Revenue Share Program Management for LatAm Gaming

The headline percentage decides very little. What decides whether a 35 percent deal is profitable is the four lines struck before net gaming revenue: bonus cost, payment processing, provider fees, and in Brazil the levy on gross gaming revenue that came with the regulated regime. The same 35 percent can leave an operator keeping anywhere between 40 and 62 percent of gross, depending only on how those four are allocated. We write that definition, defend it, and run programs where it is disclosed to partners rather than buried in an appendix. Where the money actually goes: The first piece of work is a line-by-line reconciliation of three months of partner statements against the operator's own ledger. On every program we have taken over there has been a gap, and it is usually one of three things: bonus cost deducted at face value rather than at redeemed cost, payment fees deducted twice because both the processor and the platform take them out, or negative carryover applied inconsistently across partner tiers. Partners notice the third one and leave. Finance notices the first two after the year closes. Rebuilding the terms: Negative carryover on or off is a commercial decision, not a platform default, and we argue for on with a written reset schedule — cleared at twelve months, or at six for partners above an agreed threshold — because a permanent negative balance is how you lose a productive affiliate to a competitor with a shorter memory. Hybrid deals get an explicit interaction rule: acquisition fee on first deposit, revenue share beginning in month two, no double payment against the same cohort. Terms go into one template in Spanish, Portuguese and English, and the three versions say the same thing, which is less common than it sounds. Cohorts, not months: Monthly revenue share reporting hides everything that matters. We report by acquisition cohort: players signed in a given month, tracked at 30, 90, 180 and 360 days, per partner. It is the only view separating a partner sending durable players from one sending a bonus-hunting spike, because for the first six weeks the two are indistinguishable. Cohort tables run in BigQuery off raw platform exports, never off the affiliate system's own aggregates, which are built to justify payouts rather than to test them. What we will not do: We do not work with unlicensed operators. The permit or federal authorisation covering each market is verified before we sign, and we do not run partner traffic into jurisdictions the operator is not licensed for, however well it converts. We do not accept traffic from sub-affiliate networks that will not disclose their own sources, or from apps and sites presenting themselves as the operator. We do not take a percentage of program net revenue, because it would put us on the wrong side of every clawback conversation we are supposed to be running. Not the right fit if: Your platform cannot export player-level activity with an acquisition source and a signup timestamp. Without that there is no cohort view, and what remains is ordinary account management, which we do not sell. Also not a fit below roughly 150 active revenue share partners — at that size the work is direct partner development and a smaller shop will do it for less than we charge. What you get monthly: Reconciled partner statements delivered before the payout run, the cohort table, a tier review naming who moves up and who moves to an acquisition-fee-only deal, and one page on what changed in the licensing or tax position that affects partner terms. Payout approval and the money stay with your finance team throughout.