ASO AgencyFood & delivery · US iPhone listing
Does their ASO suck?
Listing creative score · first three captured iPhone screenshots
4/10Recognisable. Not convincing.
DoorDash opens with everything, then finally shows what is nearby. The first frame is a product collage that could promise far more than the visitor's address supports. Start with the useful local choice.
Gab’s verdict · 4/10Gabriel Machuret
One storefront, one language and a dated capture. This is an independent editorial audit, not a client case study.
Gab’s take · Five criteria. Two points each.
The browse and order surfaces are recognisable, and range matters to shoppers. Keep that. Make the local availability and relevant conditions as understandable as the bright orange campaign. Show one local order and its tracking. Enlarge delivery qualifications and reduce the add-on clutter. Availability should be demonstrated at the address level, not implied by floating groceries.
The local ordering context offers a relevant convenience proposition. The range-led opener needs a more concrete ordering example.
Browsing and confirmation appear without a focused local decision.
Repeated orange frames and small qualifiers weaken hierarchy.
Range leads before the useful address-to-order path.
Breadth and speed assertions need clearer availability scope.
0: not earned · 1: useful but incomplete · 2: clearly demonstrated. Judged on the dated opening creative; public metadata provides context. These points assess creative execution, not private conversion or ranking performance. Read the scoring criteria · See all ten verdict levels
Inspect the numbered original, read the problem, then compare the proposed fix. The publisher’s creative stays unchanged.
What the visitor sees → what I’d change
Look at the original: A wide assortment of products appears without an app browsing interface.
Why I’m flagging it: The collage supplies no local browsing evidence.
Lead with a real nearby-store example and a specific benefit.
What the visitor sees → what I’d change
Look at the original: The interface anchors discovery to a location and presents store-specific examples.
Why I’m flagging it: Useful local cards compete with promotional decoration.
Enlarge one availability decision at the sample location.
What the visitor sees → what I’d change
Look at the original: A time-led headline is qualified, while the UI presents both tracking and an additional shopping action.
Why I’m flagging it: Tracking and an add-on shop compete beneath a time claim.
Focus on the same order's status and keep timing qualifications readable.
Proposed copy for discussion. These are not current listing fields or tested winners.
Observed listing
Food Delivery, Grocery, Retail
Proposed alternative
Find local food and stores
Name 26/30 · Subtitle 26/30 charactersThe alternative gives the visitor a discovery action and a local context. It deliberately avoids an absolute delivery-time or price claim while preserving the two strongest categories in the captured sequence.
The tradeoff: The current name and subtitle explicitly extend into retail and more categories. The narrower wording could weaken that expansion, so compare relevant category demand before replacing the broader metadata.
Read the sequence from top to bottom on mobile, left to right on desktop. These are message-layout sketches, not screens from DoorDash or tested results.
Proposed headline
Put this in the frame: A current address-based browse screen with verified local examples.
Why it earns the space: Make checking availability the first action instead of implying that every pictured product is everywhere.
Proposed headline
Put this in the frame: A verified menu or grocery selection from the same example journey.
Why it earns the space: Connect browsing to an actual shopping decision with accurate prices and options.
Proposed headline
Put this in the frame: A current tracking view with an estimated window and readable qualifications.
Why it earns the space: Finish one journey before introducing optional add-on shopping.
The test: Does placing the existing address-and-browse frame before the product collage improve conversion? The sketch gives the designer a direction; the actual product and access conditions decide what can ship.
Bring the listing. I’ll help you decide what to keep, what to fix and what to test.
Observed competitor metadata
Fresh grocery delivery & more
Uber Eats names food and groceries and highlights fresh grocery delivery.
The lesson: DoorDash’s broadening category is not unique by itself. Show how a local shopping task begins.
Observed competitor metadata
Restaurant Takeout & Grocery
Grubhub names food delivery, restaurant takeout and groceries.
The lesson: Restaurant and grocery intentions overlap, but the examples should match the audience rather than promise every category equally.
Observed competitor metadata
Shop Grocery Delivery Services
Instacart centres groceries and grocery-delivery services.
