Why More Affiliate Traffic Will Not Fix a Broken Player Funnel

During AffPapa Conference Madrid, our host Surya Palli spoke with Franz Gerhart, CEO of Vyking, about where operators lose affiliate traffic, why the operator-affiliate relationship still has problems, and how better data could change the way affiliate deals are built.

The conversation also went into an interesting idea: instead of paying the same CPA for every player, should operators start paying based on the value that player is likely to bring?

Here’s what stood out.

The problem may start after the affiliate sends the traffic

From Franz's platform perspective, one of the biggest mistakes happens in two very basic parts of the player journey: registration and deposit.

An affiliate may send good traffic, but if registration is difficult or the deposit journey does not work well, those players can disappear before they ever become valuable customers.

And even a funnel that works well for one traffic source may not work the same way for another.

That is why Franz's advice was very clear:

“Don't skip testing. Never skip testing.”

Start with a few affiliates. Look at what happens to their traffic. Find where players are leaving and fix those problems before trying to scale.

Bad conversion can also cost you affiliate trust

When traffic does not convert, the operator does not only lose a possible player.

The affiliate also sees that their traffic is performing poorly.

That becomes a bigger problem because affiliates talk to each other. If several partners find that a brand does not convert well, that reputation can spread across markets.

An operator can spend more money trying to find new affiliates, but rebuilding trust may be much harder.

Franz also pointed to problems the industry already knows well, including unclear terms, late payments and commission shaving.

For him, the first place to start is still much simpler: make sure the basic player journey actually works.

Operators and affiliates are still in a “broken marriage”

When Surya asked how operators could scale affiliate programs more intelligently, Franz first looked at the relationship between both sides.

His description was quite direct.

“It's like a broken marriage, very dysfunctional.”

Operators do not always trust affiliates. Affiliates do not always trust operators.

Yet both sides still need each other, so the same commercial models continue.

CPA and revenue share have worked for years, but Franz believes the industry now has enough data to build something more useful.

The problem may not be the technology anymore. It may be whether both sides are willing to change how they work together.

Looking only at FTDs does not tell you enough

Most affiliate programs already track familiar numbers such as lead-to-registration, registration-to-FTD and active players.

Franz believes operators can go much deeper.

Player behaviour can show what products someone prefers, how they deposit, how they use bonuses and what they do during their first few minutes on a platform.

When that information is compared with the behaviour of thousands of previous players, an operator can start getting a better idea of what kind of player has arrived.

That could help operators move away from treating every FTD as if it has the same value.

Why should every player have the same CPA?

This was probably the most interesting idea in the conversation.

Franz questioned why an operator should automatically pay a €300 CPA simply because €300 is the market rate.

If the platform can already see that one player is likely to be low value, why should that acquisition cost be the same as a player who is likely to stay and spend much more?

As Franz asked:

“Why would I pay for the person like 300 euro CPA just because the market average is 300?”

The same question works from the affiliate side.

If an affiliate consistently sends high-value players, should they be limited to the same commercial deal as someone sending much weaker traffic?

That is where Franz sees room for a more dynamic model.

Dynamic CPA could make affiliate deals more about player value

Franz talked about dynamic CPA and dynamic revenue share, where commercial terms could change based on the quality and expected value of the traffic.

The idea is somewhat similar to digital advertising.

Not every click has the same value, so advertisers do not always bid the same amount.

Affiliate acquisition could move in a similar direction.

If operators understand player value earlier and affiliates understand what kind of traffic performs best for each brand, both sides could make better decisions.

The operator does not overpay for low-value traffic, while an affiliate bringing strong players could potentially earn more.

Behavioural data could help both sides make better decisions

Franz explained that once a platform has enough player data, patterns become easier to see.

Imagine a new player who spends a long time reading bonus terms, makes the maximum deposit and immediately claims the maximum bonus.

That behaviour already tells the operator something.

It does not guarantee what the player will do next, but when the same patterns have appeared across thousands of previous players, the operator has much more information to work with.

This is where data can become more useful than simply reporting how many FTDs arrived.

The bigger question is whether operators and affiliates are willing to share enough information to make that model work.

The technology may already exist. The trust does not.

Surya raised the challenge of operators and affiliates not sharing enough data with each other.

Franz believes the technical problem is largely solvable already.

“The problem is already solved. It's just there is no permission to implement it.”

Both sides already have useful information.

The platform sits between them and can see many of the numbers.

But sharing those metrics requires agreement and a different level of transparency.

That brings the conversation back to the “broken marriage.”

Both sides know parts of the current model do not work very well, but the existing setup is still familiar and convenient enough that there is little pressure to change it.

What stood out to us

1. Good affiliate traffic can still fail if registration and deposit flows are weak.
2. Testing the player journey should happen before operators scale acquisition.
3. Poor conversion can damage an operator's reputation with affiliates.
4. CPA and revenue share do not always reflect the real value of each player.
5. Player behaviour can give operators a much deeper view than FTD numbers alone.
6. Dynamic CPA and revenue share could create more value-based affiliate deals.
7. Operators and affiliates already have a lot of useful data, but they do not always share it.
8. Better technology alone will not fix the relationship if trust and transparency are missing.

What we found interesting about this conversation was that the answer to getting more from affiliates was not simply finding more affiliates.

It was about understanding what happens to the traffic you already have.

If operators can improve conversion, understand player behaviour and use that data to build smarter commercial deals, the whole relationship could work differently.

And Franz's dynamic CPA idea leaves us with a bigger question.

Should affiliates still be paid mainly for bringing an FTD, or should the industry start paying more based on the actual value of the player they bring?

As part of the 4th edition of The Real Roadshow 2026, this conversation was recorded at AffPapa Conference Madrid and is brought to you by Evoverse, providing custom crypto casino source code solutions, and Wicked Games, creating slot games that slap.