arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2504.16151

Advertising Spillovers in Mobile Apps: Evidence from Ad Shutoffs and Store Rankings

Abstract

Using advertising campaign data from a large US-based mobile game developer, the authors study a global advertising shutoff in the context of mobile app install ads. Contrary to prior studies in search advertising, which reveal a major over-attribution problem where paid advertising takes credit for organic traffic that would have occurred otherwise, this study shows the opposite: paid ads generate positive spillovers to organic installs. Event study analysis shows that the shutoff decreased organic installs by 20-30%. Fixed-effects panel models estimated on longer-term data find that every $100 spent is associated with 32 paid installs and 2.2 organic installs, highly consistent with the event study estimates. Further analysis strongly suggests that this positive paid-to-organic spillover operates through a ranking mechanism: paid installs boost app store category rankings, thereby increasing organic visibility. Combining campaign and ranking data, the authors find that (1) ad spend has a statistically and economically significant relationship with store rankings; and (2) the relationship between organic installs and ad spend disappears once these rankings are factored in, indicating that they absorb the relationship. These findings demonstrate that mobile app install ads are more effective than paid install metrics alone indicate, implying that developers may systematically underinvest in marketing.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Harang Ju, Michael Zhao, Sinan Aral. 2026-07-10. Advertising Spillovers in Mobile Apps: Evidence from Ad Shutoffs and Store Rankings. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.16151

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN