Game Design, Programming and running a one-man games business…

Some marketers have money to burn

So Apple are looking to tell google where to shove it and sell advertising directly, I read. One of the thinsg that sprung out at me from this article was this quote:

“Every time a user sees a banner ad from Apple, it will charge advertisers a penny. If the user taps the banner and the full ad expands Apple charges $2. Large ad buys would reach $1 million from the taps and views.”


So lets re-visit that a bit. For a single mouse-click (less really ebcause it just expands an ad, doesnt go to a site), the advertiser pays TWO DOLLARS. So that’s at least two dollars per click.  I currently pay around $0.10 a click, so this would eb twenty tiems as much money. Now obviously, not everyone sells indie games. I’m sure some megacorps selling high price items have money to burn, (oh and by the way, if you are a small advertiser with an ad budget under a million dollars, apple have told you to f**k off already. Thanks guys).

I do wonder how the discussion goes in the megacorp head office though:

“Dude, there are lots of people with iphones. Maybe we can advertise our high-value product on there?”

“Yes, but dude, they are charging at least five times what anyone else charges for the ads.”

“Sure, but from what I hear, people with iphones are not at all price-sensitive and will happily pay a premium for everything!”

“So why are iphone games considered overpriced at $1.99?”

I don’t think google should be worried at this stage. For them I’m sure it will be business as usual. Business time…

8 thoughts on Some marketers have money to burn

  1. I think someone needs to start a campaign to get a group of 100,000 people or so that spends six or seven hours a day clicking those ads. That ought to put someone out of business pretty quick.

    Cheers form Canada

  2. Good lord that’s expensive! And yeah, your average Apple junkie will spend 3 times as much money for an Apple device that does half what any comparable device would, but that really only applies to the device itself.

    This is why my cortical implant will run linux. I just wish there was more game interest for linux systems. We have all kinds of neat options, but with PC gaming in general being in the shadow of consoles there’s even less impetus than before.

    Almost went off completely on a tangent there.

    The funny thing about advertising is that it only works, on me anyway, when it’s for something out of the way and otherwise off my radar. Like GSB, for instance. Meanwhile, something from a company willing to pay $2 every time I fail to avoid tripping their advertising landmine is likely to be some huge name that didn’t need to advertise that much to begin with.

  3. I am a little confused about the whole outrage people seem to have about apple selling ads on the iphone.

    There are plenty of companies that do ads for iphone apps, so what if apple is aiming at premium, that leaves plenty of room for the smaller players to stay in there, doesn’t it?

    As an indie developer, instead of advertising through apple, use one of the companies that is already available to you, which offer cheaper rates.

  4. I don’t own an iPhone. If I ever do buy an over-priced phone, and then a costly monthly plan on top of that, I won’t look kindly on anyone who wastes my time and bandwidth with advertising, any more than I buy from telemarketers or click on spam links.

    I appreciate google’s unobtrusive, targeted ads, but hate most others, and take passive-agressive action by not buying from the people who think I went to a news site for the pop-ups rather than the content.

  5. Yikes, $2 per ad click? I could only see that being worthwhile for advertisers if there was an absurd conversion rate from ad views to sales. I guess this isn’t meant for other iPhone developers to advertise their wares; you can’t pay $2 per view to sell a $1.99 iPhone app.

  6. “I am a little confused about the whole outrage people seem to have about apple selling ads on the iphone.”

    When I visit an ad-supported web site, say a news paper, I understand the need for ads – I prefer them to paying a subscription for each site I visit. If the model actually works (free content, paid content producer, advertiser gets some sales), then everyone wins.

    However, if I pay for something – a high-end phone, a premium cable channel, a DVD in a store – I don’t want to see ads, I just want the product I paid for. If you mix the two – high price and ads – the of course you get angry customers. What I don’t understand is why producers think the ads are a good idea.

    I would rather pay $5 more than be annoyed by adds that net the developer the same amount. Wouldn’t you rather pay Cliff $5 than have “this mission brought to you buy …” pop up?

  7. I think you are mixing two separate issues Andrew.

    You buy the Phone, but if you get a free app, then the advertising is supporting that free app.

    If I make an iPhone app, and decide my business model is to make money from ads, then that is my business, and you get to decide if that works for you or not.
    Perhaps I offer an option to pay for a non ad version, but in either case, I make no money from Apple simply because you bought an expensive phone.

    If Apple happens to also be an ad provider for such in app ads, then again, what difference does it make to you, or to the fact you bought their device?

    You do understand the ads apple is providing, is just in app ads, that are something the individual developer decides to use or not (like a website using adwords from google).

    Maybe I have misunderstood your complaint, and if so, I apologise and would love to understand your complaint better.

  8. No, I misunderstood the iPhone apps, as I don’t own an iPhone. To rephrase my rant – I appreciate free, ad-supported content, but strongly resent costly content that still contains ads. For example, a DVD with ads you can’t skip that run every time you put it into the player.

Comments are currently closed.