iTunes App Store promotion
Half a year on from the launch of the iTunes App Store, one of the biggest difficulties for developers is getting noticed amongst the 10,000+ apps. We’ve talked about traditional marketing; we’re trying new forms of marketing (twitter, social networking), but mostly agree that promotion within the App Store itself is the golden ticket. I’ve had this idea rolling around for some time; today I’m appeasing my Things todo list by blogging about it.
Promotion within the App Store is available in two areas; the masses purchase apps creating the Top 10 / 25 / 50 / 100 lists, and Apple chooses apps to feature in the New and What’s Hot lists (and some others). Promotion within the App Store is at the whim of Apple and the masses.
The problems with the Top lists has been the topic of much discussion; most recently its penchant for passing wind has been fouling the air. The Top lists create a feedback loop where sales drive sales; it’s great when an app is in the loop, but increasingly developers are finding development unsustainable if it’s not.
My assumption is that there are many apps of quality and utility that deserve to hit the big time, and that without promotion their growth is stunted. Apple can’t promote every app at once, but maybe the promotion can work better.
I am thinking of a system where potentially successful apps are identified in a way that is independent of sales volume and recommendations. Apps are then randomly promoted with a weighting towards those that are more potentially successful. A feedback loop analyses the effect of promotion on sales and increases or decreases promotion to maximise revenue. In this case “success” is defined as sales, that is making money for Apple and for the developers.
How to identify potentially successful apps? If Apple tracks which apps people view and and which apps they buy, then an app with a strong view-buy ratio likely matches consumer needs and has reasonable quality (bonus points for including data on how long the app stays installed; if the user removes it immediately with a 1 star review that counts against). Identifying apps in this way is independent of popularity; in fact popularity will worsen the view-buy ratio as it attracts more views, so this (and a minimum number of views on the other end of the scale) may need to be taken into account. The potential to tailor featured apps to individual users is obvious, but I think one-step-at-a-time is more likely!
Potentially successful apps are then randomly featured on the App Store with a weighting towards apps with a high view-buy ratio. Being featured will increase the number of views, so if an app is successful it should also increase the sales. The feedback loop continually measures the view-buy ratio and adjusts the promotion weighting. Variance in the weighting algorithm would enhance the approach by stepping back slightly from maximising revenue (ie. for Apple) and sharing it amongst a larger group of apps (ie. developers), and allowing new entrants; like mutation in a genetic algorithm.
I think this approach may solve the problem of apps which should have more sales but don’t have the promotion required. It should mean that promoted apps are the apps that are more likely to sell, which means that overall App Store revenue should increase. Good for Apple, good for developers. Remember that this doesn’t replace the existing Top list mechanism, it sits alongside it. I’m not sure what other problems and exploits it creates! It isn’t a complete picture. I hope it’s an interesting one.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Hey, that’s interesting!
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
It’s a good idea and logical. One downside would be the potential for competitors to abuse the number of views on your product to drive down your rating in this new scale.
I suspecut Apple would need to keep the algorithm under wraps (in the same way Google does its search algorithm) and possibly add some protection from multipleviews, whether from the same IP or within a certain timeframe, depending on whether any abuse occurs.
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:32 am
@Scott Thanks. Yes I agree, there will always be opportunities to exploit/game any algorithm. Google is a great example of a gameable, and gamed, algorithm that is able to remain successful. Possibly by being obscured, but I believe mainly by being adapted. Google appear to be constantly tweaking their algorithm to prevent gaming of their index; reducing the impact of the Google bomb recently. One of the things I like about the approach I’ve outlined is that there are many places for tuning and adapting the algorithm to counter threats.
I was thinking this morning over reheated cheesy-crust pizza about exactly the issue you raised. An anti-trolling tweak to the algorithm could be to exclude people who as users have a bad view-buy ratio, that is they’re unlikely to buy anything anyway, and perhaps only include people who have purchased more than a minimum number of applications.
I don’t think we see direct abuse of the Top apps list; we just see what the masses like to purchase, which is what everyone else purchased. Algorithms based on mass behaviour are going to be harder to influence; I expect that a competitor would not be able to convince enough people to view, but not buy, a competitor’s application without revealing themselves to the community as a cheat. Recent events considered that may not be a reasonable deterent (cf. the blatant Classics ripoff and such like).
March 5th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I think the biggest hurdle to implementing your idea as outlined is the fact that the algorithm would have to be constantly adapted to prevent gaming it. As such, you’ve be created overhead at Apples end for little, if any, financial reward for them. Or do you think more people would buy more products as a result?
In terms of excluding on the high view-buy ratio, perhaps we’re thinking the wrong way. These could be the most discerning buyers and the best deciders of what is actually good as they may look at everything and only purchase the best. Perhaps not so easy to model as at first thought….
March 5th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
@Scott That is true, it may require some effort from Apple. But someone must be deciding to feature apps, occasionally… I do anticipate that it would generate more revenue, as we’re showing apps which are more likely to sell.
That’s a very good point on the high view-buy people. There’s definitely some more work to be done! I do feel that the shear force of masses of people contributing to this application will prevent a lot of abuse. The people who administer this system would need to like a bit of a tinker; it sounds like the equivalent people at Google relish it