ASO AgencyTravel · US iPhone listing
Does their ASO suck?
Listing creative score · first three captured iPhone screenshots
5/10Fine. A dangerous place to stop.
Expedia has a recognisable booking interface and surrounds it with enough price labels to require a small accounting department. The package total should be at least as easy to understand as the savings claim.
Gab’s verdict · 5/10Gabriel 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 search, package and reward information gives travellers real things to evaluate. Keep it. The competing money labels make the useful comparison harder than it should be. Follow one trip, enlarge the package basis and total, and clarify the reward conditions. A bundle badge is not a complete comparison. The creative should simplify the decision instead of adding arithmetic.
Planning a trip in one app offers a relevant convenience benefit. A specific package or booking decision would make that broad proposition clearer.
Search and prices appear without a completed comparison decision.
Competing monetary labels make the important total small.
Search, bundles and rewards are related but not continuous.
Package and reward mechanics are specific but underexplained.
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: The search interface includes several travel categories and a flight-bundling option.
Why I’m flagging it: Several booking categories postpone one concrete travel benefit.
Lead with a specific trip-comparison example.
What the visitor sees → what I’d change
Look at the original: Multiple monetary labels appear close together in the first result card.
Why I’m flagging it: Savings, crossed-out figures and per-person totals compete.
Enlarge the exact package basis and total using consistently labelled example data.
What the visitor sees → what I’d change
Look at the original: The example connects a stay to a specific reward amount.
Why I’m flagging it: The earning amount appears without enough programme context.
Show the reward basis and current eligibility alongside the same trip.
Proposed copy for discussion. These are not current listing fields or tested winners.
Observed listing
Trip planner & travel deals
Proposed alternative
Plan trips. Compare packages.
Name 30/30 · Subtitle 29/30 charactersKeep the current category-rich title and connect planning with the visible package comparison. The alternative avoids implying that every itinerary delivers a saving.
The tradeoff: It removes the explicit travel-deals phrase and does not mention rewards. Package-focused wording may be less relevant to people who only want a hotel or car.
Read the sequence from top to bottom on mobile, left to right on desktop. These are message-layout sketches, not screens from Expedia or tested results.
Proposed headline
Put this in the frame: A current destination, date and traveller search using an illustrative itinerary.
Why it earns the space: Retain the clearest existing first action.
Proposed headline
Put this in the frame: A verified flight-and-stay result with a clearly labelled total, included components and any necessary price conditions.
Why it earns the space: Make the purchase basis understandable before emphasising a comparison saving.
Proposed headline
Put this in the frame: A current reward explanation with accurate eligibility and use conditions.
Why it earns the space: Connect rewards to the booking without making them look like cash deducted from today’s total.
The test: Does a clearer package-total hierarchy in frame two improve comprehension and qualified download 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
Hotels, flights & car rentals
Booking.com names hotels, flights and car rentals.
The lesson: The category breadth is similar. Expedia’s bundle story should explain its own price basis rather than claim a universal advantage.
Observed competitor metadata
Last-minute stays & rewards
Hotels.com emphasises hotel deals, last-minute stays and rewards.
The lesson: Its lodging-first proposition is narrower. This is an alternative listing comparison, not a claim that every travel brand has independent ownership or equivalent inventory.
Observed competitor metadata
Plan vacations & book trips
KAYAK names flights, hotels, cars and trip planning.
The lesson: Research and booking intentions overlap, but booking paths and support responsibility must be verified rather than assumed identical.
Intent candidates grounded in the listing—not fabricated search-volume or difficulty scores.
Visitor’s job: Search dates and organise a trip.
Evidence: The title names travel categories and the first frame demonstrates the search fields.
Decision: Preserve task clarity and separate hotel-only from multi-component trip intentions.
Visitor’s job: Compare a combined trip with alternatives.
Evidence: The second screenshot explicitly promotes flights and hotels together.
Decision: Research total-price comprehension; no savings percentage or cheapest-price claim can be inferred from the example.
Visitor’s job: Understand what a booking earns and how it can be used.
Evidence: The third frame shows a named OneKeyCash earning example.
Decision: Verify current programme terms and distinguish reward credit from the price paid today.
The unseen keyword field may already cover some of these terms. Build an evidence-backed keyword shortlist before making a metadata change.
Three historical booking-service accounts were selected for inclusions, changes and credits. They are from 2019–2020 and carry five stars despite critical text. Property-only feedback, a personal travel story, promotional-looking general text and an account ambiguously naming two platforms were excluded from the selected set. These are research leads, not a current mobile reliability study.
Sample: 3 selected accounts from 8 displayed reviews. Dates: 24 January 2019–27 December 2020. No sentiment percentage is calculated.
28 September 2019 · 5/5 stars
“special request”
A September 2019 reviewer described an unresolved airline-seating handoff despite attempts to communicate a special request.
What I’d investigate: Research who handles post-booking changes today; the account does not establish current app behaviour or responsibility for that dispute.
Listing review source · Review ID 485536890724 January 2019 · 5/5 stars
“fees for the excess baggage”
A January 2019 website-booking account disputed baggage information across connecting airlines.
What I’d investigate: Use inclusion clarity as a research lead. This is historical service feedback, not a reproduced defect in the current iPhone app.
Listing review source · Review ID 368904410927 December 2020 · 5/5 stars
“airline credit”
A December 2020 account described difficulty rebooking with a credit during pandemic disruption.
What I’d investigate: Verify present credit and support flows independently; do not repeat its allegations or historical policy details as current facts.
Listing review source · Review ID 6800822947A 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.
Several booking categories postpone one concrete travel benefit.
Deliverable: Lead with a specific supported trip-comparison example.
Creative brief and current-product checkSavings, crossed-out figures and per-person totals compete.
Deliverable: Enlarge the exact package basis and total using consistently labelled example data.
Creative brief and current-product checkThe earning amount appears without enough programme context.
Deliverable: Show the supported reward basis and current eligibility alongside the same trip.
Creative brief and current-product checkDoes a clearer package-total hierarchy in frame two improve comprehension and qualified download 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 Expedia. 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.
