Adwhirl: Free Ad-Supported iPhone Apps Can Be Very Lucrative

[CharBroiled20s]

Wow.

Even if those numbers are a temporary spike & last only a few weeks thats incredibly impressive.

I would never have guessed numbers like that from ad supported apps....

I'm totally blown away....

Guess it's time to start writing my dream app.. it lets you punch people in the face over the internet 😛

 

[nagromme]

I've got a game working its way toward release, and might release both free and paid (with extra levels in the paid). We'll see. But I know one reason ad-supported sounds like a useful option: if a game has back-end servers (even just for high scores) then you need a way to pay for them!

Your servers (if you win the "app lottery" and don't get buried) are paid for initially with a paid app, but what about in a year? 3 years? What about software thieves, whose server traffic you pay for without seeing a dime in return? Some games apparently have more thieves playing than real users.

I'd even be tempted to put an ad JUST on the server-related pages (like high-score list or match browser) of even a paid app. Along with a note IN the app and BEFORE buying too, so users know why they're there. Meanwhile leaving the main menus and game play ad-free. Also, your users may appreciate that this is a game where the servers are more likely to hang around--unlike some commercial desktop releases where the servers have just vanished (of necessity) some years after purchase.

Just thinking out loud here.

On the flip side, an argument I've heard AGAINST pricing an app for free or too cheap: it makes people try it on impulse without giving much thought to whether it's their kind of thing--and that means more bad reviews. Better reviews come when your game only reaches the RIGHT people. (Having a free "demo" AND a paid app is another matter--that should be fine: the free app may get some bad reviews by impulse downloaders, but those people won't get the paid version and harm its ratings.)

 

[SpitzerCR]

PEOPLE HAVE TO MAKE MONEY...

Its pretty sweet they are able to tap into this for the better of all.

I dont see why consumers keep thinking they need to get great deals and no one else should get a cut. Thats how the world works...

 

[magamo]

That's incredible! Gotta write an app or two! ...wait. I don't have an iPhone.

 

[Lepton]

Big time cash? Not so much...

Yay! My AdMob ad supported free app "FontBrowser" generates almost ten cents per day!

FontBrowser lets you browse through and search fonts, many thousands of cool characters in Unicode, and a whole pile of named colors. It is not that popular an app, I knew it wouldn't be, so I used ads as an experiment to see how ad-supported apps might do. Because, I hoped my next app, which I think will be a biggie, could be free and ad-supported. But on an income per thousand users basis, FontBrowser doesn't do very well.

At this rate switching it to a 99 cent app would make it earn much more money even if it has very few sales, which is something I might do soon. So my upcoming biggie app? Sorry, no way can it be solely ad-supported. And I'm sad about that.

 

[psonice]

I've got a game working its way toward release, and might release both free and paid (with extra levels in the paid).

I wouldn't release them together if you do, or people will grab the free version instead of just buying the app. Then your initial sales are less, and your chance of making the chart is lower.

Re. the piracy issue - there are ways to detect pirated apps, mainly by checking the plist file. If I do anything server based (or likely to get pirated a lot), I'm intending to put that in, plus some code that will kick in say a week after it's first run that will flash up a message telling them to go buy the app if they want to play it.

 

[srl7741]

Mixed feeling

I entirely understand those who chose to use Ads in their Apps I have no problem with it at all. On the other hand I will never use/promote anything with Ads. I feel insulted by it. If I want something I will seek it out and purchase it. I don't need someone knocking on my door asking me if I may like their product or suggesting it tho some other means.
Maybe I'm missing the concept? I'm looking at it from the consumer point of view. If I were a developer I would have a difficult decision to make and go Ad free leaving open a premium version with features that make it worth the price.

 

[holmesf]

Are you guys joking?

You're looking at data for the #1 free app in the store and the free top 50, which represent the top 99.8 percentile in downloads. So they're telling you that if you're in the top 99.8 percentile, ad based software can be profitable. That is not a strong statement.

The real reason developers use ads in their apps is not to generate revenue, but simply to upsell the paid version of the application. This will become more and more prominent of a method because Apple has disallowed developers from advertising features of the full version in the free version of their apps. With ad based applications it's obvious what features are in the full version -- there are simply no ads.

