TapContext is shit - breaking policy and making loosing active users!

While contextual ads may have potential - the way TapContext is doing it would make most developers (who are seeking some level of comfort for their users in their apps) uncomfortable:

  • there is only one major company advertising on TapContext - Armor for Android and most of the other apps are sub-apps of Armor.

  • the whole ad network seems geared to sell Armor product

  • Armor is on Google Play for like $30+ - yet is on offer via TapContext for $0.99 - the discrepancy is that it is a SUBSCRIPTION !!! - yet that is not apparent at least on the initial screen - this would also explain the “pay your over 6 months” model for TapContext - they will pay developers over months as they suck the user dry

  • TapContext is also very aggressive with recruiting developers to aid their story - they offer a 15% referral commission FOR LIFE - compare that to Leadbolt’s 1%. When I first heard of the 15% that immediately raised alarm bells - if nothing for the sense that if I used their ad network - SOMEONE was going to be earning 15% of what could potentially have been given to me direct

  • aggressive e-mail campaign to signup developers with outrageous rewards - $300 as one reported and then someone mentioned some type of lottery for $20K (or was that another ad network ?)

All signs suggest a quick-buck outfit that knows an extinction horizon is near - frenzied activity anticipating a potential ban ?

The 15% referral “bribe” to developers also keeps some to temper their criticism - in effect it is an attempt to muzzle or force discussion in a certain direction (at least that is the impression I get with such a high referral fee).

Now we come to the user experience - I am not that comfortable with push ads and startapp-type bookmark and icon ads - however they seem to pale in comparison to the aggressive take-over-your-phone performance of TapContext - it shows a notification ad from Armor - plus it gives an impression of harrassment of a need that may not exist. PLUS it is a very costly program - costing $30+ and looking like it is $0.99 - so they charge users on their credit cards.

I suspect they know that this credit card scheme is going to see reversals in a couple of months - so they are signing up people left and right - and trying to bribe developers along the way.

Even their rep here - while making a valiant effort - has a righteous behaviour “my way or the highway” - basically talking about devleopers are responsible for the permissions and how to rate their app etc. (is that GUIDELINE given in TapContext docs ?). And about “your app may not be right for us then” - these are hallmarks of a scam outfit which seeks to harrass opposition when it emerges - as every day they remain in operation is profit for them.

This is of course purely my perception of this ad network - but one fact is clear - it does not seem to be designed to last long - all the warning signs are there.

That said, Google is no better - it will ban developers apps without them doing TapContext type stuff - so perhaps there IS a market for such stuff - app developers who are pissed off at Google, create multiple accounts - then become welcome partners to such outfits which force subscription-model costly apps (whose need is created out of fear/harrassment of the user).

Google really needs to clean up their banning policies so that developers do not “go rogue” - or at least the justification many use is removed by Google becoming a nice and pleasant partner - maybe devote some people to deal with developers - one problem STRUCTURALLY for Google is that much of their stuff depends on secrecy (from being “gamed” - for example search engine optimization would benefit from people knowing how Google is ranking etc.) - that such secrecy then forces Google to to perhaps cut down on it’s communication with people - for fear of inadvertent leakage (i.e. revealing “why” a developer was banned may reveal some of that).

However, that is just an untenable way of doing business - and is grounds for legal challenge (perhaps at the EU) ?