 41_rgyxid, 41_awvwcs, 41_fjmfkp, 41_axfvvj, 41_dfmvph, 41_qftptg, 41_jvxlcp, 41_kcyhjh, 41_dsdwrr ``` Going forward: • No funnels that promise users money for completing Freecash or other offers, and no screen-time / scroll angles • New sub-publishers and sub1s need to be shared with us before they get traffic • Please share the results of the compliance review Mike mentioned, including which publishers ran these funnels Thanks!”
“ok sounds good, if we ever get a CPR campaign with exmox again it'll be set up with the hardcoded values since they manually attribute those”
“<@U09U4TK8QCW> since we're not using appsflyer cost import with reco anymore, we should still hardcode the revenue/payout values in everflow right? and empfohlen would be the 100%/100% setup”
“<@U09U4TK8QCW> when you get a chance, can you take a look at the new bizop offer (digital atm) setup? here's the login to the portal: <https://www.jvzoo.com/newdashboard/newdashboard|jvzoo.com/newdashboard/newdashboard> <mailto:ashley@runadvertise.com|ashley@runadvertise.com> 7B2+qxq4=e"A7c) everflow advertiser ID: 41 they're all revshare (80%) with the base amounts posted back to us, offer IDs 969-971 i set to include duplicate conversions bc of the rebill but not sure if we should do an event instead”
“Hey <@U0AS0HW2X4L> can you provide billing info and finalized numbers for traffic up until the end of September so I can issue the first invoice? Thanks!”
“Hi <@U08LV0GL8G0> can you help us with finalized numbers for *August* and *September* so we can invoice? Since we were paused, it slipped my mind and I did not invoice for August yet. If I had invoiced on time, it would've been due yesterday per Net 30 terms. Do we need to stick to an additional Net 30 since we are invoicing now, or could we set an earlier due date? Thanks!”
“Hey <@U0B0Y8Y37FS> our dashboard is ready <https://provider.easytaskcash.com/m|https://provider.easytaskcash.com> Can you pls send me ur email and ill give u access. Theres a performance tab and margin tab that breaks down what we discussed in the call”
“Hey <@U0AE2DJVABU> can we check on invoices #106 and #110? They are both overdue by 1-2 weeks, they were the ones that contained adjustments from the UK spend chargeback”
“For Playful, they send us a postback for app installs and for every revenue event that is eligible for commission. For example if a consumer generates $10 revenue in-app, they would send us a postback for $9.50 or whatever the revshare % is. This happens for all revenue events- if the user generates 10 different revenue events within the cookie window, they would send 10 postbacks. I'm not sure what the cookie window is but maybe around 7 days. There is no bucketing/pooling, LTV pre-calculation, or special hourly interval actions <@U02B1BEMBEC> it is a true revshare model with no user LTV bidding happening”
“Hey guys we need to chargeback it”
“but its on user level then? because you said "it is a one-time revshare conversion that pools all user events from their stickied cookie window"”
“Hi <@U0B0Y8Y37FS> Quick question: do you have any APIs or daily exports we can pull for campaign performance on our traffic? Specifically: - In-app purchase amounts (our IAP postbacks come through with no value) - ROAS and retention per campaign, to compare against the KPI targets in the Campaign Pull API If there's a macro for the purchase amount, we can add it to the postback instead. Thanks!”
“<@U02B1BEMBEC> 1. It's possible that a user can generate a $150 conversion, but this is extremely rare. 2. We don't receive individual events per user aside from the $0 registration at the beginning of the funnel, it is a one-time revshare conversion that pools all user events from their stickied cookie window - unless the user returns to the funnel in a separate session, in which case we may receive a second conversion amount. 3. Yes, optimization is done on value/EPC. The higher the EPC, the higher quality that affiliate's traffic is.”
