Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,286
30,348



110326-iad_icon.jpg


Apple has cut its minimum iAd buy-in fee to $100,000 according to a report from Advertising Age. The new lower price, one-tenth the $1 million originally required when iAd launched in July of 2010, dropped to $500k and then $300k per package.

Even the $300k level has apparently not been enough to keep existing advertisers on board and bring on new ones to meet the ever-growing number of ad slots available. In addition to the reduced minimum spend, Apple is increasing the cut that developers receive from iAds running within their apps from 60% to 70%. The extra money is expected to cover lower ad rates and encourage developers to include iAds within their applications.

AdAge continues:
Apple is also planning to change the way it charges for ads, which irked some advertisers and agencies. Since it launched in 2010, Apple has charged advertisers twice: a fixed rate for every 1,000 ad impressions plus an additional fee every time a user clicked on the ad. Apple will now only charge the cost-per-thousand rate.
Apple recently hired former Adobe executive Todd Teresi to head up the iAds service after Andy Miller departed to join a venture capital firm.

Article Link: Apple Slashes iAd Minimum Buy-In Fee Yet Again
 

TvdW

macrumors newbie
Feb 3, 2011
9
0
If they really want to make iAds interesting, they should bring them to more countries. You've got to get developers to support it before you get the advertisers.
 

rmwebs

macrumors 68040
Apr 6, 2007
3,140
0
Hardly surprising. Whilst the conversions rates are pretty good, the fill rates are terrible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ArtOfWarfare

macrumors G3
Nov 26, 2007
9,544
6,042
This may just be a great thing for me...

I've been strongly considering dropping ads entirely from my ad supported apps and just charging for them... but if Apple wants to finally drop the requirement that people tap on the ads, that sounds great. Only about 1 in 1000 people would actually do that, and as a result, I essentially only made 10 cents per 1000 uses of my app. That amounted to anywhere between $1 and $5 per month. At thousands of downloads for free, I'm pretty certain if I changed to charging $1 per download I'd still get a few dozen downloads a month. Heck, just one dozen downloads a month would still be $8, over double what I get in an average month from ads.

If ad fill rates go up from the reduced buy in, that could double impressions (right now only about 50% of users see ads.) Increase my cut from 60% to 70% and that'll be a slight increase, too. Maybe change $0.10/thousand to $1/thousand... and this could be substantial. $1-$5 per month goes to $21-$110 per month... my ad supported apps would actually make me roughly as much money as my paid for apps.
 
Last edited:

guitarslayer

macrumors newbie
Jul 20, 2011
9
1
I hate iAds....stop trying to sell me stuff, just let me own my device without some company bill boarding my apps....boo
 

Nielsenius

macrumors 6502a
Apr 16, 2011
565
0
Virginia
I'd much rather pay a couple dollars for an app than have my view poisoned by ads. I realize that advertising is, often, a necessary evil, but that doesn't keep me from being annoyed by constant ads.
 

Stridder44

macrumors 68040
Mar 24, 2003
3,973
198
California
I hate iAds....stop trying to sell me stuff, just let me own my device without some company bill boarding my apps....boo


Then stop being a cheapskate and buy them or pay for the premium version. Developers (and the work that goes into an app) aren't free, you know. Plus, it's not like anyone is holding a gun to your head forcing you to click on the iAds or even look at them.
 

Stella

macrumors G3
Apr 21, 2003
8,837
6,334
Canada
An Ad is an Ad, no matter how much candy eye to try to add.. and the majority people just hate adverts.

I guess, Apple is still struggling with iAds, otherwise the price wouldn't be dropping, still.
 
Last edited:

808?

macrumors 6502a
Aug 4, 2011
583
24
Hong Kong
I am yet to see a single iAd on any of my :apple: devices.

Perhaps if they opened this worldwide they may get a few more eyes.
 

marcusj0015

macrumors 65816
Aug 29, 2011
1,024
1
U.S.A.
Too bad Apple dosen't set minimum guidelines for how large/where and how many ads can appear.

There was this one app that had THREE ****ing ads, all on my iPod screen. I deleted that app as fast as I could.
 

macrumors12345

Suspended
Mar 1, 2003
410
0
Not that surprised...

Apple's heart really isn't into being a purveyor of advertising. For one thing, their privacy policy is way too restrictive.
 

BC2009

macrumors 68020
Jul 1, 2009
2,236
1,371
I'm pretty sure that Apple is trying to increase iAd fill rate for one reason. Apple is going to use iAd (or some variant thereof) to provide advertising-sponsored television through a new Apple TV.

Sure developers want better fill rates, but the only reason Apple cares is because TV networks are not going to go for a "buy your content cheap" model. They would much rather:

A) Sell their content for a higher price (no $0.99 TV show "rentals" -- they want you to spend $1.99 or buy the season)

B) Give you the content for free, but advertise to you EVERY time you watch it (without the ability to fast-forward ads). When you DVR a show the commercials never change and the rates the networks can charge is less because there is no guarantee you see the commercial, but Apple TV could force you to watch the commercial to continue the show and even give you new commercials for old shows when you watch "re-runs".

C) Give you the content for free at first with ads, let you re-watch as often as you want and then let you buy the episodes without advertising at some point in time after they have aired. This way they make the money on the advertising and they make their money on the purchase as well. Those who never purchase may watch again with commercials and thus generate new revenue with every viewing, but those who want to own the season can pay for it.

