Traffic Cardinal
wrote June 12, 2026
Traffic Cardinal
wrote June 12, 2026
Numbers don’t lie, but they do have loyalties. In Part 2 of our interview with Brendon Spiteri, Head of Commercial at Routy, we move from brand strategy to the math of affiliate marketing.
What happens when your tracker shows 200 deposits, but the operator swears there were only 80? Who do you trust when the delay between real-time data and official stats feels suspiciously convenient?
Brendon pulls back the curtain on the three discrepancy signals that scream “hidden fees,” explains why the metric 90% of affiliates rely on is systematically lying, and shares the tracking bugs that nearly broke his logic.
Brendon is a seasoned iGaming and affiliate marketing professional with over eight years of experience in digital marketing, traffic acquisition, and business development within the online gaming ecosystem.
Currently Head of Commercial at Routy, a BI-driven software platform that helps iGaming affiliates better understand and monetize their traffic. In his role, Brendon leads commercial strategy, sales pipeline development, partnerships and marketing initiatives to support affiliate growth and industry adoption.
The operator provides statistics with ~6-12 hour delay. The affiliate sees their own real-time data through his tracker. What three discrepancy signals between these two data streams would make you immediately suspect under-delivery or hidden fees?
The closest thing to real-time reporting is typically achieved through postbacks. Most of the actions passed through postbacks are:
Sign Ups (SU)
First Time Deposits (FTD)
Qualified CPA events
Some operators can also provide click data that is close to real time, which helps with faster performance analysis.
Traffic Source Considerations
Performance should be evaluated based on the traffic source being used.
For highly time-sensitive sources such as PPC, a large volume of clicks with little or no SU or FTD activity can indicate:
An underperforming brand
Issues with payment processing
Problems within the registration or deposit flow
Tracking or attribution issues
These indicators should be investigated quickly to avoid wasting spend.
Identifying Hidden Fees
To uncover potential hidden costs within an affiliate program, always ask for the exact commission calculation formula, including:
Whether commissions are calculated before or after bonus costs
Whether bonus costs are included in the final commission amount
Any administrative or platform fees charged by the program
Any additional deductions that may impact net revenue
Having this information allows you to accurately assess the true profitability of the program and compare it against other available opportunities.
Which metric that 90% of affiliates consider key is actually systematically lying, and what do you replace it with in your own analytics?
The issue is not always that operators are deliberately misleading publishers; more often, it is a matter of incomplete transparency or withheld information.
The primary conversion metric for most affiliate programs is the journey from FTD (First Time Deposit) to Qualified CPA. However, publishers are at an information disadvantage. The operator has access to the player's complete account history and activity, while the publisher typically only receives a Click ID that was generated when the user initially clicked through.
Despite this limitation, a Click ID can still provide significant value when paired with proper tracking technology. It allows publishers to monitor player behaviour beyond the initial conversion, including:
Deposits
Wagering activity
Player losses
Generated commission
Long-term player value
Most importantly, this tracking remains useful even after the player has achieved FTD status.
Identifying Potential Issues
When historical player activity suddenly disappears from reporting, it should raise questions.
For example, if a player associated with Click ID 12345 has consistently generated activity and then suddenly drops off completely, the publisher can approach the operator for clarification.
If the operator responds with vague or incomplete explanations, it may indicate one of several issues:
The player has been de-tagged from the affiliate account.
The player has been transferred to another internal tracking structure.
The player has been cross-sold to another brand owned by the same operator, without revenue attribution being maintained for the original publisher.
While these situations are not always intentional, a lack of transparency makes them difficult to verify without independent tracking.
Why Independent Tracking Matters
Publishers should continue monitoring player activity long after the FTD event has occurred. Focusing solely on initial conversions provides only a partial picture of player value and operator performance.
Without an independent tracking solution such as Routy, publishers are largely dependent on operator-reported data and may have limited visibility into what happens after the initial conversion. As a result, they risk missing important insights related to player retention, revenue generation, and attribution accuracy.
Give an example where raw data told you "turn off this traffic source immediately," but a week later, an unexpected LTV spike came from that same source. How do you distinguish real noise from a signal that others don't see?
