What Does Time Spent Mean For A Mobile App? Not What You Might Think

Written by Evan Schuman
August 8th, 2012

A very interesting mini-report from Nielsen came out on Wednesday (Aug. 8), one that ranked the top mobile shopping apps used in June. But when it also listed those with the highest time spent, it glaringly failed to say why. And that “why” makes all of the difference.

In that category, Shopkick blew everyone away with an average of 3 hours, 19 minutes and 11 seconds. So why did Shopkick blow everyone else away, average time spent wise? It has to do with the nature of that app, not that its users were so enraptured by the content.

The usual retail suspects (eBay, Amazon, Groupon and Shopkick) topped the list (in that order), with Walgreens and Target showing up in the very respectable six and seven slots. The interesting part looks at the average time spent.

After Shopkick’s more than three-hour performance, the second place for time spent went to eBay, which racked up two-thirds less time with 1 hour, 4 minutes and 2 seconds. Time spent then plunged with a third-place finish for the Out-of-Milk Shopping List for Android at 31 minutes, 30 seconds; fourth place for Groupon at 21 minutes, 16 seconds; and fifth for Amazon at 18 minutes, 39 seconds. Everyone else was in the single digits of minutes neighborhood.

So why did Shopkick and eBay blow away everyone else, average time spent wise? Context. The second-place winner, eBay, is still primarily an auction app, so its users are watching bids and being prepared to top any bids when needed. Hence, they need to keep the app open. But at least that means the users are actively engaged with—or at least passively watching—that app.

The Shopkick situation is even more divorced from a captivated audience. The app needs to be launched right before entering a store to get points, and it then needs to stay launched to collect points at various points inside the store. The user is not interacting with—or even looking at—the app, because it’s the ultimate background application. The app is interacting with Shopkick sensors and the store’s Wi-Fi much more than with shoppers. If the customer happens to be visiting Macy’s, those interactions might even be with the store’s music speakers, but they’re still not happening a lot with the shoppers.

It’s just like the early days of Web analytics: IT chiefs were thrilled with the new data to look at, but it took a while to figure out what that data really meant. Did everyone really like the yellow shirt or did they simply always click on whatever was placed in the upper-right-hand corner?


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.