I know of one that is in development and a few other options that are coming to light. There will always be more than one way to skin a cat... if you're into cat skinning, at least.

Not every WSO is MMO.

Some are tools you can use. Some are templates. Some are services.

I would guess that possibly other payment options will be added - but you'd have to contact warrior plus about that.

Roll the skinned cats in a little corn meal and deep fry them. Throw in some hushpuppies and a little coleslaw. Top it off with plenty of cold barley pop, and the mess is worth it...

Most systems are already integrating other payment processors, but that simply ignores the context of the real problem that PayPal sees with most of the affiliate programs.

They do not have too much issue with the MMO, although that is kind of dicey.

The major issue they see is with the relationship, or more importantly, the lack of contractual relationship between the vendor and the affiliate.

If an affiliate is paid immediately, and the customer wants a refund, who is going to enforce that refund? If the affiliate is a dirty dog and does not want to do the refund, PayPal might be left holding the bag for the financial responsibility of a deal gone wrong.

Yep, I would not want to be in that position either...

Have you seen something we haven't?

There is NO problem with the "affiliate platforms", as you put it. We're still here, and still processing orders using affiliates, Paypal, etc. Business as usual.

WSO's are (from my memory) at an all time high. Many of those promoted through WSO Pro. Sales of RAp are fine, and some RAP customers are selling in excess of 1000 products
from a single domain (something over 3500 domains registered with RAP installed).

What you are hearing is the noise of a very few, who have probably violated Paypal's TOS in some manner, and you're just increasing the "noise level" because you have chosen to believe what you heard. Do yourself a favor, and ask a few who haven't painted themselves into a corner with their payment processor. It's a very different picture.

Not all RAP products are make money online, anyway, are they?

Warrior Plus probably a majority are make money online but there are offers in there related to business online such as software, etc. that are not explicitly make money online.

It's something to take a look at but no need to hit the panic button, just yet.

I remember back when people's adwords accounts started getting shut down and everybody said that "he must have broke the TOS..."

Either you believe that Russ is lying or it is very revealing that the rep said that they do not like this business model anymore.

Well given the volume that WSOplus is sending I think Paypal will think twice before shutting them down..

Roger: Yes, IMHO, they are broading it. But as in the case mentiond here, it had a hyped sales letter. So PP didnt want to take the risk. It's not that it was a MMO but unrealistic (for the average person).

I have a product about 10 ways to make 10k and it will not be sold with PayPal.

The first part you bolded is why I fight all claims instead of refunding them. 1.) Wins on my account look better. 2) It helps teach people to ask for a refund.

It really irks me when people tell others to just refund complaints. It hurts their account and tells the complainers its an easy way to get their money back thus hurting other sellers.

-g

Even non-MMO sales have had problems before...

Last year I did a lot of research on how to unfreeze a Paypal account when I read what happened to the creator of the popular MineCraft game.

He had very low refund rates, it's a game not a get rich course, the only problem he had was... too many sales...

600,000 euros of them, in a very short time, while he was traveling (and after limitation).

One of the problems I see is that "coach's" are offering a lot of guarantees now a days. I take you $500 today and if you aren't making money in 60 days, I'll refund your money back. If you look at the sales pages, the seller doesn't even say the buyer has to do anything to get their money back! If I'm Paypal, I wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole. Check out all these product launches lately and they all offer no questions asked, money back guarantees.

So the new Paypal API allows sales to be split directly between 2 Paypal accounts, correct?

What are the benefits/downsides of a setup like this? Should we want this?

It seems like perhaps a better way to handle affiliate things, but again, I don't have the knowledge of the API to really know what works best.

I'd bet they are thinking of the gifting programs that rotate.
PayPal has limited understanding of affiliates.

If you would have asked:

"My business partners and I want to share payments on a
site. Would it be a violation if we changed the email address
for the PayPal button to that of a different partner after
each sale?

It will make book keeping much easier."

or even...

"Is it allowed to change the vendor/payee
email address on buttons based on the
referring person?"

My wording makes it seem different but
the outcome is the same. Rotating sales.

Garrie

P.S. FYI: I am not saying they aren't closing
sites for rotating, I am saying it's not in the
TOS and without showing an AUP Marshall
specifics (step-by-step in dumby terms) they
can only guess what you are referring to and
they tend to lean on the side of causion.

I also think it depends on the sales letter
and how everything is worded.

It seems to me that PayPal is considering the instant payments to affiliates; (in the manner they're being conducted); to be one party accepting payments for another party... that's actually a very old merchant account violation instituted by Visa/MasterCard International.

Its vague, yeah.. but, I can see it being used. Esp. in today's everybody's stressed out over PCI compliance and who pays for it... identity theft and who's fault is it... money laundering... terrorists and Patriot Acts..

I (personally) think its a good thing; as instant affiliate payments are great for the affiliate but not so good for the merchant. The merchant is always going to be the one left holding the bag should things go bad.

lol, I bet Amazon NEVER thought they'd be creating SUCH a multi-faceted conundrum in the business world when they created the first affiliate program... they just thought other people helping them sell their books was a cool idea.. <sigh>

Garrie is right. When you mention rotating sales to PayPal they see something completely different than what you really mean.

What you should be asking is if it is ok to have a system where a different person gets paid after each sale, but it is done in a way that the customer only makes one purchase and the payee always gets the full amount of the sale.

You have to make sure that PayPal understands that there is only one transaction and that it is not the split pay method from a few years ago. When you mention rotating payments to PayPal they instantly think split pay which is where you have a customer make two payments, one to the merchant then one to the affiliate. These types of systems have been banned from PayPal for several years now and they do not fully understand the difference between split pay and rotating pay.