“Hey <@U0B0Y8Y37FS> :wave: We're setting ETC up to run exactly the way you described on our kickoff call: • *Your funnel, your control.* We'll show your reward funnel exactly as you push it through the API. Whenever you change a reward or add a rung, it updates on our wall automatically. • *Full transparency.* You'll get a dashboard with our margin on every campaign and install day: revenue, what we paid users, completion rates and time to complete. You can tune rewards the same way you do with your other clients. We'll start at the 50% target we discussed. • *Quality by source.* We'll pass a source ID on every click so you can see quality broken out by traffic source. Excited to scale this with you :rocket:”
“<@U0AB21E0WG0> hi! Below are the IDs I'd like to restart, max rate we can offer is $6 CPI on Empfohlen, with a total cap of 600 FAs/day (~1200 regs): 182 181 157 D3 ROAS target 120%, D3 iROAS target is 85%, the focus is on D3 ROAS Campaign name - Mabac_IOS_Empfohlen_WW_CPI_Affiliate_shmp Your call on how to split the cap between publishers; please focus on those who can launch the campaigns asap LMK your thoughts :pray:”
“<@U02B1BEMBEC> 1. The install share of revenue is about 46% across all of our network data, with that number increasing as revshare amount per user drops. 2. Revshare postbacks generally hit our servers within the hour: 80.7% of all revenue within 1 hr 84.9% within 4 hrs 91.8% within 1 day 96.9% within 3 days 97.9% within 1 week 3. Over the last 6 months, our mean revenue per user was $2.31 (std dev is atound $3.35). Our 75th percentile is $1.62, 90th is $5.80, and 99th is around $16.53. The highest payout we’ve seen in this 6-month range was $161. Among the 27% of revshare-paying users, revshare amounts average $4.85 per user with a standard deviation of around $4.67. Let me know if you need a more detailed breakdown than this!”
“Pls answer the questions like that: • What % of the total payout is the install postback • How much % comes within 1 hour, 4 hours, 1 day, etc • Whats the varience of revenue between users”
“<@U02B1BEMBEC> I believe Playful assigns a dynamic cost per user action depending on the offer + advertiser pair, then within the cookie window which sticks to the user's txid, they add up all cost-bearing user actions and attribute them back to us in one conversion. The base install conversion from the hybrid model is related only to their own app's user cost acquisition, so they shorten the length of the cookie window to accommodate there. Maybe a call would be simpler to answer all of your questions?”
“but ppl tell me they send also revenue events and I thought maybe they then optimize on it also”
“Hi team, We've reviewed Mabac performance on Freecash over the last ~5 weeks. Overall quality is currently below our target, and it has been for a while now. We'd like to work with you to turn this around, so here's where we stand. *What's working, and where we're happy to see more volume:* • `182`, especially `182_pe`, `182_mt` and `182_ev` • `179`, especially `179_hm`, `179_aj` and `179_sn` • `200` • Geos: DE, NL, BE, CH, AT and US *What needs to change:* • Please pause `125`, `169` and `292`. They've been below target for several weeks with no improvement. • Please pause `182_zm`. • `181_el` is below target and currently getting the most volume. Please reduce it and shift that volume to the better-performing sub1s above. • `209` is new, and early quality is weak. Please keep it at low volume until it proves itself. • Please cut GB, IT, CA and SE. These geos have been consistently below target. We'd also ask that any new sub1s are tested at small volume first, before scaling. Thanks!”