These situations are most commonly encountered in media buying and PPC campaigns, particularly on platforms such as Google Ads and Meta Ads. Since advertising budgets can be consumed very quickly, it is essential to monitor performance closely and make decisions based on real-time indicators.
When launching a new brand, there is always an element of uncertainty regarding how the traffic will respond to the offer. Even experienced media buyers cannot predict with complete accuracy how a campaign will perform until sufficient data has been collected.
Key Metrics to Monitor
For publishers running PPC campaigns, the most important indicators are:
Click volume
Sign Up (SU) postbacks
First Time Deposit (FTD) postbacks
These metrics provide the earliest signals of whether a campaign is performing as expected.
When to Pause a Campaign
As a general rule, if a campaign generates a significant number of clicks at a high CPC but produces no sign-ups, it may indicate a problem with:
The brand's conversion funnel
The offer itself
Payment methods
User experience during registration
For example, if a campaign generates 400 clicks with a high CPC and no SU activity, it would generally be advisable to pause the campaign and investigate further before committing additional budget.
Avoiding Premature Decisions
While performance data is important, publishers should also be careful not to make decisions too early.
In one case, a publisher generated similar results and received only five sign-ups. Based on the initial performance, the campaign appeared unprofitable and was subsequently paused. However, one week later, one of those sign-ups converted into an FTD and became an active player.
That single conversion ultimately justified the initial advertising spend and demonstrated that the brand had potential for future campaigns.
Finding the Right Balance
The challenge for media buyers is finding the balance between protecting budget and allowing enough time for delayed conversions to occur.
While poor early performance may justify pausing a campaign, publishers should also consider the quality of the sign-ups being generated and the typical conversion timeframe from SU to FTD before making a final decision. In some cases, a campaign that initially appears unprofitable may prove valuable once player activity matures and conversion data becomes available.
Imagine, that your tracker shows 10 000 clicks and 200 deposits, but the operator's stats show 80 deposits. Postbacks are configured, no errors. Where is the first place you look to find the problem? And what's the most absurd tracking bug you've ever found?
Understanding Data Discrepancies and the Importance of Independent Verification
Data discrepancies are common within affiliate programs and are often caused by operators maintaining multiple reports that serve different purposes. As a result, the same data can appear differently depending on which report is being reviewed.
Data aggregation platforms such as Routy are designed to collect as much relevant information as possible each day in order to provide publishers with the most complete and accurate picture of their performance. However, there are situations where certain reports must be excluded from the aggregation process because they introduce inconsistencies that can create confusion or inaccurate reporting for publishers.
Identifying the Most Reliable Data Source
In most cases, there is one report that represents the most accurate version of the data, typically generated directly from the operator's raw reporting files.
Our approach is to identify this primary source of truth and continuously align it with the figures displayed within the affiliate program's dashboard. This process helps ensure that any discrepancies are detected and investigated as early as possible.
The Value of Click ID Tracking
One of the major advantages of using independent tracking solutions is the ability to monitor Click IDs at scale.
By analysing Click IDs, publishers can accurately determine:
How many individual players have deposited
Which players remain active
How player activity evolves over time
Whether reported conversion and commission figures are consistent
This provides one of the most reliable methods for validating player activity independently of the operator's reporting interface.
Real-World Example of a Reporting Discrepancy
We encountered a situation where an operator's reporting configuration produced different figures across multiple reports.
To investigate, we generated Click ID reports and analysed how many players were active on a given day. We then cross-referenced this information with the operator's platform reporting.
The comparison revealed that some of the reports we were pulling were showing lower commission figures than the operator's own platform. Once this discrepancy was raised with the operator, they reviewed the issue and corrected the reporting configuration.
This example highlights the importance of independent validation and regular auditing, particularly when significant volumes of data are involved.
Data Discrepancies Are Normal — Resolution Matters
It is important to acknowledge that data discrepancies can occur on all sides of the ecosystem. They are not always the result of intentional errors or misconduct.
