Apple's 'iAd for Developers' May Not Be Cost-Effective

[caseyh]

Bad Design

Could it be that his creative sucked and thus his ad wasn't engaging enough to warrant a click?

I would point most of the blame at the design of the add. It looks cheap and unprofessional. Were I to see this ad while broswing, I would assume it was a scam or at least shady--maybe one of those mass-produced Apps that just don't work very well.

Actually, when I loaded the story on Macrumors and saw the banner image before I started reading, I had a very negative impression of it.

Get a decent typeface. Add some texture. Add a graphic. Slap a slight gradient on it. Pick a color that doesn't make my eyes cross. Most anything would be an improvement.

 

[johnalan]

Very Confused

Could someone here explain this to me??

If I include iAd's in my free app, that's totally free for me to do right??

I don't have to pay everytime someone clicks on the ad? I thought when someone clicked on the ad in my free app I actually made money?

Is this if I want to advertise my in-app purchases?

Am I correct in assuming that it's entire risk free/cash free to include an iAd banner in my free app and hope for clicks to make money?

Thanks,
John

 

[Villageguy86]

i think someone has failed to mention that his advertised product is garbage?

who would buy an audiobooks app when there is one built into the itunes store, thats like complaining your clock app didn't get downloaded. 84 per 2 million? yea thats about right for some trash app like that.

The moral here is that iAd is like the superbowl, even if you put maxxi pads on sale with a million dollar tv spot, only a few select people will give a ****.

i'd like to see the click through on something useful

 

[StayingOccupied]

Could someone here explain this to me??

If I include iAd's in my free app, that's totally free for me to do right??

I don't have to pay everytime someone clicks on the ad? I thought when someone clicked on the ad in my free app I actually made money?

Is this if I want to advertise my in-app purchases?

Am I correct in assuming that it's entire risk free/cash free to include an iAd banner in my free app and hope for clicks to make money?

Thanks,
John

You can put iAds in your app for free. It costs you if you sign up to advertise your app in other peoples apps.

 

[iguanarama]

This point is quite good. It's not about the quality of the app or the appropriateness of the medium. The problem is the same advertisement of the same app on iApps wasn't as effective as an advertisement on the competing network.

Yes, it's anecdotal and only one experience, but here is smoke. One should probably go check if there's fire.

If someone uses exactly the same banner ad on a different ad network but seemingly has a higher click-through rate, something is amiss with the stats or the reporting, the sample is too small, or there are confounding variables we don't know about. There's simply no reason for that scale of difference if the user sees exactly the same ad.

 

[supmango]

Market targeting is one thing that Apple controls. The quality of the advertisement (or lack thereof) is in the developers hands. I would not be so quick to blame the delivery system if the ad campaign was written by an amateur.

Just looking at the relatively unattractive banner, I would only click the thing if I knew it was an iAd. And then I would expect something pretty interesting to make it worth my time. So if people click, and the ad sucks, they are turned off. That's not the fault of the platform; the ad developer needs to realize where the bar is.

 

[johnalan]

You can put iAds in your app for free. It costs you if you sign up to advertise your app in other peoples apps.

Hey StayingOccupied,

Thanks for explaining that to me!

So If I put an iAd in my free app, do I make money every time someone clicks the ad??

And one more question, do Apple choose weather or not a given app is of a high enough quality to say have an add for a car in it or whatnot?

Thanks,
Regards,
John

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Apple's race to the bottom, advertising driven ecosystem puts all of the risk, cost, and losses on the developers.

It was a gold rush, but now everyone's mining what little gold is left.

Just looking at the relatively unattractive banner, I would only click the thing if I knew it was an iAd. And then I would expect something pretty interesting to make it worth my time. So if people click, and the ad sucks, they are turned off. That's not the fault of the platform; the ad developer needs to realize where the bar is.

The entry price for developers is too expensive. A pretty ad doesn't necessarily translate to sales, no matter the product.

but your point is taken too. If the ad and / or the product suck, they won't see results either! But really, this just means the only people that will be using it will be the big boys and the runaway hits. Same as the approval process - Apple favors big names and big budgets.

 

[Beaverman3001]

It is a audiebook app, now quite sure what the developer was expecting there.

 

[iguanarama]

Apple's race to the bottom, advertising driven ecosystem puts all of the risk, cost, and losses on the developers.

It was a gold rush, but now everyone's mining what little gold is left.

The 'race to the bottom' in pricing was driven by app market conditions, and had nothing to do with Apple. Advertising was always likely to come into play to make that sustainable, and if Apple doesn't supply an ad network, people will use others. I see it as the maturing of the market in a very natural way.

Successful apps will continue to be successful, and some apps -- but far from all -- will continue to make their developers a lot of money. Also, there is no 'risk, cost and losses' directly from putting ads into your own app. You need a successful business model no matter how you fund your app.

 

[topgunn]

This guy should have done a bit more research. At best, everyone who clicks the link buys his app but even then he is reducing his profit by 1/3. Even with a 30% success rate, which is ambitious to say the least, he is losing money.

 

[axual]

The question is ...

why ... not what the click data shows. How good is the app itself? How are its ratings? Who is actually buying audio books and what is their distribution across both platforms?

This analysis is mostly meaningless nonsense and does not answer the correct questions.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

I've never heard a success story about in-app advertising. Maybe there's some out there, but every experiment I've seen reported has been dismal.

This isn't a "crap app", it has 1.6 MILLION downloads. I just think this isn't the way to go for most apps.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

uhm, if you have 1275 clicks but only 84 downloads then the App seems to be not good enough or only of interest to a very limited customer group.

