thanks to Amazon’s secret back-door deals, we made $0 on that day.
These secret back-door deals that were so secret that they were written in bold in the email, so secret that they noticed this and wrote back to amazon, and so secret that amazon then confirmed them.
They were offered a crappy deal, realized this and double-checked it, but decided to go for it anyway. When it turned out that the deal really was pretty crappy, they then act surprised and self-righteous and blog about it.
He's not saying the 0% price was a secret from his company, he's saying it was a secret to the general public.
I pay pretty close attention, and I thought the free apps of the day were paid at the 20% rate that Amazon warns they may pay you if they unilaterally discount your app.
Their standard policy concerns the unilateral decisions. This was a mutual agreement outside of the standard policy. The benefit to the app maker is a guaranteed free-app-of-the-day promotional spot, the benefit to Amazon is not having to pay the 20%. Seems like a (potentially) fair deal.
These secret back-door deals that were so secret that they were written in bold in the email
Secret to the masses, not the parties involved. Yeah, its bold, but its bold in an email between two parties where they agree upon terms contrary to the public terms.
"Secret" in that Amazon tells one story in public, then cuts a different deal in private and tells developers not to discuss it. (Presumably this blog post is some kind of breach, but since they've pulled out of the market it may not matter.)
The fact that the email from Amazon had bold text is irrelevant. If Apple advertised 70% going to developers but then sent you an email saying "hey, we'll put you on our featured app page if you agree to (a) accept 35% and (b) don't tell anyone about it" would that be secret? What if they bolded it?
I think they're valid in calling the deal "secret," as the app-buying public at large has no idea these deals are taking place. The developer knows they're getting nothing, but everyone downloading the free app is harboring illusions that they're supporting the developer.
Maybe not everyone, but certainly a non-zero number of people. As I read this I started feeling bad for the daily free apps I've picked up from Amazon thinking the developers were getting paid. At least now that I know I can go actually put money in their pockets. Hopefully others feel the same way.
I had no idea 20% was expected to be paid to the dev and I've downloaded several from the Amazon App Store. It sounds like this dev made an uneducated choice to be featured even after knowing they would receive zero %.
At the very least you have to say their choice was educated - there was a debate, they decided to go ahead and do it, it didn't work out, they're shifting their resources as a result.
Amazon's didn't make any money either, it was a free app. I doubt your average downloader thought for one second about the relationship between Amazon and the developer. They saw free, they downloaded. Who other than the app developer and Amazon care one bit about the financials of the deal? When I see a great sale in a store I don't care if it's the store or the manufacturer taking a hit.
Amazon spent a lot of time advertising that devs get "70% of the sale price or 20% of the list price, whichever is greater".
Consequently, many people are under the impression that when the download the free app of the day, they are doing the devs a favor and earning them 20% of their list price, and I have absolutely seen people in public forums run around advertising when an app from a dev they like is a free-app-of-the-day, telling people to help support said developer by downloading the app even if they don't really want it because said developer will receive some financial support from the download.
The fact that all of the above is bullshit and that Amazon has been secretly negotiating that down to 0% of the list price with the admonition that the developers cannot tell anyone they aren't getting the 20% everyone thinks they're getting tends to indicate that Amazon is aware of this confusion and exploiting it for their own gain.
That advertising is to developers. I'm baffled by why anyone would think that the general public cares what payout Amazon is giving to developers. To the general public, it's a free app.
Do you seriously imagine that members of the public are attracted to the Amazon Android App Alliteration Store because they think Amazon is a more charitable and supportive firm than Google, and shows greater kindness to the ramen-chewing developer? I feel pretty comfortable in asserting that the vast majority of people don't give two hoots about what arrangement exists between publisher and distributor. Do you go to the movie theater and decide to watch a Universal film because their producers are nicer than the ones at Paramount? Do you grade other products/services you buy by the providers' corporate social responsibility score, or the credit terms extended to their suppliers? Of course you don't. With a few exceptions (mostly symbolic) you are wholly ignorant of such things, and rationally so. You assess products and services based on whether they fill your needs at a reasonable price.
I don't run a whole lot of apps and as a result have not got around to using the Amazon store, but non-industry members of my social circle have mentioned that there's 'a free app every day' there. I suspect that if I asked what return they think this nets for the developers of said apps they would just give a me a funny look.