What matters most is the willingness of all parties to investigate, address, and resolve discrepancies when they are identified. Transparent communication between operators, publishers, and technology providers is essential for maintaining trust and reporting accuracy.
Why Raw Reports Are Critical
For programs handling large volumes of data, dashboard figures may not always update instantly. In some cases, processing delays can affect what is displayed within reporting interfaces while underlying calculations are still being completed.
This is why access to raw reports is critical for auditing purposes.
Even seemingly minor changes can have a significant impact on reporting accuracy, including:
Renaming a column
Changing a data type
Adjusting a report structure
Modifying data mappings between systems
Reporting infrastructure is highly sensitive, and a single change can affect an entire dashboard or attribution model. For this reason, maintaining access to raw data and conducting regular audits remains one of the most effective ways to ensure reporting integrity and publisher confidence.
Which segment of iGaming traffic consistently shows excellent metrics in the tracker like high CTR, many installs, strong first-touch deposit? And how has that segment changed over the last 10 years?
From a marketing perspective, the most valuable players typically come from high-intent traffic sources. These are users who already have a strong interest in the industry or are actively searching for a solution, making them easier to acquire and monetize.
When evaluating traffic channels that consistently generate high-intent users, I would rank PPC campaigns and influencer/streamer partnerships among the strongest acquisition sources.
PPC Campaigns
PPC remains one of the highest-intent acquisition channels available because it allows advertisers to target users who are actively searching for specific keywords and solutions.
By combining:
High-intent keywords
Audience profiling
Relevant offers
Strong landing page experiences
brands can attract users who are already close to making a decision.
While PPC has become increasingly challenging due to stricter platform policies, rising acquisition costs, and account management complexities, it still represents one of the most effective methods of acquiring qualified users.
The key advantage is that the user is actively searching for information, products, or services, creating a natural alignment between intent and acquisition.
Influencer and Streamer Partnerships
My second choice would be influencer and streamer-driven traffic.
As discussed previously, modern brands increasingly need to build communities rather than simply market products. Influencers and streamers already possess what many brands spend years trying to create: a loyal and engaged audience.
These communities often consist of users who:
Follow the creator on a daily basis
Engage with industry-related content regularly
Trust the creator's recommendations
Have a genuine interest in the niche beyond any individual product
This creates a highly engaged audience with strong intent signals.
When campaigns are properly tailored to the community, brands can achieve:
Higher click-through rates (CTR)
Stronger acquisition performance
Better engagement levels
Increased player retention
The Main Challenge with Influencer Traffic
The primary risk with influencer and streamer partnerships is that player loyalty is often tied more closely to the creator than to the brand itself.
The relationship between the community and the streamer is typically very strong. As a result, if a sponsorship ends or the creator moves to another operator, many players may follow the streamer to the new brand rather than remain loyal to the original operator.
This means brands must focus not only on acquisition but also on retention and community-building once players enter the ecosystem.
Final Thoughts
Overall, PPC and influencer/streamer partnerships are among the strongest channels for acquiring high-intent users.
The reason is simple: the intent already exists.
PPC users are actively searching for relevant products or services.
Influencer audiences are already engaged with the industry and trust the person promoting the brand.
Compared to many other acquisition channels, these users often require less nurturing and a shorter conversion journey. In contrast, lower-intent traffic sources typically require brands to build extensive player funnels and engagement strategies before users are ready to convert.
For operators and publishers looking to maximise acquisition efficiency, these two channels often provide the strongest balance between user intent, conversion potential, and long-term value.
How do you understand where an operator's red flags are versus where the green flags are?
I'll keep this one short.
In my experience, the biggest operator red flags are usually related to communication, limited reporting capabilities, and payment reliability.
Operators should provide publishers with the tools they need to make informed decisions, including features such as postbacks, dynamic variables, and API access. Equally important is maintaining clear communication and ensuring payments are made on time.
At the end of the day, it doesn't take much to build strong relationships with publishers if you understand their business needs:
Data = Better decision-making
Timely payments = Faster budget reinvestment
Communication = Less wasted spend and quicker issue resolution
When these three fundamentals are in place, both operators and publishers are in a much stronger position to grow together.
