
A New Way to Promote Your App on Google Play - bjonathan
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-new-way-to-promote-your-app-on-google.html
======
Someone1234
While I don't care either way if this exists or not, I do worry that this will
further result in Google ignoring the "discoverability" problem in the Google
Play app store.

Because if they improve discoverability for free, then who will buy their
adverts? The worse the store is at pointing you at the correct apps, the more
ads people will buy (so less work for them and more $$$, win/win).

It isn't helped by how large of a stranglehold Google has gained on the
Android ecosystem. Amazon is the next largest, but still tiny by comparison.
Piracy might outnumber Amazon frankly.

~~~
username223
I don't own an Android phone, but I'm surprised that Google Play has lousy
search. I expect the Apple App Store to have useless search, because Apple
isn't a search company, but I'd figure Google had that part solved. This
sounds like at least perverse incentives, and possibly a plain old shake-down:
making their search worse, and/or burying specific results, directly makes
them money. It reminds me of the bad old days of "portals," before someone
made an unbiased, fast search engine called "Google."

~~~
speeder
I make apps for Android and iOS, and made my first release 2 or 3 years ago
(don't remember the precise date).

Back then, iOS search was purely utter crap, finding totally unrelated things
(including notoriously if you searched google maps, you would not find it...
apple hardcoded the search for google maps to return google maps after all the
internet poking fun at them).

And Android search was awesome, some keyword tweaking and we would soar in
searches that were relevant to us (ie: people really looking for the sort of
product we offer).

Then iOS made the first "discoverability improvement" change that pissed us
off... they changed the interface so that instead of showing a list of
results, it started to show more detailed results, but much less per page
(back then some devices showed only 2 results per page depending on the
orientation)

meaning that for us that were in position 50 in searches, we went from being
on the fifth "finger slide" of the user, to be on the 200, 300... meaning our
users on iOS sunk, fast.

Still, Android was our saviour then... so we stuck with Android (we still make
iOS stuff ,but don't expect much from it).

Then it was google turn do do things, they started to "improve" their search,
they "improved" so much, that now searching our company name (that is very
unique), sometimes show competitors apps in first place instead.

Searching the exact name of our apps frequently don't work anymore either
(back "then", 2 years ago, it searching for another app name of yours was a
API usage example when you wanted to link from one app to another).

So... yep, both Google and Apple stealthly make discoverability worse, instead
of better.

Now most of our income comes from third-party stores, not iTunes or Google
Play

~~~
dazzla
If you don't mind sharing which 3rd party stores do you have success with? I
have tried Amazon with pretty much no success so I've assumed if they can't do
it no one can.

~~~
speeder
Amazon is our WORST store.

We are in Samsung store (roughly same performacne as google play), several
carrier stores (separated they are tiny, summed they are a good income), and
we have some deals with some startups that are trying new app distribution
methods, many of those startups also have deals with carriers, so we are in
some carriers twice.

Anyway, our income right now looks like as if it came from dumbphone era: most
of it coming from carriers, directly or indirectly.

Also we are in Yandex store, nothing impressive in terms of revenue, but
stupid easy to get into (they purpusefully allow use of google play APIs, and
upload methods, and whatnot... if you ever worked with google play, uploading
to Yandex is VERY easy).

EDIT: Making things clearer on Amazon, they are REALLY the worst, sometimes
months go by without even a single free download.

~~~
benologist
[http://i.imgur.com/le8aRmB.png](http://i.imgur.com/le8aRmB.png)

I remember finding your games here on HN quite some time ago, my 3 year old
can now do your animated jigsaws herself and currently loves the game with the
russian dolls. My email in my profile is also my Skype if you want to chat,
maybe we can help each other out - all my downloads are for traditional
jigsaws and an older audience, with children and grandchildren.

------
OMGBrewmaster
Allowing developers to pay for promoted placement is a terrible idea for
Google Play's users, for app developers and for Google. Google Play users will
now see more exploitative apps that are visible in search results not because
they have earned high ratings from users or have a low uninstall rate, but
because they are able to extract more money from each user to pay for their
placement. App developers with quality products -- especially those with small
development studios like my own -- will be put at a further disadvantage from
the likes of King.com, Supercell and Zynga, whose high ARPU can justify this
sort of promotion. And while Google will initially be able to extract more
cash from the app economy than the 30% it already does, by diluting the value
of Google Play search results for their users and by incentivizing developers
to make exploitative rather than quality products, mobile device owners will
become more motivated to migrate to other app stores and possibly other
platforms.

I wish that Google would concentrate on its core strength and develop a search
system for apps that directs its users to what they will appreciate and enjoy
rather than what will cost them the most money, and that would encourage
developers to aim for quality rather than exploitation.