There is 'general public' and there is 'tech-savvy android users'. The former you have probably characterized correctly, but I suspect you are underestimating the size of the latter. As the grandparent mentions, if people are posting on forums to help support the devs, then at least some people are being persuaded to use the service because they believe they're helping the developers.
Many people do go out of their way to support independent musicians or indie game makers. It's not unreasonable to believe that there are people who want to help support small mobile development shops.
It is helping the developers. It is getting them a broader userbase than they would otherwise have by having it promoted front and center on the app store, and also it being free. I think it is pretty humorous people would assume they would just get free money from Amazon for this.
As these developers discovered, all a broader user base brought them was increased infrastructure and support costs, with zero uptick in subsequent sales.
"A broader userbase" that doesn't pay anything isn't "help" by any stretch of the imagination for a number of business models.
They certainly derived value from the transaction. By giving away a free app a day, Amazon drives customers to its marketplace, and its brand. To suggest that Amazon's intentions are purely altruistic is naive.
>Amazon gets to set the price of your app to whatever they want, without any input from you, or even the chance to reject their price ... Amazon re-writes your description, and in ours they even made up things ... you can’t remove apps from their store
Re-writing descriptions is such a bizarre thing to do I don't know why Amazon would choose to do it. Clearly they are getting things wrong in the descriptions, which is misleading to customers, which must be illegal in some fashion.
Holding apps hostage -- not being able to choose unilaterally to remove them -- is beyond the pale.
Whose app is it anyway?
Does Amazon think they own these things the second they get uploaded?
They rewrote the description of my app, also with mistakes. Very annoying, especially since if you try to change it it takes at least two weeks to show up! In the span of app sales that is a lifetime!
I was curious what their developer agreement actually says; I didn't bother signing up us a developer, but their FAQ states:
"What is the payment structure between Amazon and me?
Amazon pays developers 70% of the sale price of the app or 20% of the list price, whichever is greater."
That's clearly the bit the author was referring to as being deceptive: in public they state that developers will always get at least 20% of the list price (which leads some people to think developers still get paid when their apps are listed as free), but in private they ask developers to take 0% of the list price when they promote the app as the "free app of the day."
I've been doing a binge of Kindle buying recently, and I have noticed that a lot of the more expensive books have a price that is set by the publisher.
Now, in the Amazon AppStore, perhaps the larger publishers will eventually be able to set a minimum price. The prices are already so low but better than zero.
I love Amazon's FAAD, and I feel safe downloading any app from Amazon while the Google market is more strip mall than indoor mall. The new Market app is a major improvement though but I am anxious to download let alone buy anything with less than 250k downloads.
> Did the exposure count for much in the days afterwards? That’s also a big no, the day after saw a blip in sales, followed by things going back to exactly where we started, selling a few apps a day. In fact Amazon decided to rub salt in the wounds a little further by discounting our app to 99 cents for a few days after the free promotion.
Well here is the image with sales numbers from the day after.
What I'm seeing is a a huge sales/profit increase; $300 that day as compared to <$50 before. Full discloser, i.e. sales from the subsequent days, would be very nice to see at this point.
Next logical step? You have a >100,000 user base so push an update to the free app so that it now includes ads.
The tone of the article feels like the author is just upset he didn't get his way- "I was against putting the app on Amazon and my partner was for it"- so now he is trying to make himself appear "right". It's called pivoting.
"You have a >100,000 user base so push an update to the free app so that it now includes ads."
The problem is, the users who got it when it was free got the PAID version, so they can't push an update to the people who got it for free without making all the users who ACTUALLY paid also get ads.
They'd also have to add ads to the paid Google Market version, since the Amazon dev agreement requires that you keep app versions synchronized across all app stores. Amazon has basically put them in a position where they can only lose money or piss off their actual paying customers.
That makes a lot more sense, however, it's not entirely impossible for them to find out what users downloaded the app on that day and only target updates for them; they want out of amazon any way might as well break the TOS. They should be logging some type of 'first_install' after every user pings the server for the first time... but I'm making excuses for Amazon.
TBH both parties are at fault. Them for not reading the letter Amazon send WORD FOR WORD and not Amazon for discounting their app to 99cents the day after.