Paypal has long been the sole player in online payments, unfortunately there isn't anything near them, so they can dictate the rules as they see fit

If the problem is only with the unrealistic claims, then I'm glad they do it. I'm so sick of all these "Make 6 figures each month with 2 minutes of work".

I'm fairly new to making $ online, but I consider that if you're a correct person doing genuine business with realistic claims, PayPal won't do anything against you. Just my two cents.

[DELETED]

this is the first I have heard of this. Maybe warrior plus can come up with their own payment processor!

Their TOS even says as much.

For example: The TOS says no MLM but PayPal has and does approve some.

Garrie

You know... I can't believe I got sucked into another one of these PayPal threads lol...

A lot of valid points here.

The way I see it... It's a game of chance and luck.

PayPal is made up of individuals from a variety of backgrounds.

One employee might think your offer or site or whatever is against their TOS.

Another might think it's fine.

On different days those employees may think the complete opposite.

I think it matters who is reviewing your account, etc.

I don't sell "get rich quick" but try making that case to a PayPal employee with limited knowledge of our industry.

You can have screen shots and make income claims and still not be "get rich quick."

So according to the PayPal TOS you're in the clear.

According to some jackwagon who works for PayPal, you're selling get rich quick products.

Also for some reason I've noticed that people who do an incredibly large volume of sales who normally don't, or they have a lot of membership site subscriptions coming in, seem to draw the eye of the employees you don't want looking at your account.

All-in-all... ya, any one of us could get tanked by the right employee.

So what do you do?

I don't know... 2CO Checkout and ClickBank both offer PayPal... that's one alternative even though there are drawbacks like high refund rates or high fees.

You just got to roll with the punches.

Sometimes in business you get kicked in the teeth.

I think it's better to not worry about getting kicked in the teeth, and when it happens, it may not be all that bad.

You might find that... hey... maybe it's time to grow up and get a REAL merchant account anyway.

[DELETED]

I know this conversation started being mostly about PayPal's new API...

To me, the most important thing for us IM'ers to worry about, is what exactly PayPal considers to be against their TOS when it comes to our type of business...

This is how PayPal defines a "get rich quick" scheme:

Taken directly from their site, here: https://www.paypal.com/helpcenter/ma...030&isSrch=Yes

Best,
Shane

[DELETED]

I suspect this is just as bad. I mean, why not say they can sell 1,000 units per day? This all goes back to "typical" performance and illustrative claims.

The above is, if I recall correctly, very similar to what got Kern in trouble with the FTC.

It seems to me that considering that you have several people in this thread who have based their entire business model around PayPal payments, those including Sid, Big Mike, myself, and others, it would be wise to listen to those who have invested so much time and effort in making sure that their products are in fact not going against the TOS of PayPal and have in fact ran for years with no problem at all.

Solutions such as WSO+, RAP, my product which I wont mention as I'm not currently selling anything these days, Big Mikes solution, and several others work on the instant payment system and many of them have been working with no problems for years.

The facts are simple. All of these programs have been looked at and vetted by PayPal many times over and not once has there been more than a minor issue that was taken care of almost instantly.

Anyone saying PayPal has a problem with instant commission systems needs to be taken with a grain of salt. First, look at their motivation for saying what they are, what types of competing products they are selling, ( having a product for sale that trashes instant commissions lowers your ablilty to have an objective conversation about the practice, regardless of best intentions) and what type of proof each side offers.

The people selling instant commission solutions have taken great pains to make sure that the solutions are well within the PayPal TOS and have had their systems vetted more than once in most cases.

Unless you are a solution provider who has talked to PayPal about your specific solution, then anything you say about what is accepted and not accepted is nothing short of conjecture. It doesn't matter how many times you have discussions with PayPal, or how many different people you go through, unless you can show specifics about your own product you are not stating facts.

The facts are this: PayPal is NOT going to give a clear answer to anyone about what is within the TOS unless they are the actual creater of the product. You can get best guesses or opinions, but unless you are the product creator and are going through the approval process yourself you are not getting an answer that you should be hanging your business on.

I have personally had more than one discussion with PayPal about instant commissions. I have created not just one but at least 4 different types of systems using pretty much every concievable method of doing instant commissions in my research while coding some of the project I was working on before my wifes auto accident. Those will have to wait but at some point I might get a chance to impliment them all. The point is, I have had every single method of instant commission system mentioned in this thread personally verified by PayPal myself.

Oh their is a WSO...

Now that changes how I look at her comments.

Actually, they all don't. My brother just opened one at his local bank and it has no reserve holding. 100% is batched on a daily basis. They can take refunds from his checking account.

PayPal does not consider the affiliate as an affiliate. They are the seller as far as PP is conserned. And I'd bet legally too. The transaction is between the buyer and person accepting funds. Not the name on the sales letter.

-g

BTW:

PayPal uses checking and CCs to verify because those items ALREADY passed a credit history or other checks. No reason to reverify when it's not always needed.

FYI:

I changed business info on my account and had to send:

- copy of ID
- state businesses license
- two utility bill or statements
- FEIN and SS of contact

and a few other items. They do checks when needed. Most people are small users and its not needed. The risk doesn't outweigh the cost.

-g

There will always be an alternate process...in this business someone will always find a way

Yeah, mine PayPal account was effected as well. I will use only Clickbank for now.

Sid...

When I said this...
It was in direct response to the post(ings) regarding PayPal's response to DaniellS' eMail(s).

Therefore, you're taking what was said out of context without referring to what they were directed at, in the first place.

Secondly, the quote from me...

"I (personally) think..." qualifies that statement as an opinion; therefore, emphatically exclaiming that its "not true" is (again) out of context.... I never made the mistake of labelling the statement as fact.

Disagreeing with me is a totally different animal and totally within your rights.

Peace

Never mind. :-)

Russ