As someone who closley follows the play industry, I find tracking apps to
be a bit frustrating for three reasons:
challenge the notion of perceived value.
In other words, is that bag of plastic horses still worth $5.00 if I can get a horse game app for free?
is difficult to quantify just how many dollars apps take from the other play
industries when the choice of getting a free app rather than purchasing a toy
does not show up as a monetary gain for apps so much as a revenue loss for video games and traditional toys.
We have no clear idea as to how much time apps take away from other forms of play? We need to know. Why, because the loss of play time to apps,
which I suspect is currently far larger than the loss of dollars, could be a
harbinger of a future comparable drop in revenue.
That was why an article on Retailing Today
caught my interest. Entitled, “Survey:
Apps offer too much for too little,” the article maintains that app providers
could get more money for their free and low priced apps than they are currently
asking consumers to pay. According to
the article: “The survey by Simon-Kucher
& Partners – a global marketing and strategy consultancy specializing in
pricing – investigated which apps consumers want, how much consumers will pay
for apps and how app makers can turn apps into cash.”
The survey found that a large majority of
consumers would pay on average $1.99 per month ($23.88 annualized) for an app
they now can get for free or close to it.
Games were cited as one of the app categories that could demand this
This creates an interesting opportunity for
app makers and their play competitors.
If app makers charge more, their revenue should go up and their unit
sales should go down. If that happens
then perceived value of apps and by default competing products goes up. It’s a win for everyone.
Still, there is that time thing.