How to Deal with Shave in Affiliate Networks
Shave is one of the most unpleasant situations in affiliate networks. Traffic is coming in, there are clicks, and users are completing the desired actions, but the affiliate networks’ statistics suddenly show fewer conversions than the advertiser expects.
That said, it’s also wrong to immediately accuse the affiliate networks of fraud. The discrepancy may stem from technical issues, attribution errors, duplicate conversions, or traffic quality. Therefore, we recommend gathering the facts first and only then drawing conclusions.
What Is “Shave”?
In the classic sense, “shave” refers to a situation where a portion of actual conversions isn’t credited to the webmaster. The problem may manifest as a decrease in the number of leads, an unexpected increase in rejections, or a drop in the ability to approve without any obvious changes in the campaign setup.
It’s important to distinguish “shave” from regular “scrubbing.” An affiliate network has the right to reject leads if they don’t meet the terms of the offer. But if the statistics consistently differ from independent data without a clear explanation, that’s a reason to investigate.
First, look for the cause in the numbers
The first thing to do is compare your own statistics with those of the affiliate networks.
Look at:
- number of clicks;
- registrations;
- conversions;
- CR;
- approval rate;
- EPC;
- GEO;
- sources;
- daily trends.
A sharp change in metrics—while the source and audience quality remain constant—looks particularly suspicious.
That said, one bad week doesn’t prove anything. It’s much more important to identify a sustained anomaly. That’s exactly why metrics in affiliate marketing need to be analyzed holistically.
Use independent tracking
If all statistics are available only in the affiliate networks’ dashboard, it will be difficult to prove discrepancies.
Therefore, webmasters should use their own tracking tool and save data on clicks, sources, GEO, and subID. Whenever possible, it’s helpful to send conversions via postback and compare them with the affiliate networks’ reports.
This makes it clear at exactly which stage the discrepancy occurs.
If your own system shows a consistent number of target actions, but the CPA network regularly loses a portion of conversions, that’s a valid reason to contact your account manager with specific figures.
Check lead quality
Not every discrepancy means a shave. Some leads may indeed be rejected by the advertiser.
For example, a user might have been a duplicate, failed validation, or failed to perform the required action. Therefore, before filing a claim, it’s important to independently verify the quality of the audience.
It’s helpful to analyze traffic quality before scaling: which GEOs and sources generate the best leads, where the rejection rate is rising, and whether the traffic mix itself has changed.
What to Do If You Suspect Traffic Manipulation
We recommend taking the following steps: record the statistics → compare the data → check your own side → contact your account manager → request an explanation.
Don’t start the conversation with accusations. It’s better to specify a particular time period and point out the discrepancy.
For example: your own tracker recorded a certain number of conversions, but the affiliate networks’ statistics show only a portion of them. After that, you can ask the manager to check the logs, statuses, and reasons for the discrepancies.
If the affiliate networks provide a clear explanation and the data supports it, the problem may be technical.
Watch for Duplicates and Repeated Leads
Sometimes the webmaster creates a situation that looks like a shave. This is especially relevant when scaling across multiple ad accounts or sources.
A single user may enter the funnel multiple times and submit a request repeatedly. If the advertiser’s system pays only for unique leads, some of these conversions will be excluded.
Therefore, it’s important to monitor duplicates and avoid paying multiple times for the same user. You can read more about this approach in the article on lead monitoring and repeat traffic.
How to Choose a Reliable Affiliate Network
The best way to minimize the risk of problems is to carefully select a CPA network before launching your campaign.
We recommend looking not only at rates but also at reputation, transparency of statistics, account manager performance, hold conditions, and payment history.
It’s also helpful to compare several networks if the same offer is available across different affiliate networks. This allows you to see how much the approved conversions and the final economics differ.
When choosing a new network, you can use CPA network rankings as an additional checkpoint, but it’s best to draw final conclusions after conducting your own test.
What to Do If the Discrepancy Is Confirmed
If, after several checks, it becomes clear that the problem actually exists, you should first try to resolve the issue directly with the affiliate networks.
Provide the statistics, ask them to explain the reasons for the discrepancy, and clarify which conversions were rejected and why.
If there is no transparent answer, the publisher should reconsider future volumes. It makes no sense to constantly increase the budget on affiliate networks where it’s impossible to properly monitor your own statistics.
At the same time, it’s important not to make public accusations without evidence. “Shave” is a serious allegation, and it must be backed up by data, not by a subjective feeling that “there aren’t enough leads.”
Conclusion
It’s impossible to completely eliminate the risk of “shave,” but it can be significantly reduced through independent tracking and regular monitoring of statistics.
We adhere to a simple principle: numbers first, conclusions later.
Having your own tracker, monitoring lead quality, analyzing approval rates, and maintaining open communication with your manager allow you to quickly determine whether the affiliate networks are actually skimming conversions or if the problem lies somewhere in the advertising chain.
And if discrepancies become systematic and cannot be explained, the most sensible option for the buyer is not to continue an endless dispute but to look for a more transparent partner.
