App Install Retention? (9)
I'm seeing a lot of news App installs lately having all these annoying conditions and restrictions, but the one that doesn't sit right with me is retention rates.
My understanding of it is that if enough of your leads uninstall the app by a certain time then the advertiser doesn't have to pay you for them, even if you've run compliant traffic and jumped through all their hoops they can scrub your leads. Sounds like a total crock to be honest and i wouldn't feel comfortable investing a large advertising budget in that. If you're sending poor quality traffic then they should kick you off the offer, but not paying for leads is bs.
What do you think?
I agree. This condition makes it a covered-up CPL offer instead of a CPI. In case its a smaller advertiser you can probably negotiate this out if you bring enough volume (3-4K installs/day), but the superadvertisers basically cherrypick with whom they work and hence have the negotiation power to impose this condition on you....so back to testing, optimizing, etc
Originally Posted by aushustler87
It's perfectly understandable for advertisers to want as best quality as possible. I don't like it but it's definitely understandable and I would probably do the same in their position. You need to make your money work as efficient as possible.
If you run compliant traffic, you will generally be fine with retention rates I think.
Would you pay for a placement which converts but is not profitable? So why would an advertiser work with you if you bring traffic which is not effective for him? Btw, they will pay you for all the traffic you bring, as long as required % of it meets the RR criteria.
And why do you think an advertiser would scrub you if you bring him effective traffic?
RR requirements are absolutely right and understandable. If you don’t want to drive a lot of traffic from the very beginning – drive big enough sample size to see if it will it meet the RR and wait for the feedback. If you think that advertiser is just coming up with ways to scrub you – pick apps which do not have RR requirements or run pins.
Even I believe the retention rate is totally bullshit parameter to judge the quality of leads for App installs, we know that even after sending quality traffic the user may chose to uninstall for several reasons, but then its all thanks to those sneaky marketers who incentivize users to get installs. So as said by cbrughmans, "so back to testing, optimizing, etc"
I believe it's a long-term mutually beneficial as the publisher carries less risk and thus can price (payout) more precisely:
My personal thought:
No Retention Condition = Estimated Profits - Risk of crappy traffic = lower payout
With Retention Condition = Estimated Profit without risk of crappy traffic = higher payout
Hi guys,
I 100% agree with the point of view you are all expressing, that there should be a long term cooperation objective with the Affiliate optimizing the campaign in such a way that the advertiser has a good retention rate.
That is the only way to keep a cooperation going - otherwise you'll get paused within a matter of weeks or even days. It has to back out for the advertiser and for the publisher (win-win).
However, I do think that advertisers should label their campaigns and the pay outs the way it is. A true CPI campaign pays out on the install+open at least once condition. If you are throwing the retention condition into the mix then its not a CPI campaign any longer but rather a CPL campaign as there is a condition the user needs to engage with the app (subscribe, open many times, get to level x, etc).
Eg if a sweepstake advertiser says i'll pay you 1 euro/dollar per lead, but the lead to sales ratio has to be at least 10%, then effectively its not a lead-campaign but a sale-campaign with a 10 euro/dollar pay out per sale.
So affiliates should always work and optimize all campaigns towards long term cooperation goals so that it backs out for the advertiser, on the other hand advertisers should label their campaigns better and promote the pay outs the way it is and not sneak some conditions into it.
There are no specific requirements regarding app usage but RR. Of course, if, say, some mobile game advertiser would only want traffic which makes in-app purchases, than it is a CPL offer due to specific action requirements.
RR, on the other hand, is a basic way to analyze engagement. Besides, reaching a certain RR % is not that big of a deal anyways. Of course, if the requirements are high, affiliate has to understand that some angles have high chances of not meeting them. Therefore, he can choose to promote an app in the most compliant way, test traffic from lower quality traffic sources or simply work with another offer.
We are doing business, and we, just as advertisers, decide with whom we will/will not work with based on potential profitability. If advertiser is not satisfied with affiliates traffic – he stops working with him. If affiliate is not satisfied with requirements of an offer – he doesn’t promote it.
It's a free market. No one forces you to work with any specific network or advertiser. If you are not happy with the terms offered by a company, you should stop working with that company, it is as simple as that.
There is nothing BS about stipulating that leads fit some sort of spend or retention threshold, as long as that is clearly mentioned in the offer.
The BS comes into play when an offer mentions one type of payment criteria, and then the offer owner changes the criteria after the fact.
Home > Paid Traffic Sources > Mobile