“Hi <@U0AB21E0WG0> and team, We’re excited to introduce *Smart+ Bid Protection*,limited-time, automated performance guarantee for eligible Smart+ campaigns using Cost Cap, Minimum ROAS, or Target ROAS bidding. *Why you’ll love Smart+ Bid Protection* • *Performance Safety Net*: TikTok automatically covers the gap with ad credits if your eligible campaign exceeds 1.2x your CPA or ROAS target. For example, if your Cost Cap is $10, the protection threshold is $12. If an eligible campaign’s actual CPA exceeds $12, TikTok may provide ad credits covering the qualifying spend above that threshold. • *Scale with Confidence*: Protect your investment while testing new creatives or scaling budgets, even during competitive seasonal peaks. • *Operational Stability*: Reduce "panic-pauses" and manual tweaks—protection gives your campaigns the room they need to stabilize and optimize. • *Seamless Automation*: No applications or paperwork—qualifying credits are calculated and injected directly into your ad account. *The Rules (Key Limitations)* • *Supported Setups Only*: Applies to specific Smart+ objectives and bidding strategies Cost Cap, ROAS. • *thresholds Matter*: Campaigns must run at least 3 days. • *Stay Stable*: Manual bid changes, budget cuts, pausing, or low account balance may disqualify you for the day. • *Credits Only*: Compensation is issued as non-cash ad credits within 10-12 business days of the qualified day. *Best Practices for Success* • *Launch Right*: Verify your campaign objective and bidding strategy are supported before you go live. • *Maintain Momentum*: Keep budgets and bids stable; let the algorithm learn without interruptions. • *Fund Your Account*: Ensure you have sufficient balance to avoid disqualification due to budget stops. ”
“Hi <@U09AKF7G7JA>, they should be able to push more traffic tomorrow - around 1K out of the 1.5K daily cap! Also <@U08LV0GL8G0> would you be able to resend an invite to the Tableau dashboard? It seems Tableau made some updates and I'm no longer able to log in :smiling_face_with_tear:”
“Hi <@U0BRLLK6FE0> thanks for taking a look! I'll increase the bid cap slightly and split test with an ABO to see if we can get more spend going.”
“Also we don't recommend using daily campaign budget but rather an ad group budget that will give you more control over the spend.”
“I think since your CPA is actually good I would lift the bid cap to 0.3”
“Yeah spend seems a bit stuck, this ad group and all dupes are actually doing well and CPA is at the right bid, but even with goal-based optimization it's not spending :(”
“Hey! Let me know what info you need from our end for billing setup and I'm happy to get it done.”
“Thank you <@U0AV545EN3D>, one of the campaigns active now looks like it's doing a bit better today, but spend has slowed since the morning.”
“<@U0AB21E0WG0>, hi! How are you doing? We’re now ready to gradually restart your campaigns. We’d like to begin with ID 179 at a $6.50 CPI and a $1.5K daily cap. Could you please check with the partner if that works for them? The new campaign name will be Mabac_IOS_Empfohlen_WW_CPI_Affiliate_shmp”
“<@U0AB21E0WG0> Can you increase the bid cap that will closer to the actual CPA in the TTAM? I think it will help the ad group to start spending”
“<@U09U4TK8QCW> i guess it they just chose an arbitrary event ID to tie gross revenue to, the rest of the events will just be true/false or carry unweighted revenue values”
“that works for me, we can go through the internal spend stuff rq as well”
“Hey <@U0AB21E0WG0> - Until we start hitting the ROAS goals could we limit our total spend to, say, $1 or $1.5k?”
“theres companies that go and get the refund on your behalf and they take a cut”
“38% on average from 09/01-09/10, but majority of spend was in the last 3 days”
“212 should we chargeback 1k”
“This calculation is made to conduct a deduction that will normalize revenue to meet their quality threshold? Thus fairly distributing the losses?”
“<@U09U4TK8QCW> using fc's invoice dates: mike is actually only responsible for 29K for last week (09/01-09/07), but idk how it would look to cb these smaller amounts”
“From a billing point of view, I assume the 1-7 September deduction will be applied against our currently issued Invoice #101 for 08/31-09/06? Would you prefer I re-issue that invoice with the adjustment applied? Apologies again for this matter and inconvenience. cc <@U0AE2DJVABU> <@U07NYHN9TD4>”
“Hi <@U06BTV7L1SP> <@U02B1BEMBEC>, we completely understand the need for a chargeback and want to sincerely apologize for the situation. As of today, UK is paused and we are actively making adjustments to our publisher management to ensure that this doesn't happen again. We appreciate this partnership and are happy to talk through anything further if additional traffic adjustments are needed to meet your targets.”