Let's go through a little calculation. I have a relatively popular iPhone app with free version and a paid version. In the past two months I have made about $2000 in sales (which is hardly a huge success, but these numbers are actually above average). I gather statistical data from the app, and from this I know I have about 10,000 users that have played 200,000 games.

How much money would I have made from advertising in the free app? According to Ad Whirls data I can make up to $1.00 per eCPM. They don't state in their .pdf how refreshing the ads affects the eCPM, just that it lowers it, so I'll assume no ad refresh here. So lets assume 1 impression per game ... that would give us a total of 200 eCPMs, for a grand total ad revenue of $200.

Moreover, the $200 estimate assumes that the free app with ads would be as popular as the free app without ads. But this is not the case ... many users would have never downloaded the app in the first place or would have stopped using it due to the ads presence.

So, as a developer, would this have been worth the time it would have taken for me to redesign my app to incorporate ads, and to program them in? Absolutely not.

To conclude here, this story is not news -- it's propaganda from an ad company.

 

[dejo]

How do these ads present themselves in the apps?
I just shudder at the thought of ads on such a tiny-screen, they take up like 90% of a desktop-screen these-days as it is! Loading-screens may be acceptable I suppose.

The ones I've seen present a full-screen ad at different stages of using an app, such as launch, moving up to a new level, etc.

Most of the time the SDK that is used to set up these ads presents a view in the app that is 320x48 or 320x50. Check out the screenshots in my [app]a.k.a.[/app] app for examples.

Speaking of a.k.a., I average about $15/day in revenue from my AdMob ads. And I have hundreds of new downloads of my app per day.

This will become more and more prominent of a method because Apple has disallowed developers from advertising features of the full version in the free version of their apps.

Apple has no such policy.

 

[holmesf]

Most of the time the SDK that is used to set up these ads presents a view in the app that is 320x48 or 320x50. Check out the screenshots in my [app]a.k.a.[/app] app for examples.

Speaking of a.k.a., I average about $15/day in revenue from my AdMob ads. And I have hundreds of new downloads of my app per day.


Apple has no such policy.

Yes, Apple does have such a policy and has always had such a policy. The policy is more stringently enforced now than originally, however. I can almost guarantee you that breaking this policy will result in a rejection for new apps.

Here is a quote directly from an app store rejection notice:

"Lastly, [***] cannot be posted because it is a feature-limited version. Free or "Lite" versions are acceptable, however the application must be a fully functional app and cannot reference features that are not implemented ..."

So don't tell any dev they don't have such a policy, because you'd do them a great disservice.

 

[MacJoe]

Attn Devs.....

If you want to make money from me, just charge for your app and don't stick unwanted ads in my face. If you do the latter, I'll delete your app and you won't make a dime from me. Honestly, there's no such thing as an unintrusive ad. If you want to make money, do it the right way.

 

[holmesf]

If you want to make money from me, just charge for your app and don't stick unwanted ads in my face. If you do the latter, I'll delete your app and you won't make a dime from me. Honestly, there's no such thing as an unintrusive ad. If you want to make money, do it the right way.

Exactly. Why does app usage drop so quickly in the pinch media report? It's not because iPhone app's lives are "nasty, brutish, and short" but rather that people ditch ad based apps quickly. In my own app I have 25% of people who downloaded the app as active users (at least 1 login this week) two months after originally releasing the app. According to pinch media's trends I should basically have nobody left 😉

 

[psonice]

Exactly. Why does app usage drop so quickly in the pinch media report? It's not because iPhone app's lives are "nasty, brutish, and short" but rather that people ditch ad based apps quickly. In my own app I have 25% of people who downloaded the app as active users (at least 1 login this week) two months after originally releasing the app. According to pinch media's trends I should basically have nobody left 😉

Most apps are "throw-away" crap, but it depends on what you're making of course.

I know I download a lot of stuff, take a look, decide it's crap and delete it. I probably keep only 10% of what I download. That's free apps of course, but there does seem to be a whole load of people who buy things for a laugh and then never touch them again. I mean really, how many people will still be using a fart app one month later? 😉

If half of the apps have 25% of people coming back, and the other half are fart apps that get deleted, the graph is going to start looking like the pinch media one pretty fast..

