Affiliate KPI dispute: an operator accepted 40% of FTDs

This affiliate KPI case started as a 40-FTD test at €180 CPA for a casino brand targeting Ireland. At reconciliation the operator approved about 40% of the first deposits and held the rest over age and redeposit rules the offer never quantified. Expected payout: €7,200; after talks, €3,600. All figures come from the network, not independently verified.

Results at a glance

A note on the arithmetic: 40 × €180 is €7,200, and €3,600 is the price of 20 FTDs, not of the 16 that 40% of 40 would give. The network's account does not reconcile the two figures, so both appear here exactly as reported.

Context

For most affiliates, "KPI" first means the numbers they watch: EPC, conversion rate, ROI. In an iGaming CPA deal, an affiliate marketing KPI has a second, more expensive meaning. It is the set of qualification terms that decide whether a first deposit is payable at all: minimum deposit, player age, GEO, device, repeat deposits or play. A player who misses one of them can be rejected long after the traffic has been bought.

The case involves three parties, all anonymised here: an affiliate network, an online casino operator, and a media buyer who ran the traffic through the network. The offer targeted players in Ireland. The account does not say where the operator is licensed. The deal was a flat CPA, one of the three common iGaming payout models, with a test cap. A test cap lets an operator buy a small batch, judge player quality and only then commit to volume.

The events date from autumn 2024. The account comes only from the network, relayed by a trade-media report in October 2024. The operator's version of events is not on record, and this piece treats the case as one side of a commercial dispute.

What they did

The written offer, as the network describes it, had four parts:

• Rate: €180 for each first deposit.

• Volume: a test cap of 20 conversions.

• Quality bar: KPIs described as "soft", with no hard thresholds.

• Notes: extra conditions on targeting and player qualification, including a warning that players would be checked, repeat deposits among the checks.

What the notes left out matters more than what they said. By the network's reading, the offer set no required share of redepositing players and no further qualification criteria, and the upper age limit was never agreed.

A buyer on the network picked up the offer and hit the 20-FTD cap shortly into the test. The operator then doubled the cap to 40, and the buyer had delivered all 40 FTDs by the end of September 2024. The account does not say whether the terms were restated when the cap went up.

The network describes its own role as a pass-through: an operator's terms and KPIs go to its partners as received, and running the offer is the buyer's call. That puts the network in the middle between operator and buyer. Both expected the full 40 FTDs to be paid.

Results

At reconciliation, the operator's manager told the network that roughly 40% of the traffic would be paid and the remaining 60% was on hold. The operator gave two grounds:

1. Age. A share of the players were above an upper age cap that, the network says, was never part of the agreed offer.

2. Redeposits. Clearing the minimum deposit was not enough. The operator approved a player only if a second deposit followed.

In the network's view, the operator moved from soft to hard KPIs on its own once the traffic was in. Talks with the manager produced partial compensation, and only for the players rejected on age. The network puts the resulting CPA payout at €3,600 for the 40 players, against €7,200 expected. It does not say whether that figure includes the age compensation. Neither side conceded the redeposit point.

That figure was not the end of it. The network says a more senior contact at the operator, whom it approached itself, later offered to settle by paying for the traffic on hold, and that part of the held traffic was eventually paid. No amount was given, so the final total for the test is unknown.

What did not work

• "Soft" was never defined. A KPI with no number gives the operator room to set the number after delivery. The offer mentioned redeposit checks but no threshold, so the buyer could not test against it, and the operator could apply a strict rule once the FTDs were in.

• No age band in writing. An age limit is easy to state and easy to filter for. Here it surfaced only at reconciliation, after the money was spent.

• Escalation went around the account manager. Per the network, repeated requests to the account manager to settle the dispute or involve a superior went nowhere. The network then approached a more senior contact itself, and that contact offered to pay the held traffic. Without a named escalation contact in the deal, you depend on finding one after the money is already on hold.

• Terms lived in correspondence. The conditions sat in the offer and the messages around it, and the two sides read the same text differently.

• Unclear why the rules appeared late. Operators do hold FTDs for sound reasons, including fake deposits and bonus abuse. Nothing in this account points to fraud, and it gives no detail on the buyer's traffic sources, so we do not speculate on them. For a case where the deposits were in fact simulated, see fake players and managed deposits.

Separately, the network reported that another advertiser later froze a batch it had already approved and pointed to this dispute as the reason, and it raised a confidentiality concern about how the details travelled. We cannot verify that claim.

Takeaways for affiliates: writing affiliate KPIs into the deal

A workable KPI in a CPA deal is one both sides can check against data before the traffic runs. Based on this case:

• Put every qualification rule in writing before the test. Age band, minimum deposit, number of deposits and the window for them, GEO, device and any play requirement. If a rule is a percentage, write the percentage.

• Define the hold. State the hold period, the release date and what can move an FTD from hold to rejected.

• Define "approved FTD" and the dispute route. Agree who reviews a rejection, what evidence each side shares (player IDs, reason codes) and how long the review takes.

• Get the offer sheet signed or confirmed by email. A dated document with every rule on it is easier to point to than a thread of messages when readings differ.

• Restate terms when the cap changes. When a test cap is raised, confirm in writing that the original KPIs carry over unchanged, or list what changed.

• Keep your own records and a named contact. Clean postback tracking gives you a player-level log to reconcile against the operator's report, and a named escalation contact above the account manager gives you somewhere to take it.

FAQ

What is a KPI in affiliate marketing?

It has two meanings. One is the performance metrics you track, such as EPC, conversion rate and ROI. In iGaming CPA deals it also means the qualification criteria that decide whether a conversion is payable, such as minimum deposit, age, GEO and redeposits.

What does it mean when an operator puts FTDs on hold?

The operator has not approved those first deposits for payment yet and is checking them against its criteria, often for fraud, bonus abuse or KPI misses. Ask for the reason per player, the review deadline and the rule in your deal that each rejection relies on.

Which KPIs should be written into an iGaming CPA deal?

Start with the minimum deposit, player age band, GEO, allowed devices, any redeposit or play requirement with a number attached, the hold period and release date, and how disputes are handled. Anything not on the list should not be a reason for rejection.

What should an affiliate do if an operator rejects part of the traffic?

Compare each rejection against the written offer, share your own conversion data, and escalate above the account manager with that evidence. Whether a rejection is valid depends on what your written terms say. For contract questions, check your agreement or ask a lawyer; this is not legal advice.

Sources

• Case figures and events: a trade-media report of October 2024 based on the affiliate network owner's account, covering traffic delivered in September 2024. One side of the dispute; not independently verified. The operator's position is not on record.

• AffHouse knowledge base, for background on deal terms: CPA vs RevShare vs Hybrid, affiliate fraud in iGaming, postback tracking.