• Survicate partnered with UXCam to survey mobile app creators for a comprehensive report on mobile app feedback efficiency
• While app store reviews are the most popular source of feedback, in-app reviews are the most trusted
• The report also revealed that various AI tools and features grow in popularity for feedback collection and assessment

Survicate is a well-known survey software developer originating from Poland. They offer a range of services from testing product-market fit or gathering user feedback to prioritizing feature development. The company wrapped up 2023 with its Mobile App Feedback Report. The report draws from product managers, UX professionals, and app developers working for companies of various industries and sizes, to analyze ways in which they gather user feedback, the effectiveness of those methods, and the challenges arising along the way.

To prepare the report, Survicate teamed up with UXCam employing the latter’s mobile expertise to design the study and collect responses. UXCam also contributed their insights to the final report for a deeper understanding of the findings.

The Efficiency of Feedback

As UXCam’s VP Marketing Peter Gardus points out, good user experience is no longer an advantage but an expectation. According to his numbers, 13% of mobile users will tell 15 or more people if they had a bad experience, but only 1 out of 26 users actually leave a bad review. This means over 90% of frustrated users simply leave.

‘At UXCam, we work with thousands of mobile apps and measure frustration signals like rage gestures. According to our product usage data, the percentage of mobile app sessions having frustration signals can vary from 0.3% to as high as 10%, depending on the industry. It is therefore more important than ever for product teams to stay on top of user feedback,’ Mr Gardus adds.

To measure the effectiveness of obtaining user feedback, the authors of the report looked at several key indicators:

• Coverage and Diversity: How well the feedback represents your entire user base, including different demographics and user types.
• Actionability: The extent to which the feedback provides clear, actionable insights that can guide improvements or innovations.
• Feedback Quality: The depth and relevance of the feedback, assessing whether it gives detailed insights into user needs and experiences.
• Response Rate: The percentage of users who respond to feedback requests, indicating engagement and willingness to share their thoughts.
• Implementation Impact: Evaluating changes made based on feedback and measuring their impact on user satisfaction, retention, and product performance.
• Time to Insight: How quickly feedback can be turned into actionable insights, indicating the efficiency of your feedback collection and analysis processes.

The Evaluation by Mobile App Creators

Survicate and UXCam state that by monitoring these aspects, businesses can ensure they’re gathering user feedback effectively, leading to informed decisions and improved user experiences. For the purposes of the report, the authors created a special Effectiveness Score and asked the respondents to rate the effectiveness of the methods they use on a scale from 1 (not effective) to 5 (very effective). Respondents evaluated the effectiveness of feedback collection based on how well it helped them overcome their challenges.

‘More mobile apps are being made and downloaded each year. Our report aims to understand how feedback can help app developers beat competitors, gain more users, and retain them longer. There are many ways to collect feedback, so we wanted to know how useful developers find it in their work. We asked how many developers collect feedback, how many methods they use, and what stops them from using this feedback in app development,’ Survicate’s partner marketing manager Marta Janczewska-Bażak comments.

Key Findings and Takeaways

The report’s findings include a curious paradox: app creators frequently use app store reviews for feedback because they are easily accessible and provide immediate user impressions. At the same time, creators don’t find these reviews the most reliable due to their unstructured nature and potential bias from only highly motivated users (either very satisfied or dissatisfied) making the effort to leave a review. This creates a paradox where the convenience of gathering feedback contrasts with the desire for comprehensive and balanced insights.

‘It might be related to the fact that most respondents combine more than three feedback sources. Working with feedback – analysis, prioritization, categorization – might be more challenging if insights are scattered in different tools and app makers have to spend a lot of time identifying the trends and verifying assumptions,’ Survicate’s product marketing manager Karolina Brach tells ITKeyMedia.

Other key takeaways are as follows:

• Most mobile app creators prefer to collect feedback by combining various channels. However, the respondents overwhelmingly spoke in favor of feedback collection
• methods that included in-app surveys (65% Effectiveness Score). The report also found that neglecting in-app surveys decreases the feedback’s effectiveness by 8%.
• At that, 30.8% of respondents deem it most efficient to launch surveys when users perform specific actions in the app, such as pressing a button or visiting a particular screen. Meanwhile, 46.3% of respondents collect feedback periodically in order to  track changes  and trends in how users feel about the app.
• Overall, feedback analysis and prioritization pose challenges for 57.1% of respondents. Fortunately, mobile app makers are quickly learning to unlock the potential of AI tools and features to help with this task. 42.1% of them already use ChatGPT or other AI software.

Survicate’s marketing director Barbara Derkowska-Podhajska welcomes all app creators who find themselves haunted by questions like ‘How can I keep my users hooked? What do they really think about my app?’ to a treat of insights packed into Mobile App Feedback 2023 Report.

‘No hocus-pocus, just solid insights for the taking,’ Ms Derkowska-Pohajska concludes.