Native Apps are Better for Engagement, Worse for Revenues and Retention
The newest quandary for publishers? Whether to go native or not on the tablet.
“We see engagement of roughly 47 minutes per entrance into the [native] app, which is huge,” Chris Foster, President and COO of GIE Media told Talking New Media.
For the uninitiated, a native app is a downloadable piece of software written for a specific platform, like the iPad. Different platforms use different coding languages — Android uses Java, Apple/iOS uses Objective-C, and Microsoft Mobile uses Visual C++.
There are other pros and cons to the native vs. web app debate. For one, the native app requires a download and memory on a user’s device, but the content can then be viewed without Internet access. A Web-based app requires Internet access to view content. But on the flip side, it updates automatically, whereas a native app must be manually updated by the user.
There’s also significant difference in monetization and customer relations. Native apps can only be sold through a platform, like Apple’s Newsstand. Developers have the ability to charge a download price (though most don’t), but the app store will handle the purchase, usually taking a percentage of sales and not giving publishers marketing data, like customer email addresses or credit cards.
Web-based apps allows publishers to integrate sales and marketing info into their existing CRM database, which makes retention easier. They also allow publishers to retain 100% of sales revenues.
But if audiences are more engaged (and therefore more likely to renew a subscription) through native apps, are the pros of Web-based apps worth the lower subscriber numbers? The Financial Times seems to think so, but B2B publishers with less technological resources might disagree.
Image: (c) meedanphotos via flickr.