Option (C) is closest to the model that they have historically taken with airing on TV and then selling the DVD season later. I think networks want Apple TV to work like option (C).

The only thing I have not been able to figure out is how TV networks maintain their own relationships with advertisers. This is important to them.
 

ChrisA

macrumors G5
Jan 5, 2006
12,541
1,653
Redondo Beach, California
If they really want to make iAds interesting, they should bring them to more countries. You've got to get developers to support it before you get the advertisers.

No. Apparently, there are more slots then adds to fill them. This tells be the price is to high. But as an end-user, I hate ads and certainly 100% never want to see them on anything I paid for. They might be OK if the app is ad-supported.

With web pages I can block ads but how does one block ads embedded in apps? It would make me not want the app. If I were selling apps I'd make a point to say in the description "no adds in this app."
 

ChrisA

macrumors G5
Jan 5, 2006
12,541
1,653
Redondo Beach, California
...., but advertise to you EVERY time you watch it (without the ability to fast-forward ads). ....

If Apple's TV will work like that, I doubt they will sell. No one would buy it.

The way to become rich is to invent a way to automatically detect ads. On the web this is easy. On an Apple TV all the content has to come through your router. What if I sell a router that removes ads. What if I give away router software that removes ads?

The guys at Apple are smart and know that someone could and would build an ad filtering router and so they'd never try the "force you to watch adds trick". It would not work.

Beter to simply charge people for content. Look at the entire App Store it is simply a way to charge people for content. 99% of the apps could be done as web pages but people don't pay for that. So you make your web site an app and then there is a way to collect money. people seem to be willing to pay. I'm sure Apple has noticed.
 

FrizzleFryBen

macrumors 6502
Dec 14, 2009
453
179
Charlotte, NC
I think part of the problem was the agency model with iAd. There are huge costs for Apple to be involved in the creation of the ads (all aspects of it). But it speaks to their insistence that anything associated with Apple MUST be up to their standards, so in a way it's understandable. Problem is, it's just an ad, and most of them were so bloated (with awesomeness) that they took forever to load and ran slow and dropped frames. For that reason I rarely looked at them.

It also might have been a strategic move to start with a few projects with high return then work their way down to the brands with less coin, therefore less return per project but after they got it figured out and were much more efficient. Although logic would say do it the other way...experiment with the little guys.

Those are my thoughts.
 

marcusj0015

macrumors 65816
Aug 29, 2011
1,024
1
U.S.A.
I'm pretty sure that Apple is trying to increase iAd fill rate for one reason. Apple is going to use iAd (or some variant thereof) to provide advertising-sponsored television through a new Apple TV.

Sure developers want better fill rates, but the only reason Apple cares is because TV networks are not going to go for a "buy your content cheap" model. They would much rather:

A) Sell their content for a higher price (no $0.99 TV show "rentals" -- they want you to spend $1.99 or buy the season)

B) Give you the content for free, but advertise to you EVERY time you watch it (without the ability to fast-forward ads). When you DVR a show the commercials never change and the rates the networks can charge is less because there is no guarantee you see the commercial, but Apple TV could force you to watch the commercial to continue the show and even give you new commercials for old shows when you watch "re-runs".

C) Give you the content for free at first with ads, let you re-watch as often as you want and then let you buy the episodes without advertising at some point in time after they have aired. This way they make the money on the advertising and they make their money on the purchase as well. Those who never purchase may watch again with commercials and thus generate new revenue with every viewing, but those who want to own the season can pay for it.

Option (C) is closest to the model that they have historically taken with airing on TV and then selling the DVD season later. I think networks want Apple TV to work like option (C).

The only thing I have not been able to figure out is how TV networks maintain their own relationships with advertisers. This is important to them.

I'd be fine with this on one condition. every show and movie gets shown, no more "what happened during the commercial!?!?!"

----------

Then stop being a cheapskate and buy them or pay for the premium version. Developers (and the work that goes into an app) aren't free, you know. Plus, it's not like anyone is holding a gun to your head forcing you to click on the iAds or even look at them.

Nope, no gun holding here, but they sure as **** are making us look at them, taking up 1/4th of the app, and having them animated n such.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,376
13,412
Midlife, Midwest
I'd be worried about this news if Apple was relying on advertising on mobile devices as a way of paying for their development costs.

But they don't.

Remind me again which company it is thats promising people the world in exchange for the chance to sell them display ads on their smartphone?

Hint: If you don't like seeing ads on your iPhone, what makes you think Blackberry or Droid users like them any more?
 

slu

macrumors 68000
Sep 15, 2004
1,636
107
Buffalo
One of my most used apps, Tunein Radio recently dropped iAds. I knew this was a sign of the platform struggling. This is a very popular app, and if they think they can do better somewhere else, small apps must have no shot.
 

swordfish5736

macrumors 68000
Jun 29, 2007
1,898
106
Cesspool
I'd be fine with this on one condition. every show and movie gets shown, no more "what happened during the commercial!?!?!"

----------



Nope, no gun holding here, but they sure as **** are making us look at them, taking up 1/4th of the app, and having them animated n such.

I don't think I've ever seen an app with 1/4 screen ads most are smaller and are a banner at the top. The only ones that annoy me are on games like words with friends where they make you watch an ad.

Regardless if they bug you that much support the dev and buy the ad free version
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.