Slashdot Mirror
App Developers Should Charge More If They Want People To Buy Subscriptions, Suggests Report (theverge.com)
A new report from Liftoff, a Silicon Valley-based mobile app marketing and retargeting firm, says that subscription-based apps may do better if developers charge a higher price for services, rather than setting prices too low to lure users in initially. The Verge reports: The Liftoff report, which analyzed data gathered between June 2016 and June 2017, categorized app subscriptions into low-cost monthly subs ($0.99 to $7), medium ($7 to $20), and high-cost subs ($20 to $50), while also factoring the cost of acquisition per customer. The company found that apps in the medium price range had the highest conversion rate -- 7.16 percent -- and the lowest cost to acquire a subscriber, at just over $106 dollars. This was five times higher than the rate of people who subscribed to apps when the apps were in the low-cost category. This may partly be because streaming media apps, like Netflix and Spotify, have already conditioned people to pay around $10 a month for services. But it also might be attributable to the sunk cost fallacy, Liftoff says: the "cognitive bias people have that makes them stay the course because they have already spent time or resources on it." The report also examines apps that fulfill "need states," like dating apps or cloud services. These have the potential to offer services that customers are willing to pay for, again and again. But, according to Liftoff, utility apps have a much higher install-to-subscriber rate compared to dating apps. Blame those who eventually find love?
If we ever needed the "apps!" guy, it's NOW!
#DeleteFacebook
I want an app that does what I want without trying to take over my damn phone. I don't mind paying a reasonable price for that. I pay for FBreader app on Android because I've used it for many years on Linux and love it so when I found it on Android I gladly payed for premium version even though I really didn't need the premium, I just wanted to support the developer because it works without taking over my phone. I don't like apps that want access to things on my phone they don't really need and I get rid of them, free or not.
Only one hundred million dollars.
This phenomenon is true for lots of things.
I read an interesting analysis about automobile purchasing behavior. The main point of it was that most people want to get a good enough deal to be able to brag about doing well on the purchase ("check me out, I am a skilled negotiator") but not so low that they appear to be cheap. I have to admit I don't fully understand why that is, as I always seek the absolute lowest price I can find, but hey some college professors studied it, so I guess it is accurate.
Of course, there is also the same sort of thing for "lifestyle" and luxury brands. Would a Rolex that cost $100 have the same value as one that cost $10,000? In some ways yes, but not in the ways which make a Rolex a Rolex.
On the flip side I remember having interesting "discussions" with people regarding the various merits of Linux and Windows. This was probably 10-15 years ago. A surprising number (at least surprising to me) were of the mindset that since Linux was basically given away for free that it must not be very good. Of course, that has somewhat changed over the years, but you still come across people like that.
It probably boils down to the fact that people, especially in consumerist societies, tend to equate price with value.
How about creating an actual value to subscribing/paying for the app.
>"App Developers Should Charge More If They Want People To Buy Subscriptions, Suggests Report"
Or give up on subscription. There is no app I would ever get sucked into "renting", ever. But I will pay a few dollars for a useful app. Maybe even more for a fantastic one (of which I have only done once).
Another factor is that people don't value something that is free or negligibly priced. If the developer doesn't think much of his or her own software, why should I?
I have yet to hear of any mobile app that was not a service that was free on the web at some point. Marketing is probably the greatest reason for the decline of the western world. Economic growth is not achieved by inventing charges for free stuff, these people are parasites.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
It's not going to work. There are a significant amount of apps that I don't "need". There are some which are nice to have, but if they charged more, it wouldn't happen. I think there are too many people stuck in this entitlement to everyone elses money and anything they make people will buy. There are a lot of really good apps, that people spent time developing to be efficient and useful, and those are the ones that are getting more. No one seems to ever go "Hmm, that app gets more money because it's better" No, they'd rather a study that says if they charge more their app will be better.
Uplink Hosting - Web/email at an affordable price with high performance - https://uplinkhosting.ca/link.php?id=3
It makes more cents if they charge more.
I've been doing Website's and Apps for a decade now and a hard lesson I learned early on was that people don't value what they get for free or cheaply.
As soon as you put a decent price tag on it their perception of it's value changes.
You get less complaints and support problems too.
Give stuff away for free and you are just asking to serve your heart up on a plate to vultures.
I even have to kick myself sometimes when I find myself griping over a $1.99 app that it isn't free. It's small change. Beggars and buskers stuff.
The whole sub $10 market is just toxic.
The statistics are only valid if they have been gathered from apps that have been offered in all three categories. I would assume that on the cheap apps category there is lots of crappy apps that no-one wants to subscribe into.
- Raynet --> .
Distinction without a difference. An app developer could make an app technically "free" in the App Store or Google Play Store, but put some essential part of the logic of the app on the server and charge for access to the portion of the app that is on the server. Dropbox's storage upgrade is this way, for example.
Then why not just make all apps "free" on grounds that an app's functionality is a "subscription service" as a software substitute, and require an IAP after installation to use it past 30 days? The only reason I can see is Apple's "stubborn refusal" to allow trial versions, which is killing the iPad Pro.
... the problem is the utter lack of quality in the apps. It should be noted that any app which employ piece-meal fees (microtransactions) are incentivized to provide a shoddy product. Perfect examples of this are the glut of games in which the difficulty ramps up extremely high rather quickly... and offers a paid service/product/special currency in order to be able to contend with or bypass that difficulty. Rather than providing a quality gaming experience, app developers focus on a quick showcasing of the game in the first 10 minutes or so to hook people into the game... then employ the bait-and-switch money grab. One could argue that this is why few take mobile gaming seriously.
hairstyles for men in 2018 2019, men hairstyles in 2018. hairstyles for men in 2018
http://thehairstylish.com/2017/04/23/mens-hairstyles-2018/
There is no app I would ever get sucked into "renting", ever.
And what would you recommend for web animation now that Adobe Animate CC is rental-only?
Full scene animation or small games. Use Unity or a similar tool that can export to WebGL.
Unity is also a rental: $420 per seat per year until your entire company has $200,000 in annual revenue, then $1500 per seat per year. (Sources: "Subscription! Why?", "Evolution of our products and pricing", and "Unity Pro, Unity Plus and Unity Personal Software Additional Terms") So that rules out Unity by markdavis's standard. Which "similar tool that can export to WebGL" did you have in mind?