A rise in paid-install share does not measure incremental demand

AppsFlyer reports a 10% year-on-year rise in paid-install share. The wording describes a share change; it should not be silently rewritten as ten percentage points. Source and methodology.

Keep attributed share apart from causality

A paid-install share can change because paid installs increase, organic installs fall, attribution rules change, or the sampled app mix changes. Those are analytical possibilities, not claims that any one of them explains this report. The public summary alone does not identify the contribution of each mechanism.

Our recommendation is to display both the numerator and denominator in an internal comparison. Preserve the definition of paid, treatment of reinstalls and relevant attribution settings. A ratio can appear stable while both underlying counts move substantially, or change sharply while the absolute paid count barely moves.

Ask a narrower budget question

The full report’s public introduction establishes a gaming study, not an experiment in switching paid media on and off. The observed share therefore cannot by itself tell a studio how many additional players its next pound of spend will create.

A better use is to investigate dependence: how much of your observed install flow is currently assigned to paid channels, and how sensitive is the business to that flow? Use a separately designed incrementality study for the causal question. The evidence card leaves the missing weighting and baseline fields visible instead of converting a headline into a universal paid-to-organic target.

Inspect the evidence

Download the source-population and comparability card. The extraction separates documented facts from our analysis and unknowns.

Further reading in the existing archive: Attribution is an allocation rule, not a truth; How to Read AppsFlyer's Annual Gaming Benchmarks Report. These links provide background; this check does not independently verify their full contents.