The lesson: Its narrower positioning makes the shopping job explicit. DoorDash can retain range while giving one concrete entry point.
Intent candidates grounded in the listing—not fabricated search-volume or difficulty scores.
Visitor’s job: Order a meal from a nearby restaurant.
Evidence: Food categories and takeout imagery appear in the opening sequence.
Decision: Check actual restaurant-intent traffic before making grocery expansion the dominant message.
Visitor’s job: Find available groceries for a delivery address.
Evidence: The second frame shows grocery-store cards beneath a location and search field.
Decision: Research local-shopping language and coverage; do not turn a specific offer example into a universal fee claim.
Visitor’s job: Get an everyday or occasion-specific item locally.
Evidence: The collage and add-on-store examples extend beyond food.
Decision: Validate category availability and the user’s urgency; avoid guaranteed assortment or delivery-time promises.
The unseen keyword field may already cover some of these terms. Build an evidence-backed keyword shortlist before making a metadata change.
These historical accounts were selected for instructions, timing and service expectations. Their captured star ratings conflict with much of the text. They are not a representative sample, and the service disputes have not been independently adjudicated.
Sample: 3 selected accounts from 8 displayed reviews. Dates: 28 April 2020–24 September 2024. No sentiment percentage is calculated.
3 January 2021 · 5/5 stars
“specific instructions”
A January 2021 reviewer described delivery-instruction and cancellation problems.
What I’d investigate: Check the current instruction and confirmation flow; this old account does not verify present service reliability.
Listing review source · Review ID 682423107228 April 2020 · 5/5 stars
“contact info”
An April 2020 reviewer described a delayed order and difficulty getting help.
What I’d investigate: Research how timing and support are explained today without treating the individual account as an operational fact.
Listing review source · Review ID 587333959624 September 2024 · 5/5 stars
“arrival time”
A September 2024 reviewer objected to changing arrival estimates and described other service disputes.
What I’d investigate: Test comprehension of estimated windows and update messages; do not turn disputed allegations into claims about current conduct.
Listing review source · Review ID 11760163860A displayed review can be old, unusually positive or internally inconsistent with its star rating. These accounts suggest questions; they do not establish current defects or typical customer experience. Use the Review Research Desk to keep evidence and interpretation separate.
The collage supplies no local browsing evidence.
Deliverable: Lead with a real supported nearby-store example and a specific benefit.
Creative brief and current-product checkUseful local cards compete with promotional decoration.
Deliverable: Enlarge one supported availability decision at the sample location.
Creative brief and current-product checkTracking and an add-on shop compete beneath a time claim.
Deliverable: Focus on the same order's status and keep timing qualifications readable.
Creative brief and current-product checkDoes placing the existing address-and-browse frame before the product collage improve conversion?
Check Apple’s current product page optimization guidance and custom product page guidance before configuring a test. Write your experiment brief.
1–3: thumbs down · 4–6: thumbs up and down · 7–10: thumbs up
The basics need a serious rethink.
Too many obvious things have been left unfinished.
There is a useful product here. The listing needs to show it.
Some basics work, but the opening wastes attention and under-explains the benefit.
There is usable creative here, but too much of the sales argument is left to the visitor.
Real strengths, undermined by meaningful gaps in the opening story or execution.
A clear, useful demonstration with specific refinements still needed.
The main promise is clear and supported. Refinement matters more than reinvention.
Clear positioning, thoughtful choices and very few loose ends.
An unusually clear, convincing storefront worth learning from.
An editorial verdict on the captured storefront, not a measured ASO score or an assessment of an agency’s private work.
No private analytics, search-rank dataset or internal keyword field was supplied. Review quotations are short excerpts; explanations are our summaries. App names and screenshots belong to their respective owners. We are not affiliated with DoorDash. Read our editorial methodology.
Your app. Your priorities.
Send your listing, market and the problem you want to solve. I’ll explain the scope and fee before work starts. Your budget should buy decisions, not a longer PDF.
Build a relevant keyword shortlist, plan your screenshot sequence or get help with the creative decisions.
