We have an app that’s been in the store for a year, and the latest version was rejected for
Guideline 5.6 - Developer Code of Conduct. The app attempts to manipulate customers into making unwanted in-app purchases. Specifically, the app shows a one time offer for subscription when the user closes the initial subscription page launched upon opening the app.
Essentially we have a soft paywall at the end of onboarding, and if the user closes that paywall we pop a second paywall with a one-time offer with an introductory offer (2 months for $1, “Once you close your one-time offer, it’s gone!”). We’ve had this in the last few versions of the app, but not been flagged for it.
The strategy of having a one time offer after end of the onboarding paywall is not uncommon, and we are copying the approach used by many other apps in the app store. Limited time offers are a staple of marketing across all types of B2C stores.
Does anyone have any experience with this type of rejection? Should we stick to our approach and escalate to a phone call? Change the one-time offer to a “limited time offer” (e.g. reduced price for 12 hours) so there is less pressure to decide right then? It’s a strange rejection because it doesn’t seem like we are doing anythign unusual. An onboarding soft-paywall followed by a one time offer is less of a push than a hard paywall (which is approvable), and offers some people an appealing way to test the app before committing to pay for a subscription (which doesn’t offer free trials).
However, we don’t want to get flagged as a bad actor by the App Store reviewers.