 

[dejo]

Yes, Apple does have such a policy and has always had such a policy. The policy is more stringently enforced now than originally, however. I can almost guarantee you that breaking this policy will result in a rejection for new apps.

Here is a quote directly from an app store rejection notice:

"Lastly, [***] cannot be posted because it is a feature-limited version. Free or "Lite" versions are acceptable, however the application must be a fully functional app and cannot reference features that are not implemented ..."

So don't tell any dev they don't have such a policy, because you'd do them a great disservice.

Interesting. Well, I am a dev and my company has both a free, lite version and a full, paid version of CraigsHarvest. And in the help and a few other places of the lite version we do highlight features that are available in the full version. I guess perhaps this could be another case of Apple being inconsistent with their application of the rules, although, based on the following clause from the standard agreement that I believe that rejection speaks to, I'm not sure that's the case. I'd have to know more details about that rejected app and how it was referencing those features.

3.3.3 Without Apple’s prior written approval, an Application may not provide, unlock or enable additional features or functionality through distribution
mechanisms other than the App Store.

 

[hyddan]

Great, now all free apps will have ads in them.

 

[BornAgainMac]

I came not far off.. made a pretty decent app, but just totally misjudged the market it seems, and it sold about 5 copies 🙁 (my other apps are doing fine, it's just that one. Guess that's just the way it goes, you get a bunch of average sellers, and an occasional hit or miss)

Perhaps you will see something in 3.0 that will spark a creative idea that will get you a top paid app spot. Good luck this summer.

 

[nagromme]

Great, now all free apps will have ads in them.

Ads have been in iPhone apps since the beginning--this is just a report on one such system. I expect no matter what, ads will keep becoming more common in free apps. How many Web sites are ad-free these days? It's a business model that works.

I don't object to developers getting paid for their work... and I don't object to getting things for free (TV shows, games, this site!). They may be supported, of necessity, by ads.

Of course the ideal is a choice: pay for ad-free if you wish.

 

[DELLsFan]

Oh yes ... I knew there was a reason to avoid the Fart apps ...

 

[anubis]

This graph would be significantly more useful if it was the integral of daily profit vs. time rather than just daily profit vs. time

 

[DipDog3]

You think Adwhirl might be a little biased?

Seriously, Adwhirl has a lot of self interest in having more developers make ad supported applications. I am sure the developers would have made more money if the apps where paid instead of free. Remember iFart made over $27,000 on Christmas Day!

This report is no different than having the Home Builders telling you that it is a great time to buy & prices never go down. It is in their own interest to lie to you.

Way to fall for the marketing hype!

 

[psonice]

Perhaps you will see something in 3.0 that will spark a creative idea that will get you a top paid app spot. Good luck this summer.

Thanks. I'm actually doing contract work for other people at the moment (still on iphone) - no chance of winning the lottery, but it's good money. If I find that golden idea I'll find time to get it done though 😉 Good luck with whatever you've got planned too.

 

[dejo]

Seriously, Adwhirl has a lot of self interest in having more developers make ad supported applications.

If by self interest you mean money, then no. AdWhirl doesn't cost anything for publishers.

 

[GSPice]

"Over 10% of the top 50 apps"

So, what...6 of them? 🙄

...beat me to it. 🙄

 

[Eric5h5]

Yes, Apple does have such a policy and has always had such a policy. The policy is more stringently enforced now than originally, however. I can almost guarantee you that breaking this policy will result in a rejection for new apps.

Every single lite version game released has a plug for the full version. What you can't do, however, is have non-functional menu items that only work in the full version.

--Eric

 

[holmesf]

Every single lite version game released has a plug for the full version. What you can't do, however, is have non-functional menu items that only work in the full version.

--Eric

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/02/app-store-lessons-apple-clarifies-upsell-policy.ars

It extends further than that. You may not make any sort of reference to features not present in the lite version that are present in the full version. Any lite versions that do this are the result of inconsistent application of this rule. Certainly most free versions mention the fact there is a full version, but this is as far as you're allowed to go. You can't point out how the two versions differ.

I find it very hypocritical on Apple's part that they allow apps to advertise other applications through services like ad mob while disallowing apps to advertise the single application the user is most likely to be interested in -- the full version of the app they're presently using.