Thanks for quoting the whole list. That's really useful. Anyway, the poster didn't say that the list was of games with app store reviews. If the company is unethical in the app store, you can be they are unethical everywhere they go. This story is much bigger than the app store, it effects everything even forums like this.
Perceived least ethical firms 1. McDonald's 2. Nike 3. Shell 4. Adidas 5. Barclays Bank 6. Coca-Cola 7. BP 8. Camelot 9. American Express 10. Nestle Source: The Fraser Consultancy
not it!! lol where did you hear that? is that come from any official source? makes me rethink getting diving into learning development. wonder if that's the same for HOT APPs. It'd make sense if that were more sales number based, but then again it doesn't seem to coordinate with the top apps and hot bar meter thing. but I can't decide if that is good or bad.. if its system based... then one can "game the system", if its human based, then yah... connections will have an effect, but then again, that's always the case for ANYTHING, so..dunno. Maybe they need a better algorithm mix of everything (like a search engine) with humans being the final part of the process (or somewhere in there to confirm none are just "black hat" iphone app store SEO, so to speak.) so now the question is: out of those iphone games Beer Bounce (iPhone) Billy Frontier (iPhone) Critter Crunch (iPhone) Cro Mag Rally (iPhone) Enigmo (iPhone) Reel Deal Blackjack (iPhone) Reel Deal Hold Em (iPhone) Reel Deal Slots (iPhone) Reel Deal Video Poker (iPhone) Zen Pinball Rollercoaster (iPhone) how many made the NEW and NOTEWORTHY, HOT LIST and TOP 100. and underwant timeframe. I mean, Enigmo was like one of the first apps ever when there was ... no competition (relatively speaking) and got SteveJobs mention so like...duh. Stever was probably ASKING for a something to use an example back then. heh.
actually... interesting question... forget the PR agency... does this make you want to NOT download the game /app associated with the fake PR? ie: would you "boycott the app" because of it? if not (ie: still would download), then hate to say but then Mission Accomplished for Reverb. sales are up, clients are happy... and a little bad press for reverb is just more free advertising. :/
your welcome. there is no evidence to suggest that this company was unethical in its practices when it comes to games that are not in the appstore so you shouldnt talk negative about the developers of games fon the other platforms.
Advertising is usually quite low on the list of things that bother me when it comes to corporate practices. Should I also be upset by movie advertising that quotes reviews authored by studio reps? Should I be outraged because ghostwriters often pen the autobiographies of others? The spectacle produced by the entertainment industry isn't real. If you are just figuring that out, congratulations: maybe you won't be fooled again. Funny, that reminds me of something else:
I'm not talking negative about the developers. I'm saying that this PR company is unethical. It seems silly to suggest that they only ditched their ethics for iPod/iPhone apps.
Where did I hear about there being a team, or that the PR firm was acquiring featured spots? The team stuff I've heard from various devs who have gotten requests for extra artwork, and through an interview I read with someone who got a tv commercial. A team of people, which may be regional, choose what gets featured each week. They base it on what they think will sell iPhones/touches. Obviously, a hot app from a major company will sell iPhones, so those always get featured. But they do pick a fair amount of indie stuff too, and try to get a decent sampling from various categories to capture a wider audience. And I'm sure if something becomes hot on its own, it's going to be on their radar. But review count, and number of ratings, really doesn't seem to play nearly as much as a role as their personal opinions. The PR stuff was in the article itself: "Reverb has secured the following types of Apple marketing support for our iPhone clients including: * On-stage appearance with Steve Jobs at WWDC * National iPhone television commercials * Apple retail programs, Apple direct e-mail pieces * iTunes App placement on the App Store * Placement on the “What Hot,” “Staff Favorite,” and “What’s New” * Premier placement on the Apple iPhone store."
yeah but you cant sasy that those games are tainted just because thier pr company is doing shady things thats unrelated to them
If the developers are aware of what is going on and don't attempt to distance themselves from the pr company then why not?
