As an indie supporter and marketing professional, nothing outrages me more than developers who pay their way into the App Store’s charts with shady acquisition practices. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against paid acquisition. (I don’t think you’ll find a respectable marketer who does.) What I am against are acquisition methods that simulate or incentivize real user activity--like downloads or positive reviews--to trick the App Store’s charting algorithm. If left unchecked, these practices will turn the App Store from a place to discover quality games into a banner farm for subpar apps backed by deep pockets, forcing indie games into extinction.

Why is charting such a big deal? 
Before one can grasp how damaging shady acquisition practices are, it’s important to understand the power of charting. By applying what we know about app monetization to the real-life example below, we can do just this.

In late 2012, AnyList, a grocery list app, was released on the App Store. After one week, AnyList had generated 215 downloads. Soon after, Apple featured AnyList as “New and Noteworthy” for two weeks. During this time, AnyList generated over 60,000 downloads--a 28,000 percent increase from before it was featured.1

Now, imagine AnyList was a free-to-play game with in-app purchases. Knowing that three percent of freemium users make at least one in-app purchase that averages $9.99, AnyList could have earned at least $17,000 from being featured for just two weeks.2 Compare this to the $64 the app could have earned the week prior and all of a sudden the allure of charting becomes understandable.

Why is charting such a big deal for indies?
For an indie who statistically won’t make over $10,000 in his/her entire career on the App Store, $17,000 in two weeks is a dream, however, the App Store makes it possible with its charting algorithms and promotion philosophy.3 Let me explain.

In the above example, Apple chose to feature AnyList based on criteria that focuses on quality and appeal (i.e., is the app good and will App Store customers like it?).4 In fact, all apps that get promoted in Apple- or customer-selected charts are there because they match these criteria. What isn’t factored into this criteria is marketing budget. Why? Because ensuring apps get promoted based on quality, not how much marketing developers can afford, maintains the App Store as a place to discover great content. It also allows developers with no marketing budgets, who create amazing games, to get discovered--making the App Store a critical distribution channel for indies. No wonder indies are responsible for publishing 68 percent of mobile games!5

What would happen to indies if Apple’s charting algorithms were compromised?
With the App Store being so critical to indie success, any compromise to its charting algorithms would clearly have an impact. How big would this impact be? Let’s consider the below example.

Substandard Studios publishes Crap-O-La to the App Store as a free-to-play game with in-app advertising. Substandard then finds a “marketing agency” that guarantees Crap-O-La a spot in the App Store’s Top 10 in exchange for $96,000.6 Substandard agrees, pays the agency and within one week, Crap-O-La is on the Top 10 generating two million downloads and $50,000 in ad revenue per day. Meanwhile, App Store consumers are furious with Apple for recommending such a terrible game and confused how it could have so many downloads and excellent reviews. Apple is furious because Substandard has gamed the system, tarnishing Apple’s reputation for promoting quality content and causing it to lose consumer trust. And finally, indies who followed the rules, publishing quality games, are passed over because Apple’s charting algorithms failed.

While it may seem innocuous for a naughty developer to game the system every now and then, if left unchecked, this could become status quo. And in a world where developers must spend almost $100,000 to compete, indies have two options: find investors and risk being forced to build games they became indies to avoid or find another distribution channel. Both options are not ideal and will eventually lead to the disappearance of indie games on the App Store altogether.

How can we stop this unfortunate scenario?
Apple doesn’t have to be the only one taking a stand against unethical marketing practices. In fact, they shouldn’t be. As indies or indie supporters, we should take unethical marketing practices just as, if not more seriously than Apple. Below are four ways indies and indie supporters can curb and slowly eliminate unethical marketing behavior.

^{1. Jeff Hunter, "Being Featured on the App Store,"} http://blog.anylistapp.com/2012/08/app-store/^{, (Aug. 22, 2012).} ↩

^{2. Jeferson Valadares, "Consumers Spend Average of $14 per Transaction in iOS and Android Freemium Games,"} http://blog.flurry.com/bid/67748/Consumers-Spend-Average-of-14-per-Transaction-in-iOS-and-Android-Freemium-Games^{, (Jul. 25, 2011).} ↩

^{3. Owen Goss, "Results: iOS Game Revenue Survey,"} http://www.streamingcolour.com/blog/2011/09/28/results-ios-game-revenue-survey/^{, (Sept. 28, 2011).} ↩

^{4. While Apple has never published the criteria it uses for selecting which apps it promotes on New and Noteworthy, or how its charting algorithms work, it is widely believed that Apple selects apps based on their quality (i.e., graphic quality, gameplay quality, etc.) and how well an App Store customer might like the app.} ↩

^{5. Peter Ferago, "Indie Game Makers Dominate iOS and Android,"} http://blog.flurry.com/bid/82758/Indie-Game-Makers-Dominate-iOS-and-Android^{, (Mar. 6, 2012).} ↩

^{6. Kyle Orland, "Pay to rank: Gaming the App Store in the age of Flappy Bird,"} http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/02/pay-to-rank-gaming-the-app-store-in-the-age-of-flappy-bird/^{, (Feb. 11, 2014).} ↩