“Hi team! UK ran below the 2.5% D0 ROAS standard every day in September - 1.17% to 1.46%, never above 58% of target. Over the same days you scaled UK from $192 to $16,838 per day. Scaling a market that is not hitting target is not something we can absorb. *Chargeback: $41,362* on $90,349 of UK spend, 1–9 September. — $34,423 against the 1–7 September invoice — $6,939 against the current week, updated at close Please pause UK for now. cc <@U02B1BEMBEC>”
“yeah separate campaigns, but we're not passing them cost data in af_cost_value, it's just hard coded at the moment in everflow for registration i think we'll have to redo the setup for prograd to match aid 15 and drop installs again via postback control while hard coding the different revenue/payouts per link”
“Fixed it, we are good to go. I disabled the blanket postback control, it was Rejecting Install events due to logic rules misconfig. We will leave that off, and if we decide to add the other additional events as reporting, we will add postback controls scoped against them with partner-level exclusions- your idea yesterday, much cleaner. As for af_sub5, thats a data propagation issue as those are backend PBs the associated click happened pre af_sub5 presence in URL. Seems to be working going forward, but i will not edit AF config to rely on it unless needed (new advertiser before we build bridge) *TLDR; Green light to run Reco again* ”
“Hey <@U09UAG54B4L>, how’s it going? I had a look at the app and noticed that each campaign is offering a relatively high reward on install + start tutorial ($2–5). I think this could be contributing to the lower retention and ROAS, since users may be installing primarily to collect that initial reward without progressing much further into the funnel. That being said, I wasn’t able to see our campaigns since they tend to fill their caps pretty quickly, so I’m not sure how the rewarding structure is set up specifically for ours. Are you seeing higher retention on campaigns from other partners? My assumption would be that campaigns driving stronger progression likely have later events with meaningfully higher payouts than the install/start tutorial reward, giving users more incentive to continue. Generally in this industry, we do not recommend rewarding users at all on install for this reason. While it can help drive initial volume and revenue, it can also lead to more short-lived campaign engagement rather than sustained progression and quality, since users have less incentive to continue if they can earn a meaningful reward simply by installing. Curious to hear your thoughts and observations on how campaigns are performing for others and open to chatting over a call to discuss in depth as well!”
“hey guys, we are way below target :disappointed: need to apply chargeback like that”
“With Reco tracking setup reconfigured, we need to have someone launch it and test that everythings working, then we can open back up to whoever <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bL1oJGfqulVbDlrviUH0uF438J4Za3jXvGVRrhIipdg/edit?tab=t.0|Reco Postback Reconfig>”
“Was issue #4, solved by a postback control limiting that event”
“You cannot swap the default postback event. Their support confirmed it”
“I am having to hardcode an advertiser-level value to our account-level postback in Everflow I featurerequested Everflow to fix their system which would fix this but, *TLDR; we would have to build a bridge worker to onboard another AppsFlyer advertiser* Maybe flag it for a dev when they have the free time”
“You can't even reconcile postbacks with AF without a subscription. Or check post back history”
“Hey. Okay sounds good, will cap GB to 5k/day :white_check_mark:”
“<@U09UAG54B4L> need to cut GB to 5K er day till we get the quality :disappointed: DE looks ok tho”
“If that isn't worth it from your POV (in terms of scale etc) I also totally understand and I'd be happy to pause for now and re-engage later. Android is doing better from a ROAS perspective which is great, but it's our worst channel on terms of adv ROAS by 5-10x so that isn't really great either.”
“Hey <@U0AB21E0WG0>! I can't really sustain this amount of spend when the performance is so bad. Could we cap his iOS spend a, say, $1k a day until the ROAS & adv ROAS is better?”