This is not necessarily an iAd problem.

iAds are not there to increase sales of uninteresting goods. They are there to make interesting good products more visible. All starts and ends with good products. I'm always stunned that people think that advertising and marketing can fix everything. Only sometimes it can. Most of the time it can't.

In this particular example i have to say that i have a ton of classic audiobooks for free on the web anyway. Even more you can order them on DVD's so that you have them available without filling up your HD. So at least I personally don't see a need for this 99 cent app. And advertizing is not going to change that.

While it might seem like a lot for very few downloads you think about it this way.
Some times I click on an add by mistake so I have ZERO interest product but counts as a click. (increase click count no buy)
If the add gets my perks my attention but I have no attention of buying I will click on it just to learn more about it (increase click count- no buy)
If it perks my attention at all and I remotely thinking about buying it I will click on it. My chances of buyying are still pretty low (increase click count no buy)

I figure those 3 are pretty good. If per click on an ad I bet if they get one sell per 100 clicks they are doing really good.

On ads you need lots of impressions to get clicks. Apple price is insane and getting just average something less than 1 in 3 just to break even is even dumber. It is over priced and crap.

 

[Full of Win]

If iAds were all that, then apple would also use them. They don't, because I think internally they know the platform has failed.

 

[kas23]

If iAds were all that, then apple would also use them. They don't, because I think internally they know the platform has failed.

It's way too soon to tell, but if go into a business out of spite (towards Google), you're gonna eventually run into problems.

Anyways, iAds isn't well right now for me because I barely ever see them. Ads are most effective when they are widespread, not pretty. And, when I do actually see them, they're likely really dull and boring unless you actually click on them. The premium for these ads is way too high to be dull and boring. I think Apple took a small mistep here and should have stayed in the digital world.

 

[iguanarama]

If iAds were all that, then apple would also use them. They don't, because I think internally they know the platform has failed.

That's a huge unfounded leap. How about they may not want to use that advertising model for their own products? There's also zero official data from Apple on the iAd model's success so far. You're welcome to your opinion that they think it's failed, but from everything I've read there's zero evidence to base that upon.

People (maybe not you) who hate iAds because it's 'advertising' need to see that developers need to make money. Apple doesn't always just churn out fun and cookies. They're building a mobile platform.

 

[coldplaysucks.]

I would still give it more time. Many developers probably haven't implemented iAd the same way as admob. It takes time to have good app developers using the system.

 

[jamone13]

What I've just realised is that at $0.25 per click, a developer with a $0.99 app would need more than 1 in 3 people who click through to buy to make a profit, given the developer takes home $0.70 from a sale. (Assume that later referral sales and so forth do not account for a great deal more, or cannot be easily calculated.)

That's an absurdly high conversion rate for an advertisement, and should have been noted from the start with even the most basic of calculations. I don't see what the developer was hoping to achieve here.

That is the true fail. A developer paying to advertise for a $0.99 cent app, I can see a $5+ app, but still...

 

[cube]

The apps are too cheap. In the same way Apple imposes a maximum price, they should set a higher minimum.

 

[kas23]

What I've just realised is that at $0.25 per click, a developer with a $0.99 app would need more than 1 in 3 people who click through to buy to make a profit, given the developer takes home $0.70 from a sale. (Assume that later referral sales and so forth do not account for a great deal more, or cannot be easily calculated.)

This is basically true. And something Apple should have been very clear about, especially when we are talking about Apple's very own iDevice developers. Geez, how else is Apple going to milk them?

 

[farmboy]

The author gives away the root problem himself, "I have tried just about every advertising platform around and have generally found none of them to be demonstrably effective."

Too many successful apps have shown the opposite for this to be true. Obviously, in this situation, I would think the problem lies elsewhere. Perhaps the app, as others have suggested, or the content of the app's page in iTunes, or perhaps even the price - which, for a $0.99 app, could be too low.

You are absolutely correct, it's a marketing issue. The guy should be looking at the quality (not quantity) of his offerings. The price issue is real as well, since most people (aside from some avid posters here) feel 99 cents is not very much and a product offered at that price is also not worth very much. Lose the dead wood, refocus and repackage it at a higher price.

This is not a rare or new phenomenon. When you present a whole pile of crap, people have a hard time getting past the "pile of crap" aspect and won't buy. Does anybody buy those special software packages of apps you've never heard of all for a really cheap price? Not very often.

 

[akacaj]

Rather than charging $0.25 per click apple should simply take a larger cut off all purchases resulting from in app advertising and give the difference to the app hosting the ad. Example instead of 30% they could take 50% and give 20% to the host of the add. Everyone makes money and everyone is happy. Every developer would want to advertise this way as they have nothing to lose and fill rate would jump to 100%.

 

[Porco]

People (maybe not you) who hate iAds because it's 'advertising' need to see that developers need to make money. Apple doesn't always just churn out fun and cookies. They're building a mobile platform.

I'm all for developers making money. I'm all for developers making money through ads, so long as they offer ad-free paid for/premium versions too. I'm just against Apple being in the Ad business. I liked it when they just made computers and the odd peripheral, and I like their iOS products, but I would hate to see the day when they are making so much money through ads that it affects other areas of their business. I'd rather they left ads to others.

 

[fervor]

Anecdotal is an understatement. That's one iAd promotion for one app. From what I can see, a particularly uninteresting app. If the product ultimately isn't desirable, no matter how great the advertising people won't buy it.