Apple's 'iAd for Developers' May Not Be Cost-Effective
Anecdotal evidence from developer David Smith of Cross Forward Consulting (via Silicon Alley Insider) suggests, however, that the program may not be cost-effective for developers, as a test ad campaign resulted in low click-through and conversion rates for an app priced at only $0.99.
From August 19 through August 25 I ran a campaign on the newly released iAd for Developers platform for our Audiobooks Premium app. The results were, to say the least, disappointing. For all the promise of selling your apps directly within an advertisement, it appears that so far this is not a viable way to drive traffic and create an economically sustainable promotion. For $1,251.75, my campaign generated a total of 84 downloads, thus a Cost Per Acquisition (CPA) of ~$15. For a $0.99 app, those economics just can't work out.
The remainder of the post details the process of signing up for an monitoring the iAd for Developers, and while Smith was pleased with the professionalism of Apple's iAd staff and the ease with which he could monitor his campaign, the return on investment was simply nowhere near what would be required to be viable. While an application carrying a higher price tag or significant in-app purchasing content might stand a better chance of seeing a profitable ad campaign, conversion rates would likely be even lower for a more expensive application.Given that the cost for the campaign is entirely based on clicks, we designed our banner to try and provide the audience with all the basic information they need to understand what Audiobooks is and whether they might be interested in purchasing it. This lead to a more textual treatment than a graphical one. Since we don't pay for impressions we only wanted truly interested people clicking on the advertisement.
Smith's banner ad for Audiobooks Premium
Apple's iAd program utilizes a "targeting system" that helps identify which users might be most likely to respond to and purchase a given application, and for that reason, Apple's staff encouraged Smith to continue the campaign beyond the first few unsuccessful days in hopes of refining that targeting and boosting yields. Improvement was non-existent, however, and the campaign was canceled after six days and only 84 downloads on over 2 million impressions.
Smith also performed a comparison campaign using the same banner ad on AdMob's network, finding a click-through rate over five times higher than that for iAd, and with AdMob's cheaper cost structure, Smith's cost-per-click was over six times cheaper on AdMob than on iAd. The reason for the significant difference in click-through rates between the platforms is unclear, especially considering the widely-held belief that the iAd program would offer a "premium" branding that would be more enticing to users than traditional banner ads.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)
Oh, about iAds, this is interesting news. Please tell more.
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.
In other words, if they were offering a more attractive product, they would have made more sales. 'Premium' advertising should be used when you have a really good product.
Pouring tons of advertising money into a weak that doesn't sell. They shouldn't be surprised, nor should they blame the advertising.
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.
iAds are not there to increase sales of uninteresting good. 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.
I largely agree. However, if the same developer with the same app has a higher purchase rate using a different ad network, then for him, at least, iAd is not cost effective. However, this is a single sample so no general conclusions should be drawn from it.
I don't think a single advertiser's (negative) experiences warrant even raising the question of whether an entire advertising platform will be successful, especially one that will evolve over months and years.
yeah, well it's a slow news day, so we make up the news! this will eventually makes the rounds on mac sites and end up on bloomberg, where Jobs will loudly decry it's iAdgate. :)
I figure if it costs them enough, eventually they'll migrate away from putting ads in my games.
[ Read All Comments ]
Analytics firm Chitika today released a report showing that by its metrics iOS has now surpassed OS X in overall web traffic share in the United States. Chitika's methodology involves an analysis...
One of the most frequent reasons for an iPhone to go on a trip to the Apple Store's Genius Bar is because of water damage. Typically, a water damaged iPhone can be replaced for a flat $199...
TheVerge's Joshua Topolsky summarizes the iPad 3 casing findings reported earlier today, but also adds his own sources regarding some details of the iPad 3.
Image from RepairLabs
As...
Last July, Apple discontinued the white MacBook from its consumer lineup, pushing consumers toward the company's popular MacBook Air line or the 13-inch MacBook Pro. The company didn't kill...
Popular iPhone Twitter client Tweetbot has finally arrived on the iPad, with a user interface instantly familiar to any current Tweetbot user. Designed for the Twitter power-user, Tweetbot packs a...
