Facebook Audience Network - Corona revenue share?

Corona Marketplace Corona Community Plugins
#1

Hi,
I was thinking to use the FB Audience Network to monetize my next app and was happily surprised to find a plugin available in the Corona Store…

However, looking through the documentation I found the note:

For monetization through the Facebook Audience Network plugin, Corona Labs takes a 20% revenue share in the form of a ratio model.[background=#ffffff] [/background]

I understand Corona taking a cut on its Corona Ads, but also 20% on FB Ads?
Can we expect a similar move for the other ads platform currently available (admob, iAds, etc.)?

Thanks for your answers

#2

Thanks for the question.  We’ve been working hard on the Facebook Audience Network plugin and are excited to release it in the very near future - as you can tell docs are up already!

Re: other monetization plugins, our general thought is that we’d like to succeed with our publishers’ success.  As such, we’re working on models like the one in place for Facebook Audience Network but they will vary in arrangement (some will be ratios but with different rev-shares, some will be tiered rev-shares based on volume, others you’ll have an indirect relationship with an ad network but will benefit from better rev-shares we have with the network, etc)

At the end of the day, our goal is to have Corona SDK always be free, derive revenue based on publisher success, and then re-invest these earnings in further platform growth/expansion.  

#3

Wow! I didn’t even know there was a FB ads plugin! That’s great!

Roj, thanks for clarifying the stance on the revenue model. If “we’d like to succeed with our publishers’ success” is your stance and it means Corona stays free and growing then I am totally on board! Apple gets more than 20% of all app sales so why can’t Corona be a part of that, right?

Speaking of revenue sharing, we plan to switch over to Corona Ads once it goes to public beta so that we can use a more unified ad model while at the same time pumping revenue into Corona Labs, a company that we really want to support and help grow.

#4

Good news but now I cant build, following error appears: module ‘plugin_fbAudienceNetwork’ not found:

The revenure share seems fair, but I would be happier with Corona if it was a bit lower.

#5

Here is the formal announcement.

https://coronalabs.com/blog/2016/01/15/introducing-the-facebook-audience-network-plugin/

Rob

#6

Hi there.

Are you still having problems building?

If so, can you post up your build.settings file and tell me what platform you’re building from and what platform you’re building for?

Thank you

#7

I was excited to see another ad provider but then saw the 20% cut :frowning:

Think this is not a good solution. Now the FB ads have to outperform AdMob 20% to get even.

Would be better if the plugin had a fixed price.

And please open the plugin development to all developers OR start the paid Corona Plugin marketplace as promised a long time ago.

#8

 
Im still having the same problem. Im with Windows building for Android. My Corona version is 2016.2089
 
My build.settings is:

settings = { orientation = { default = "portrait", supported = { "portrait" } }, android = { usesPermissions = { "android.permission.INTERNET", "android.permission.WRITE\_EXTERNAL\_STORAGE", "android.permission.ACCESS\_NETWORK\_STATE", "android.permission.READ\_PHONE\_STATE", "android.permission.VIBRATE", }, }, plugins = { ["plugin.google.play.services"] = { publisherId = "com.coronalabs" }, ["CoronaProvider.gameNetwork.google"] = { publisherId = "com.coronalabs", supportedPlatforms = { android=true } }, ["plugin.adbuddiz"] = { publisherId = "com.adbuddiz" }, ["CoronaProvider.analytics.flurry"] = { publisherId = "com.coronalabs" }, ["plugin.fbAudienceNetwork"] = { publisherId = "com.coronalabs", supportedPlatforms = { iphone=true, android=true, osx=true } }, }, }

Thanks ands cheers

#9

Are you getting this error in the simulator or when you build for device?

If it’s in the simulator, comment out the “supportedPlatforms” line. Relaunch the projects, this will let the simulator download it’s stub file (that tells you politely, you have to build for device) and then you can uncomment the line for build purposes.

Rob

#10

@ubj3d.android, we hear your concerns. But as Roj said a couple of posts up, the revshare model makes sense. If you’re successful, we are successful. It keeps Corona SDK free and gives us the resources to expand the product.

Plugin development is open to everyone. SDK users can build and submit pure Lua plugins today (@schroderapps Twitter plugin is an example.) If you need to write native code, you have to have Enterprise for that since SDK can’t link against native libraries and frameworks that you would want to use.

And the paid marketplace is going to happen, I just don’t know when. There are a lot of moving parts involved.

Rob

#11

I think it is not fair that you charge for one ad platform and another is free.