It seems like a purely promotional placement, Amazon isn't giving you money that neither you nor they received -- that seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you don't want to bear the auxiliary costs like server load or customer service, you don't have to agree to it.
If Amazon is correct, though, this promotion should mean that post-promotion sales are higher than pre-promotion sales. But the chart ends on the day of the promotion. Though there's a little text about it, I'd be curious about more detail on how things are shaping up afterwards.
Either way, up to them of course, but it feels a bit extreme to me to abandon ship because of agreeing to an unsuccessful promotion and because they're behind in features vs. the Google market.
It's weird, I tried submitting this story about an hour ago and was taken directly to that thread instead of it going through the system, I wonder why this link made it through?
<edited to remove the unintended snarky tone and clean up some points>
What I got from this blog post is that they made an uninformed decision, and ended up with an unexpected result that pissed them off from the perspective of "lost sales".
The email from Amazon clarified there were no money to made and sure enough, no money was made.
The added costs of the server is unfortunate and justifiably something to be upset about (especially if you weren't accounting for it), but I have to point out that the sales before the free-app-of-the-day listing[1] were slow: 2, 4, 14, 20 sales... then 101k copies given away in one day.
For an app selling 10-20 copies a day, how much would it have cost that company, paying a PR firm, to get it infront of 101k new users (forget about payment)... how many tweets would you have to get out or blog posts written to make 101k people aware of your app?
Amazon gave that company an incredibly aggressive marketing campaign for 1 day and from where I'm standing, gave that company an enormous opportunity to be successful with a future app or future subscription services for their existing app.
I think things like what Amazon are doing certainly don't fit in the old model of software sales and if you are betting the company on that model, it is going to be a painful trip for you.
Something to consider is that if this app offered a subscription-based premium mode or some in-app micro transactions and just 5% of people that downloaded the app engaged in that, I think the tone of this entire blog post would have been completely flipped about how awesome the Amazon model is. Even if that app could simply be used to announce the release of a new app in the app store from the same company when the time comes that would be a huge amount of people seeing that announcement that would not have otherwise seen it (not the full 100k, but whoever is still using the app).
Given that, I would assert that the Amazon App Store model isn't broken, it is just different and requires some planning to take advantage of.
If you have a flexible business model and can roll with the punches and take advantage of opportunities like these and see them coming you stand to benefit quite a bit from Amazon's free app of the day.
Let's say everything I've typed up until now is garbage and you waved it all away, another reason this was a good thing for the company: reviews.
Out of 101k people that now have this app, how many are going to eventually leave reviews? 20? 30?
How many reviews may be a half to a full star higher because the app was free and there isn't that feeling of being owed value by the reviewer because they got your app for free.
So now let's say in a few weeks (or at some point in the future) this company now has 15, 20 or 30 reviews on this app, all fairly good (4 and above).
Now that the app is no longer free, how much higher in the search results is this app going to show up for people when they are searching for apps like this? How much more likely are people browsing the Amazon App Store to buy this app because it has such good reviews?
I would argue had this guy listened to his co-founder and not flown off the handle, and left his app in the app store, and built off of this success he would have seen sales gradually increase over time, similar to how it was trending before they had the one day give away. All those sales before the give away were people finding the app because (I assume) they wanted an app like that.
The one day give away was likely a bunch of people that just grab every free app they see each day.
Either way, it sounds like he took the gift horse he was given by Amazon, punched it in the horse-face and then let it run off a cliff because it wasn't the exact horse they were expecting.
He readily admits he bought into the 20%, got and clarified the 0% offer, debated and went for it. He shows the 54k number as a way of reinforcing the bait-and-switch they are using to lure people into the market, not as a way to say 'i should have been paid $x'.
You say 'Amazon gave that company an incredibly aggressive marketing campaign for 1 day' but let me tell you what i see. 'Amazon is building their market on the backs of apps by giving them away for free.' I write Android apps for a living and I appreciated the cautionary tale. The rest of the comment you left is basically unsupportable. We have no data to say what % of people that get the app for free leave a review (and, consequently, whether or not that review is good or bad). I'm guessing we also have very little insight into how the numbers of installs affect the search rankings.
