LinkedIn Employee Slams Google for Its 'Flawed' Mobile App Study (Updated)

Yesterday, Google declared it was tweaking its mobile search results to demote sites that run ads taking over the screen to promote apps. Google justified the move with its own study showing that users tend to hate these sorts of ads.

Several companies were wary of Google’s move, particularly those that make their living on their app and like to hawk it in as many ways as possible. An employee at one of those companies, LinkedIn, aired that wariness publicly. Omar Restom, a mobile product manager for the professional networking site, wrote a post on Tuesday evening calling Google’s study “quite flawed.”

Update: A rep from LinkedIn writes that this is the personal opinion of one employee, and “not a proclamation from the company in any way.”

Restom cites a study using LinkedIn’s full-screen app-install ads — interstitials — that debunks Google’s, arguing that the search giant deployed lousy targeting and diminishes the draw of creative ads.

Much of the reason why Google’s study is flimsy, Restom writes, is that it centered on the Google+ app, which, to put it mildly, is not hugely popular. Google said nearly 70 percent of users left the page when the big app-install ads appeared, with only 2 percent downloading. LinkedIn claims a bounce rate of 26 percent and download rate of 20 percent for ads pitching its app.

Restom piled on: “Google admits that it was showing their interstitial even to users who already have the app — that’s bad mojo and fundamentally bad audience targeting. Again, Google should only have shown this promo to people who actually want and need the app.”

We reached out to Google for comment, and will add if they respond.

Update II: The initial post from Restom has been pulled. Here’s a cached version.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via