CPA or revenue share when 10% of players leave each month
Affiliates
With 10% of players leaving each month, a 35% revenue share on 80 a month earns 258 over two years against a CPA of 200, overtaking it in month 12.
- 258revenue share over two years
- 280revenue share over a lifetime
- 10.0average months a player stays
Churn drives model selection
Retention rates directly influence which payment model maximizes affiliate earnings. As the key figures show, the average stay lasts ten months. This duration determines whether a fixed CPA or a percentage-based revenue share proves more lucrative over time. The table below illustrates cumulative earnings for both models. Revenue share accumulates linearly as long as players remain active, while CPA provides immediate capital. Affiliates must weigh immediate cash flow against long-term accumulation potential based on their specific audience retention metrics. See the regulation tracker for compliance context.
| After | CPA | Revenue share, cumulative |
|---|---|---|
| Month 3 | 200 | 76 |
| Month 6 | 200 | 131 |
| Month 12 | 200 | 201 |
| Month 24 | 200 | 258 |
| Month 36 | 200 | 274 |
Understanding the crossover point
The crossover month marks when cumulative revenue share earnings surpass the fixed CPA amount. In this scenario, revenue share overtakes CPA in month twelve. Before this point, CPA offers higher immediate value. After month twelve, revenue share generates greater total income due to ongoing player activity. Affiliates with high-retention audiences benefit from revenue share, as longer player lifetimes increase total payouts. Those with lower retention may prefer CPA to secure funds before players depart. The table above shows how these curves intersect at the twelfth month.
Contract terms alter outcomes
Specific contract clauses significantly impact net earnings from revenue share models. Negative carryover provisions can reduce monthly payouts if initial losses exceed subsequent wins within a period. Administrative fees further diminish the effective revenue share percentage received by affiliates. These terms effectively lower the net revenue per active player, delaying the crossover point where revenue share exceeds CPA. Affiliates should calculate these adjusted figures to determine if revenue share remains advantageous. A higher churn rate combined with strict contract terms may make CPA the superior choice for immediate liquidity.
Applying the model to audiences
Player profiles serve as illustrations for calculating expected returns, not universal market averages. Each affiliate’s audience exhibits unique retention patterns that affect the optimal model choice. High-churn audiences favor CPA for immediate payment certainty. Low-churn audiences benefit from revenue share’s linear accumulation over longer periods. Affiliates should analyze their own retention data to identify their specific crossover month. Comparing this calculated point against current CPA offers helps determine which contract structure aligns with their cash flow needs and audience behavior patterns.
Questions
When does revenue share beat CPA?
Revenue share overtakes CPA when cumulative earnings from ongoing player activity exceed the fixed CPA amount. In this example, that crossover occurs in month twelve, driven by the churn rate shown in the key figures.
How does churn affect the choice?
Higher churn reduces the time players generate revenue, favoring CPA for immediate payment. Lower churn extends revenue generation periods, making revenue share more profitable over time as cumulative earnings grow.
Do contract fees change the outcome?
Yes. Administrative fees and negative carryover clauses reduce net payouts from revenue share. These deductions lower effective earnings, potentially delaying the crossover point or making CPA more attractive.
Is the player profile universal?
No. The profile illustrates calculation mechanics for specific retention rates. Actual results depend on individual audience behavior, requiring affiliates to apply their own churn and revenue data to determine optimal models.
Every figure on this page is computed by code from standard industry formulas and the facts of our regulation tracker, each checked a second way. See the methodology.