You are (probably) right, there are a bunch of people that grab just the free apps, but I don't see that as a good thing and I'm not sure how it plays into your argument. Its also not clear that the 'freemium' option was offered to the developer as an alternative of putting up their full app up for free. If it was, I would have expected PopCap to do so with Plants v. Zombies.
Its also unnecessarily diminutive to say '... I have to point out that the sales BEFORE the free-app-of-the-day listing[1] were not impressive...". The fact of the matter is they made infinitely more money before the deal of the day then we can say they did AS A DIRECT RESULT of the deal of the day listing.
> 'Amazon is building their market on the backs of apps by giving them away for free.
I don't get that. It's just a deal. They could have said no. The rules of the game are clear. Amazon can make your app free unilaterally, but you'll still get 20%. Or, you go into any arbitrary mutual business agreement with them to guarantee that your app gets promoted, at the cost of lower/no revenue. I found the fact that the latter exists informative, but in no way threatening.
My take from this whole thing is that in the technology industry, people are not used to making business deals and get scared when they do.
I don't wish to be mistaken, my shot was more about making the logical opposite argument then making a solid description of what Amazon has done. I did read the article as critical of Amazon but I agree that the author didn't get more or less then he explicitly agreed to and that Amazon does offer something in return.
I appreciate the response. I'll try and address each thing you mentioned.
--------------------
but let me tell you what i see. 'Amazon is building their market on the backs of apps by giving them away for free.'
--------------------
This company's app uses a simple software model. You pay $1.99 and you get their app. Your comment decries the entire Amazon model as benefiting them and not the developer.
I don't agree with this and here is why... let's say this company had a subscription-based app or some in-app-payment-enabled app. Suddenly it is on 101k new devices and let's say that 5k of them (5%) buy some simple subscription or even less, some 1-time-in-app-micro-resource inside the app for $.99.
Now suddenly this blog post has a very positive tone to it and the developers are praising Amazon for such a progressive app sales model and we are all here nodding our heads about how awesome it is and you and I are high-fiving each other over Skype Video because we are so excited.
The Amazon model isn't broken and it's not building a market on the backs of its developers. It can be an aggressive, mutually-beneficial relationship if both parties are prepared to take advantage of what Amazon has to offer. These guys weren't ready for that yet, but I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that come this time next year they will have a new app back in Amazon App Store, ready to do the 1-day-free-giveaway AGAIN, but this time they are going to be prepared to take advantage of all the traffic.
----------------------
Its also unnecessarily diminutive to say '... I have to point out that the sales BEFORE the free-app-of-the-day listing[1] were not impressive...". The fact of the matter is they made infinitely more money before the deal of the day then we can say they did AS A DIRECT RESULT of the deal of the day listing.
---------------------
I agree that my comment came off way too demeaning and I didn't mean it that way. I was getting carried away with making my point that from a sheer-number-of-device-installation perspective, they went from a trickle of water to a firehose in one day and that isn't a bad thing.
Very rational. I agree that the Amazon model is not broken, its just different (I did not mean to suggest it was broken, though I can see that being implied from my statements). I also agree that it is OK for the developer to publicize (critically) that there was an alternative/non-public agreement to become the app of the day which varies from the publicized terms. At the end of the day, you are both "right". There are types of apps that this can work well for (which I think you do a good job arguing for) and there are pitfalls to the system which Amazon tries to not make public (which I'm thankful to the author for having written about).
If they had a subscription-based business model, they likely wouldn't have been charging for the app to be begin with. Amazon pitched it to them, and pitched it to others, as benefiting sales. Their claim needs to be evaluated on that basis, otherwise, you're just moving the goal posts.
Can I just reply here? Here goes. I think you missed the entire point of the article. We agreed to be featured, we stand by that decision. What we take issue with is the public perception that Amazon pays their (publicly stated) 20% of the asking price for developers to be featured. They don't. Simple as that. Everything else is a beef, yes, but not our primary beef. Also we left it a month, we got featured June 27th, it's now August. Virtually no change in sales on Amazon.
Admittedly, my response was focused more on the other beef than that single point. Given how much other information was in the post, I didn't think the 20% == 0% was the central argument; my apologies for missing that.
My core belief that in the long(er) term that the give away likely would have helped the movement and sales of your app still stands though. I think you leaving it in the store for an extra month is valuable data point, but not quite enough for me to categorically agree with "Yep, totally experiment failure, f Amazon!"
Did any reviews come in from any of those massive downloads? How were the reviews? What was the average score?
I would give up the argument completely at 6 months after a few more update releases if there were 0 reviews and 0 sales, otherwise I stand by my original statement that this was a GOOD thing for you and your company.
It is my feeling that you are focusing too much on this bait and switch. Fine, it happened... but you also have your app on 101k more devices than you did the month before so do something with that, flip your perspective a bit and take advantage of it.
You cannot convince me that having your app on 101k more devices in 1 day is a bad thing (except maybe the server costs). It may be scary/odd/unexpected, but you guys are smart, you will figure out some good way to grow from this.
Fine, it happened... but you also have your app on 101k more devices than you did the month before so do something with that, flip your perspective a bit and take advantage of it.
Hell, before pulling out of the Amazon app store, release a new ad-supported version, and wait until a decent number of people have upgraded. Then pull out of Amazon's store. That should help defray the costs of the new hardware. Users can still do as the author suggested: re-buy on Android Market, and for users who had already paid for the app (not on free-app day), ask for a refund. Any serious user of the app will want to switch over to the Android Market anyway, so they can get later updates.
That feels slightly underhanded, but... eh. Server costs are real.
Yeah, in hindsight I realize that from the user's perspective, this really sucks. As a user who knows and understands the developer's perspective and how Amazon (intentionally or otherwise) screwed him over, I'd be sympathetic, but the vast majority of purchasers would not know any of that background information.
Generally it seems like you're expecting the OP to take on your perspective without really taking his perspective seriously. Just saying you have a "core belief" that waiting longer would help doesn't really seem like a fair point.
Why don't server/support costs matter? Why does it have to be that it's more beneficial for these guys to have their software on 100k more devices than not? Why should all business models have to work that way? And why should someone who has a business model expecting to profit from Amazon's advertised 20% be willing to accept waiving that?
OP seems to have a valid complaint against Amazon and a worthwhile warning to others in similar situations, and you're just telling him to suck it up figure out some way around it. Okay, I get what you're saying, but withdrawing from what is by all evidence an unprofitable app market driven partially by a bait-and-switch still seems perfectly reasonable.
That is a fair point, I don't think the OP's complaint about the 20-to-0 switch was invalid, but I do skip past it to try and look at what kind of benefit can be squeezed from their current predicament instead of scorching the earth and walking away.
The OP clearly decided that not doing business with Amazon was the right choice for their business, and Amazon richly deserves the scorching.
Amazon looked like it was setting up an app store where Android developers had a hope of getting paid, but so far, they've created a space where the control-freakism runs deeper than under Apple (e.g., the lack of control over basics like device filtering and removing apps from sale), and the return on investment is worse than under Google.
Wait, you expected to receive 20% of your pre free giveaway price during the free app of the day promotion and Amazon just gives you money, seriously? Where exactly does it say that you get paid during a free giveaway promo?
From the FAQ:
What is the payment structure between Amazon and me?
Amazon pays developers 70% of the sale price of the app or 20% of the list price, whichever is greater.
I'm not sure how one concludes that getting $50k of free money is even a smart assumption to make. So they give away X amount of money per day to app developers because they are being nice?
When the FAQ appears to address something (selling at less than list price) and doesn't call out an exception for free, it's not an assumption. Companies do all sorts of things. I don't understand all the economics of amazon's business model, but I can read.
He definitely is. The developers definitely should get paid 20% of their asking price for free downloads because some people think that's what happens. Amazon should definitely be responsible of their perception in the eyes of a few niave developers.
I do not understand the point of this long rant when you have zero understanding of the mobile marketplace. I'm going to go ahead and take your advice and "say everything [you've] typed up until now is garbage" and "[wave] it all away" and respond to the reviews point.
When users grab an App for free, they leave worse reviews in aggregate, nearly every time. In the mobile marketplace, people who have to spend money to buy Apps normally have money, and often have jobs, which sometimes means they're adults, which occasionally means they act like adults when they decide to review an app they decide to spend money on. People who download apps for free often decide to act like privileged little brats and berate an app for any feature they perceive that it should have but which they fail to find (regardless of whether said feature exists in the app). They leave poor reviews and don't factor "value" into the equation because all they ever download are free Apps and they expect nothing less than Angry Birds every single time.