As I wrote, now FB ads have to outperform AdMob for 20% to get even.

I was OK with the paid model Corona had before going free. I am aware you have to make revenue too.

What I would do if I was CEO of Corona is go back to the paid model of Corona Pro and would ad Corona Enterprise to that.

When I talk about plugin development, I am not talking about lua plugins, I am talking about using a lot of SDKs out there which is not possible to Corona devs and you do not give us the tool (Corona Enterprise, $1000 each year is to much) so we can make it alone, you started charging for the plugins.

Look at Unity, whenever there is a new SDK out there, there is a plugin for it. I am so many times sorry I didn’t started with Unity, now I am to “deep” into Corona development to switch to another platform.

Hoping some day someone in charge will understand the benefits Corona community would have if native Corona plugins would be available to indie devs.

#12

@ubj3d.android : I was also worried and asked about the other plugins (admob, etc)… As stated by roj, their goal to apply a similar revenue share method to the other ad platforms too:

Re: other monetization plugins, our general thought is that we’d like to succeed with our publishers’ success.  As such, we’re working on models like the one in place for Facebook Audience Network but they will vary in arrangement… 

I also would have preferred the paid model as before, but since it was changed many times I think, as revenue, didn’t work out as planned, and now that Corona is free Perk needs a way to monetize it. As they say, if you’re not paying for it you’re the product.

I’m looking forward for Corona Ads, hope is going to perform well and that relying on that will be the best, simplest and most effective solution to monetise small apps made in Corona. 

If it ends up with all the ad plugins going on a similar revenue share and Corona ads not performing better than Admob/FB etc I’ll probably switch to xcode/swift even for small projects (or other sdk like Defold), since the real cost of Corona would skyrocket. 

I mean, with this revenue model the real cost of Corona will be 1/5 of my revenue from ads, and yearly, that would make CoronaSDK much more expensive than Corona Enterprise Unlimited.

What I would like is:

  1. Perk focusing on monetizing Corona ads instead of applying 1/5 of revenue share method to the other platforms, or

  2. A Corona Pro/Small Enterprise edition where you can use native plugins for admob, facebook ads etc – without the revenue share going to Corona –  priced around 50/60 usd per month  )

But anyway, hope the best of luck to Perk & Corona!

#13

Is the Perk ad shown first?

 

If so, that disadvantages the developer. E.g. 1 interstitial shown and then app closure does happen. But perhaps more importantly…

 

… Those earning a pittance using Corona will likely not object to the ratio model. Those, like David Grant, Mediaflex and Hi Guess (and there are others) that earn serious money will almost certainly not accept this. It’s simply too costly for the developer. Different Corona developers will effectively be paying different amounts for the same product.

 

the revshare model makes sense. If you’re successful, we are successful.

 

I can’t see how Perk can get a good return on this “ratio” model. The top earning Corona developers will be forced to move on. Those earning very little (even if there are large numbers of them) will likely not generate enough revenue to sustain Corona/Perk.

 

Let’s survey the community. I for one wish to see a return to a paid subscription.

 

Many developers fail to monetize successfully from platforms other than iOS. That makes Swift an attractive proposition. Still, I and many others have invested time in Corona SDK and would prefer to stick with it. But not at the expense of the punitive “ratio” model. 

 

Corona developers - please. I ask you not to sit on the sidelines with an indifferent attitude. The future of Corona rides on this. Please get involved and voice your opinion and let’s have a healthy debate.

 

Best – Anthony.

#14

Agree with Anthony.
The revenue share model would probably work and be great for people just starting coding apps, but for small developers the real cost would get too high.

Let’s say a small dev makes 1500$ per month with ads, 18.000USD per year… with a 20% share for Perk we’re talking of a real cost of 3600USD for Corona. Even at 15% it’s basically like paying for an Enterprise Unlimited license.

At that point you could just get Corona Enterprise and use native ads plugins (BTW, is it allowed right?)… but what if the basic version of Corona is more than enough? Doesn’t make sense getting Enterprise if you don’t need it.

IMO, A Pro version for small devs would be the best option.

#15

I would venture to say that I’m in the top 10% when it comes to ad revenue from corona sdk apps. I would also venture to say that I’m probably in the top 10% when it comes to total money spent on corona sdk in the past. I’ve owned multiple corona cards subscriptions, multiple pro subscriptions as well as multiple enterprise subscriptions. I’ve been getting everyone I know to use corona because, simply put I think it’s the best. I’ve converted at least 50 people over to corona and that was back when it was still paid. I’m a huge fan of corona and the tools they built. 