Its a team of 40 people that approve apps. That was made public when the FCC investigation took place about google voice app. And I read somewhere its 2 people that approve each app (so 2 of those 40 ppl, I assume), and ultimately these two that decide what makes it into "What's Hot" and "New and Noteable". I'll have to dig again to find that source, but I did read it. so you still implying that review, ratings and the hotness meter does play SOME role in determining who makes it to the lists. -- whether its putting in front the eyes of the apple approvalers more or what have you. THAT is where you can "game the system" the most. The article does note that reverb claims personal relationships with Apple which where I assume influencing apple's apprvoalers personal opinions come into play. Related: Didn't Apple even made announcemetns about potentially changing the how the search engine crawls descriptions and meta keywords when uploading an app so developers can't SEO it as much? right. guilt by association. Strictly logically speaking, if a developer knowing uses a PR first that advertises doing this, then yah, a developer takes ethic responsiblity too. Its just whether that matters or not to the consumer that I was asking. And its seems the answer is bascially: no. in which case, the bottomline is: Don't be playah hatin. (Hate "the (app store) game", don't hate the playah". heh.
I don't know about that. People don't like being duped, and if there is any whiff of complicity on the part of the developer in loading their apps with fake reviews, a lot of people -- myself included -- will distance themselves from that company. It is, in effect, false advertising. Any company that knowingly engages in it obviously doesn't give a damn about ethics, and any company willing to toss ethics aside is a company I am not going to deal with. A "playa" isn't absolved of guilt for engaging in a scummy activity just because the scummy activity is there for him to engage in; that whole "Don't hate the playa, hate the game" saying is just a ridiculous and transparent attempt to wash one's hands of wrongdoing that ostensibly wouldn't have happened if the "game" didn't allow them to do it in the first place, and that's retarded; open doors aren't invitations to walk in. Shilling fake reviews is an ethical issue that could exist anywhere with any system that allows its customers to publicly rate and review the products within it. It's gaming the system, whatever system it be, and you're damn right I'm going to hate both the game and the playa for it; the game is unethical and scummy, therefore so is anyone who plays it.
I think you missed my point. based on teh fact the the PR firms activities seems to have too successful... proof seems to be in the pudding, so to speak. Consumers are still downloading the apps even though PR firm allegedly engaged in "gaming the system". so if the system allows for this type of "cheating" to happen, and consumers are largely unaware. then big firms that can hire these PR firms have a massive unfair advantage. because the playah are download behaviors aren't being effected by even fake pr reviews. (again as evidence seems to show). I'd be a different ball game if players all rose up and said "stop!" or if apple changed teh system to account for this type of cheating. ie: make their rules TRANSPARENT as to how apps do and don't get pick for the hot lists. cause everyone knows... difference between make or break in the app store now.... is making those lists.
I think you may be confusing teams there. Nowhere in the FCC article did it say that the review team has anything to do with featured decisions. Two people don't decide featured status. They simply meant that two of the forty have to look at the app, to make things consistent for approval. And as we all know, it doesn't take much at all to get approval. An update/submisson probably has little to do with whether you get featured or not. I got a request for banner art while being out for a couple months, and no update in the queue. I've also been featured a couple times well outside any update/submission window. It's a different team. My guess would be that you have a low paid review team of 40, where two people have to examine the app before it passes. And each week, an App Store management team decides what to feature. I could be wrong, but that's what makes the most sense to me. The hotness meter means nothing, as far as I can tell. It's simply represents what most people click on when they perform a particular search on iTunes. Since only a small percentage of customers buy from iTunes, it really doesn't hold much value. What really matters is sales, public awareness, and whether Apple thinks it will sell iPhones. If it gets reviewed on websites as the next big game, Apple picks up on it. If a member of the mysterious team happens to like a particular game, it probably gets brought to the team for opinions. If you sell a lot of copies, you're on the top 100 lists, which Apple will pick up on. Simply, the only thing that really matters is positive exposure. Apple notices that. It's searched via keywords now, and devs are limited to 100 characters.