The other problem I've read (from another article about Amazon's Appstore, which I haven't been able to find) is that it does not support the compatibility portion of the manifest (i.e. incompatible devices are allowed to download apps). There is also no way to respond to negative reviews. The result is a lot of negative reviews by people who cannot run the app, and cannot be responded to.
Luckily they got mostly positive reviews, however most apps have their reviews and comments trashed. I've seen great, 5-star apps go down to 2-stars because of people who downloaded it because it was free, didn't know what it did, then didn't like it and give it a 1-star. Others give 1-star because amazon screwed up and charged them, others give 1-star because it doesn't work on their device (even the description will say it isn't going to work). These things wouldn't happen with when people find the app and choose to purchase it.
The complaint seems to be that Amazon is talking out of both sides of their mouth. Telling the public that developers are getting 20% (thus making people feel good about installing the free app) then asking developers to agree to a rule change and accept nothing instead.
Lets say you are right, the dev is saying "omg look at teh numberz i lost 100 thousandz salez"
Note: Sales did not pick up after the free app sale. Therefore that free app sale was actually a waste of time. Furthermore their app requires a server to run, since its not a subscription-based app the server is 100% on their backs. They now support 100,000 unpaid customers with a server, and ALL those customers are going to cost them in the long run.
Amazon further moved by reducing the price of the app for 3 days without consent and modified description of the app.
TL;DR = sales on amazon are for profits of amazon only, get their numbers up but provide no real value for clients. They developer makes more money selling 10 apps a week than having the promotion which permanently harmed their revenue.
"For an app selling 10-20 copies a day, how much would it have cost that company, paying a PR firm, to get it infront of 101k new users (forget about payment)... how many tweets would you have to get out or blog posts written to make 101k people aware of your app?
Amazon gave that company an incredibly aggressive marketing campaign for 1 day and from where I'm standing, gave that company an enormous opportunity to be successful with a future app or future subscription services for their existing app."
There is a big difference between paying for 100k of paid users marketing campaign and getting 100k free users. When you pay for a campaign you know the amount you target and are willing to spend. From that you know what the expenses will be.
The free campaign meant 100k users unexpectadly got the app, then normal everything continued. Point being that 100k people like a free app. Angry birds was already popular prior to Amazon Store.
So the question is that did the free day give ANYTHING to any developer, lets assume zero server costs. Did the app give anything? The app benefits amazon because people use amazon store vs google store, the 100k users = user outreach, server infrastructure, damage control, reaching out to users to rate, etc. And for the day you devalue your app making paid customers feel stupid for not waiting.
For me the most important part of the story is this:
Did the exposure count for much in the days afterwards? That’s also a big no, the day after saw a blip in sales, followed by things going back to exactly where we started, selling a few apps a day.
Agreed. That surprised me initially, but then I thought about it a little more. I think the issue is that with a "Free App" promotion, you get great exposure, but only to people who are going to buy your app for free.
- People who do see your free app buy it (if interested) and net you $0. They won't wait to buy tomorrow because why not buy it for free?
- People who don't see your free app won't buy later because they weren't exposed to you. Very few people will have "heard" of your app without having had the chance to buy it.
For me the most important part of the story is this
How so? Why would there be any expectation that sales would spike in the proximity of the app being a featured freebie? Does the grocery store sell more chocolate milk before or after a sale?
I would imagine quite the opposite really.
However I would revisit the situation in a few months. The app world, especially on Android, is very much one where word of mouth rules. "What app do you guys like for managing/listening to podcasts?" Having a lot of people who now have a vested interest in this app (because they think that they got a deal on it, and that it has monetary worth that wouldn't be there if it was just a normal trial or long-term freebie) yields a lot of people who may very well promote this app.
We'll see.
This whole entry sounds a little bizarre, however. The author got exactly what they should have expected. Where is the rot? There is a unexplained spitefulness that I'm just not understanding.
Why would there be any expectation that sales would spike in the proximity of the app being a featured freebie?
Not necessarily. But then again maybe. This information is useful to me because it changes the expectation value of the outcome of that marketing strategy. Without it I'm just guessing, and laying the odds at 50-50.
I totally disagree with the point about the nature of a free app getting a lift in reviews.
"How many reviews may be a half to a full star higher because the app was free and there isn't that feeling of being owed value by the reviewer because they got your app for free."
Breaking a rule, I cannot currently post direct references, I hope someone either corrects or bolsters this:
I have read at least one peer-reviewed study showing that people generally see a free service/item as having less value than one that costs some X $ amount. Perhaps that doesn't translate to how they feel about the quality of that service/item, but I think your assumption about the reviews being susceptible to an extra half point is not well founded.
I don't think that study and those results apply here verbatim because this is more the Groupon model than the "cheap service" model.
I am, for a VERY limited time, getting a product for free. The perception of value is much higher (because of the time limit) than if I were downloading an always-free product or a really cheap product.
I think the success of Groupon, effectively using the same pattern of attraction, would indicate that people DO perceive a huge value from an extreme sale/giveaway like this for such a short period of time.
I'd also argue that the sheer volume of downloads (100k vs 20 the day before) would also support that claim.
Neither point perfectly scientific and conclusive, but I felt collectively the supported my position.
Except that reality doesn't bear out your position. So far, I haven't seen you give any evidence, other than your feelings or what you think, that things are the way you say they are.
I have visited the FAD page right around midnight pacific (when the free app is revealed) every day since it was first introduced in March. A few apps start with no rating, but most have 4- to 5-stars. By the end of the FAD promotion (the free-day,) I've observed at least half of them go below 3-stars. The only ones that have gone up are the ones that had no rating to begin with. Many, but not most, do recover some of their rating. I've yet to see an app (that I recall) which regained its previous high.
My understanding, and I don't have any link to really support this, is that Groupon customers are some of the most demanding, selfish and entitled gits out there. If Groupon is so great and customers are so thrilled at getting a premium thing cheap, why do more than half of merchants say they wouldn't do the promotion again?
Your logic is really flawed when you say "I'd also argue that the sheer volume of downloads (100k vs 20 the day before) would also support that claim."
It supports the claim that people like free stuff. Once a year IHOP does a free pancake deal for charity. On those days they see roughly 50 times more customers than on a typical day. By your logic, people perceive pancakes as a huge value.
>For an app selling 10-20 copies a day, how much would it have cost that company, paying a PR firm, to get it infront of 101k new users (forget about payment)... how many tweets would you have to get out or blog posts written to make 101k people aware of your app?
It's not just that, the app would've got in front of much more than 101K people for that many to download. Maybe a couple of million?
Looks like this strategy is:
1. Good for apps with ads or in-app purchaes.
2. Bad for apps that need server infrastructure on the backend.
Not all apps are like that. Since the app failed both the above categories, they shouldn't have agreed to the terms.
Other apps might be enjoying the attention happily and making money, I don't see anything 'rotten' about that.
There are a lot of points in this - both in the sales pitch that Amazon gave the developers and the outcome of having participated - that are strikingly reminiscent of the Groupon experience for some businesses. (Many, even, based on the links dibarnu posted.)
I guess you're leaving the actual comparison as an exercise for the reader. IIRC, both involved people who had little business savvy and a missed opportunity presented as a regretful decision. no money is exchanged here however, and they never detail the cost occurred to them by the extra load.
My understanding was that the 20% figure applies only to cases where Amazon changes the pricing of your app without your specific approval (which they can do). There is apparently enough demand for the top spot that they can ask the developer to take the hit. Up to them whether they do or not.
From what I understand, Amazon won't feature a trial or "lite" version of your app for the Free App of the Day. It doesn't have the same value-proposition for users.
Lots of larger studios actually pay to acquire installs of their app to get an initial placement on the charts and to drive organic growth from there. In that context, 101k new users for free is very valuable.
These secret back-door deals that were so secret that they were written in bold in the email, so secret that they noticed this and wrote back to amazon, and so secret that amazon then confirmed them.
They were offered a crappy deal, realized this and double-checked it, but decided to go for it anyway. When it turned out that the deal really was pretty crappy, they then act surprised and self-righteous and blog about it.