“Hey <@U0AB21E0WG0> 1. Has the traffic been split to the 2 campaigns? Still not seeing the change on my side <https://progradworkspace.slack.com/archives/C0ASMBSH4HJ/p1788167788147039|https://progradworkspace.slack.com/archives/C0ASMBSH4HJ/p1788167788147039> 2. regarding quality feedback • #284: quality is not good enough yet, we need tot target 2.5% ROAS D0 or I'll need to pause • #109: any news on him getting back live? • is there any new test that is gonna start? ”
“Yes, we figured out 21- users considered for the quality analyzes but not for conversion number and CPA further calculation. but the cost & quality where correct”
“<@U0AB21E0WG0> the day that I ran the overflow that we’re not getting paid for that traffic I’m only not getting paid for the overflow right but the rest under the cap is fine?”
“I can pause all traffic rn, but pls take a look into this. Idk if it’s meant to be like that or not <@U02B1BEMBEC> <@U06BTV7L1SP> ”
“Hey team, <@U09UAG54B4L> <@U0AB21E0WG0> please pause publishers `sefcshop3` and `usfcen3shop` and limit GB to 5k daily spend till we get the proper quality. Also France does not perform. Also please scale DE, NL and US as it performs well atm. Please keep your eye on the quality and in case the quality is below the target CPA & spend per country / sub should be decreased. So far we see lack of actions about GB the country's been underperfomring for long time, but there is no spend decrease. Please take the actions more proactively.”
“Hi <!channel> — our postback endpoint is receiving your conversions fine, but every one is being rejected: the `secret=` value in your postback template doesn't match the shared secret on our side. A couple of other params are also named differently from our spec, so here is the full corrected URL — please replace your current postback template with this in its entirety: <https://easytaskcash.com/api/postback/appsamurai?aff_sub={s_sub_id}&transaction_id={transaction_id}&secret=wxJnrxBcJaZvuSw5ryZkdl6WW4NhH73Z2TAY0mPijecFGtComcMSO8NTpPMjsRU7&offer_id={campaign_id}&offer_name={app_title}&payout_usd={payout}&event_name={event_token}&postback_status={status}> One thing to note: `postback_status={status}` is new. Without it we can't process reversals, so a rejected install would stay credited on our side. Thanks!”
“totally cool if they need to cut back though that's entirely fiar”
“Hey <@U074NHTKAEA> just confirming that we're still using the gSheet as source of truth for billing data before I invoice? And also, would you ever consider speeding up billing terms to a Semimonthly Net 15 (1st and 15th) arrangement? I understand you're facing long float times as well but wanted to float the idea as our main pub #6 has confided that he is running out of funds for adspend and may potentially have to cut back some volume, or at least not increase further :sweat_smile:”
“Hi <@U0AV545EN3D> just approved! Spend seems slow today :sweat_smile: Let's discuss further plans later today, thank you for the meeting invite!”
“Hey <@U0AB21E0WG0> 1. I am finally seeing some traffic :slightly_smiling_face: However most of it is not getting to quality target: the only showing better potential was the pub #109 but I see he paused the campaign, why? 2. are we testing only UK or also US? I would suggest the following: we split traffic into 2 campaigns - one is for testing all the base campaign and the other one is for increasing payout whenever we start to see better performance • Base camapign paid $4 per signup `PR_MABAC_APP_IOS_US_CPA_SIGNUP_T0_31_08_2026` `PR_MABAC_APP_AOS_US_CPA_SIGNUP_T0_31_08_2026` • T1 campaign paid $5 per signup `PR_MABAC_APP_IOS_US_CPA_SIGNUP_T1_31_08_2026` `PR_MABAC_APP_AOS_US_CPA_SIGNUP_T1_31_08_2026` ◦ on this campaign for now only site ID #109 is allowed What do you think?”
“I'm estimating with current metrics around $500-$1000 spend daily once I've finished testing; the offer itself has limited cap on our network but we have a new structure with them coming this week that will allow me to spend more. I'll let you know when I plan to scale up more concretely once testing is all done!”
“Hi <@U0AV545EN3D>, I've set up the pixel and am currently testing new campaigns - performance has been pretty OK so scale should increase in the coming days and spend along with it.”
“Hey I know a lot of our publishers have paused currently as they still haven't been paid for almost 2 weeks now. We still haven't received Invoice #093 which was expected on Monday”