With all of that being said taking 20% of my business for nothing in return seems insane. You’re not growing with me you’re growing because of me. At 20% (that’s net by the way not even gross) I’d be paying you guys almost half a million dollars. Perk only paid 2 million for the whole company you want me to pay 1/4 that just to use it?

The rev sharing is only going to make your big guys leave and leave you fetching scraps of the little guys. Please give us the option to go the free route or pay to remove the rev sharing. 

Also can someone confirm that admob / vungle will not be moved to rev sharing in the future?

#16

Wow, you’re making great money from ads @dmglakewood, congratulations!

Still, I don’t want other devs to get the impression that the 20% revenue share only hurts bigger developers who makes a lot of money like dmglakewood.

If you’re making even 500$/month in ads it would mean that you’re going to pay 1200/year for the basic version of corona. 

At that point Enterprise would be cheaper.

My question: if you’re using Enterprise, can you just download the native ad plugins from Facebook/Google etc and implement them  using swift/obj c with Corona, therefore not being subjected to the revenue share?

#17

Thank you. Yeah exactly rev sharing isn’t a smart move for any developer. You’re essentially giving someone 20% of your company. The more you make the more it really starts to add up. Sure free sounds good until you realize that free is costing you thousands of dollars. 

Yeah with enterprise you can load in your own ads and not pay the 20% but it makes things a lot more complex. You can no longer just build from the simulator and depending on how you have your code setup you can’t even use the simulator anymore at all. A better option I think besides enterprise is corona cards. You can build your whole app in corona using the simulator and then essentially just use a native wrapper around corona to show ads natively. It still adds some complexity to it as you have to send events from corona to native code but at the end of the day if it means getting to keep 20% of my own company then I will do it for sure.  

#18

Yeah, that would probably be the best option when/if a similar revenue share model will be applied to the other ad platforms.

And actually the cost of both Corona Card licenses (ios/android) is roughly the same to Enterprise.

Still, from a business perspective, it would make much more sense for Perk to just offer the free version with revenue share for hobbyists and reintroduce a paid Corona Pro for small/mid developers. 

Why push devs to use Cards/Enterprise if they don’t really need it, only to not be subjected to the revenue share?

IMO, they should figure out a plan for small/mid devs, something like:

  • Free edition, with revenue share on ads for hobbyists and dev just starting

  • Pro edition, with no revenue share on ads  - for small/mid devs that would be excessively penalised by the revenue share but don’t actually need Cards/Enterprise 

  • Enterprise/Cards

Otherwise… I’ll end up just getting Corona Cards 

#19

Hi folks, it’s Roj.  First off, I’d like to apologize for not being able to respond to new comments until now.  I’ve been in transit to our Bangalore office and bouncing around India for the last few days so I could not get to this topic until now.

To those who are mentioning that this model is clearly not conducive to developers who already have several million impressions being served a month and have an active user base - you are right.  As such we are revising our ratio model to be tiered based on growth and will be providing details about this early next week. 

To those who have been supportive of our decision to operate this plugin on a ratio model, I appreciate this.  Our goal is to ensure the longevity of the Corona SDK framework and this strategy is one of *many* we will be employing towards this mission.  We understand that the plugin ratio model may not be appropriate for all developers but also believe that more options instead of fewer makes for a more vibrant ecosystem allowing for more possibilities when building apps.

To those curious about whether or not ratio models will be applied to both legacy and future ad networks, the answer is “it depends”.  We are working with various networks to establish different kinds of models some of which will keep plugins functioning the way they have, others which will allow new monetization plugins to exist in the plugin ecosystem in a way that is mutually beneficial to both the developer as well as the platform itself.

#20

Update!  We are changing the revenue sharing model!

The new model starts at 16% (1:6). After 10,000 ad requests per day, the next tier kicks in at a 1:8 ratio (12.5% effective revenue sharing rate). As your app generates more impressions and accumulates an additional 30,000 requests that day, the rate drops to 1:10, or 10%. If you do more than 1 million ad requests in a day, you get a 1:20 or 5% rate. Because there is no way of knowing how many ads you will deliver in a day, the first 10,000 ads will be at, the 1:6 ratio. From 10,000 to 40,000, will be at the 1:8 ratio and so on.

And as a bonus, if you implement the Facebook Audience Network plugin before March 1st, you will be locked in to a special introductory rate of 5% for all tiers.