~~~
ncza
Google's core strength was search but in recent years I felt it got worse and
worse for the benefit of Google's other strength: Advertising.

~~~
dismal2
actually, its always been about advertising!

------
warrenmiller
Another way for Google to tax developers:

Indie developer A has the top search result for "crazy panda game" in google
play, Developer B pays to get the top sponsored result, Developer A is forced
to pay up to get the spot back.

This sucks.

------
krschultz
This is a huge change. I personally am very excited about it. At the moment if
you want to drive installs to a mobile app, the primary channel is Facebook.
It's hard to reach customers any other way. I have worked on apps with a
relatively high customer LTV, and we could afford to pay for something like
this, but there was no way to do it.

Generally speaking I think it will be good for consumers in the long run as
well. This will surface the apps that are making money (which is in some way a
proxy for providing value, usually) faster than the apps that are simply most
popular.

~~~
nothrabannosir
I don't have a degree in economics and I never tried my hand at advertising,
so please forgive my ignorance. To my uneducated ears, what you just said
sounds like:

"Advertisements are a good thing because they help surface the products that
are making money (which is in some way a proxy for providing value, usually)
faster than the products that are simply most popular."

If I think of any advertisement I see, ever, then value has absolutely nothing
to do with it. Axe, Jack Daniel's, any laundry detergent, McDonald's, cars.

In fact, most advertisements themselves stopped trying to pretend to be
"better". Of that list, only laundry detergents talk about how they are better
than competitors. Which is still complete bollocks, of course.

Since when do ads have _anything_ to do with the value of the product? How
would that be any different for apps?

I'm not trying to be coy, I seriously don't understand what you said.

~~~
krschultz
Engineers love to hate it, but sales & marketing matters. It works. Making a
product, throwing it up on the web and walking away doesn't work. I'm not
going to argue that point, it's a fact. For more on that, read Peter Theil's 0
to 1, or anything by patio11, or listen to the podcast Startups for the Rest
of Us, or any one of a dozen other sources from people that have made money in
the space.

If you agree with that, then my argument is that over the long term, the
amount of money a company can spend on marketing is related to the amount of
money they make per customer. If you sell a $1 product, you can not afford ads
that cost $3 per conversion. If you sell a $30,000 product, you can afford
pretty expensive ads. Of course n the short term this can get skewed. A
company can dump money into ads in an unsustainable way, but that always seems
to correct itself (see: Fab).

Given that a product is generally priced to some extent related to its value,
the higher value products will have higher revenue per user, which will allow
them to bid more for advertising.

That means we are more likely to see these ads bought by companies that make
decent money on their apps. I'd love to see more high quality apps at the top
of the listings, and I'd also love to be able to promote my (hopefully) high
LTV apps at the top of the listings.

~~~
Iftheshoefits
You are assuming that price and value are positively correlated. They aren't
necessarily. Anecdotally I find price has little to do with value in the App
marketplace.

Buying users, which is in fact what sales and marketing is for indirectly does
not mean the marketed product is provides more value nor does it mean the app,
in this case, is performing better. All it means is the marketed product has
backers willing to spend more on marketing.

~~~
bduerst
>Anecdotally I find price has little to do with value in the App marketplace.

I think this is what they're getting at, or at least what took from it:
Valuable apps are incorrectly priced.

I'm being a devils advocate by saying this, but the paid promotion could
actually force apps to start charging relative to their value, rather than
everyone charging at a flat $0.99. This would put pressure on and help sort
out apps that are not very valuable, while giving valuable apps a mechanism to
rise to the top.

Of course, this all breaks with apps that monetize through in-app purchases,
and I honestly believe there needs to be a seperate marketplace for those
Skinner boxes.

------
Nemisis7654
I'm not quite sure how much I like this. I can see my search results getting
populated with a bunch of apps that I don't want, like "Game of War". This
will be interesting to see how this plays out.

