WOMO is our own affiliate and influencer infrastructure: vetted publishers, creators, and agents across the Philippines and SEA, real-time attribution, and automated local payouts.
Tracking platforms are widely available and largely commoditized. A roster of partners who drive volume in this market is not, and most operators discover after purchase that the platform was the easy half.
A flat CPA paid on registration tells partners to optimize for volume, and they will. The quality problem then gets diagnosed as fraud when it is incentive design.
When a partner publishes something non-compliant, the regulatory consequence lands on the license holder. Programs run without content review carry a risk that is invisible until it is not.
The infrastructure exists. What gets built for each client is how they use it.
Four partner segments spanning online creators and offline agents, each with different economics and conversion behavior.
Publishers, influencers and agents, cashback platforms, and niche communities each convert differently, cost differently, and produce players with different retention profiles. Most brands are active in one of them.
We know the roster because we built it. Selection is based on which partners have historically driven retained players for products like yours, not on audience size, and we recruit specifically where a client needs coverage the network does not yet provide.
Structures designed around retained value. Hybrid models, tiered rates, and quality thresholds that point partner incentives in the same direction as your business. Most program performance is determined here.
Briefing, creative direction, content review, and relationship management across the roster. Influencer activation runs through the same infrastructure, including AlwaysOn where continuous presence is the objective.
Real-time FTD and NGR tracking with quality scoring at partner level, so a partner driving players who churn in week two is visible immediately rather than at quarter end.
The obvious affiliate failure is fake registrations, and most programs have some defense against it. The more expensive failure is partners driving genuine players who systematically underperform on retained value, inside a commission structure that pays the same regardless.
Nothing about that registers as fraud. It shows up as a program that grows while its contribution does not. Scoring partners against retained value is the difference between knowing which produce volume and knowing which produce revenue.
Partner matching and quality scoring run on AI. Models weight partner performance against retained value across the network and surface which sources are producing players who stay, at a cadence no manual review could sustain across three thousand partners.
Partner relationships, commission negotiation, and removal decisions stay with the team. A score identifies where to look. What to do about it is a conversation with a partner we have worked with for years.
PAGCOR compliance built into briefing and review, with documentation retained for audit. Commission modeled against player lifetime value. Access to the segment of the network carrying genuine gaming audience.
Partner selection weighted toward audiences with genuine financial intent and vetted for the compliance exposure that comes with financial promotion. Commission built around funded accounts.
Where a program already exists, we audit commission structure and partner quality before adding volume. Scaling a program that rewards the wrong behavior makes the underlying problem more expensive.
Affiliate and paid media planned together rather than bidding against each other.
Case studies use anonymized and aggregated data, shared with licensed operators evaluating a partnership.