~~~
Navarr
I'm personally hoping they target more generic keywords like genres of game or
coupon or hotels or stuff like that. I'd be very annoyed if they let
advertisers target specific app names like "Facebook", "Twitter", or my own
app's very specific name (as long as it isn't generic)

~~~
mccr8
Why wouldn't they? As somebody pointed out elsewhere, ads on various scummy
sites show up if you search for "Firefox" and other things on regular Google
search. I'd guess people who are searching for something specific are more
likely to actually make a purchase or whatever, so they'd be more valuable to
Google.

------
imaginenore
What Google needs to do is create a proper search engine for the apps. Filters
should include:

* Age of the app

* Average rating

* Eliminate publishers X, Y, Z

* Number of installs/downloads

* Paid / in-app purchases / ad-supported / completely free

* Size in MB (sometimes my connection sucks and I want to find a small game)

* Adult content

* Category of the app (game / office / tool / etc)

------
chaqke
A New Way for Google to accept your money in an auction for placement slots
(that displace actual search positions).

Obviously a winning move for google, but not really a win for anybody else
(besides people trying to arbitrage ads for these new, search-result-
displacing slots).

------
jdalgetty
Developers are already paying to get installs, Google wants another piece of
the pie.

------
dsirijus
This is obviously Google trying to grab a piece of advertising budgets of apps
and impact of this on "discoverability* will remain to be seen as emergent
property later on. Definitely not the primary driver behind this feature.

However, before we start booing Google...

Facebook already holds unarguably the biggest part of this already, and Google
heading closer to the center of that particular arena will likely result in a
net positive for publishers.

My guess for would be that this will push Facebook little by little to
specialize in iOS ad-mongering.

~~~
jbigelow76
_Google heading closer to the center of that particular arena will likely
result in a net positive for publishers._

How so? Pay to Play (the marketing slogan for this initiative practically
writes itself) seems a net negative to me. Searching for a particular game?
Prepare to see nothing but Zynga, King and whatever other well capitalized
companies can afford to dominate the top of the lists. Google will have even
less incentive to fix natural discoverability.

Comparing Facebook's mobile ad channel (in content) to Google's mobile ad
channel (in SERPs) is like more akin to comparing AdSense to AdWords. We won't
see Google take a share of the pie from Facebook, we'll probably just see the
pie get bigger as Google makes more ad inventory available.

------
discreditable
Will these promoted apps be as dangerous as websites promoted by browser
search? I got this one just now [1]. Virustotal for "Firefox" from that site
[2].

1\. [https://i.imgur.com/JDY7ptq.png](https://i.imgur.com/JDY7ptq.png)

2\.
[https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/4de57439b8fe09b90440b8e82...](https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/4de57439b8fe09b90440b8e829f880b2875a93645205627aa1102005cb5a322a/analysis/1424960473/)

------
pyamparala
I might be missing something here but why is everybody hating on Google for
this? How is this different from having sponsored results in the search
results on Google? I feel this is great for a number of reasons:

1\. This allows apps which are new to not just rely on something unreliable as
App store optimization to get downloads. 2\. This will force app developers to
think about monetization more seriously and possibly even get rid of free apps
culture. 3\. You can get users at the point of their query. Facebook gets you
passive users. For example on FB you might need to reach 100 people to find
one person who has a problem solved by your app, but using this you can find
the exact people looking for apps which solve the problem your app is about.
4\. The argument about Zynga and King owning the sponsored are false. It is
like saying Microsoft, Twitter and Facebook are going to own the search
results on Google. 5\. Improvement in organic search doesn't need to happen
without starting sponsored results.

~~~
pyamparala
BTW forgot to add this might also mean that Google will open up the search
info on Play Store just like they did for Google search to enable advertisers
to choose keywords more intelligently. This alone will probably make up for
any other issues people have related to this new initiative.

------
diltonm
"In fact, in the past year, we paid more than $7 billion to developers
distributing apps and games on Google Play."

Do they mean when I buy someone's app and send them my money that they are
taking the credit for "paying" the developer? If so then that's wrong. My bank
doesn't pay my bills. I pay my bills using my bank's system.

~~~
blfr
They did a little more than a bank. They built Android and its marketplace
rather than just serve as an intermediary in the payment process.

~~~
diltonm
That's true and very admirable but not what I was objecting to. It's this line
that I find objectionable:

"we paid more than $7 billion to developers"

No, the Marketplace enabled $7 billion in transactions between the customers
and the developers, that would have been a more correct way to state it.

------
wldcordeiro
The biggest improvement they could make is having the Apps category NOT
include games. Discovering useful and/or interesting apps is so damn hard
because of games being included.

------
mss6989
This is a great example of Google doing what Google does best. With one slot
gone, app publishers will need to focus on an ASO much more. SEO remains one
of the most effective ways of marketing on web, and so too will ASO be in the
app marketplace.

------
droidist2
My gripe with this is that it further monopolizes the ad network market. On
the web AdSense and AdWords are king. At least on mobile we have several
choices, of which AdMob isn't even the best. I guess Google will be king of
this arena too.

------
fpgeek
If it were anyone else, I'd say this was pretty dubious, but Google knows
better than anyone else how to make search ads work for everyone so... we'll
see.

~~~
abalos
I agree - hopefully this addresses the issue of giving newer applications
visibility. However, this definitely needs to be implemented tactfully. Google
is probably the best bet for getting something like this to work.

------
ape4
Not crazy about this.

------
fapjacks
Don't be evil, amirite?

