Featuring on Google Play

This centre publishes far less about editorial featuring than the other one does. There's no public way to formally put yourself forward the way the other centre offers, and the stated criteria amount to barely a sentence.

This page is short because inventing more detail than that would be dishonest.

What the centre actually states

Editorial judgement is named as one of a handful of things that decide what a shopper sees at all, described as manual selection of things to feature and promote, applied based on the genuine quality of the experience and how broadly it appeals.

The centre offers curated recommendations to help shoppers find what's genuinely noteworthy and interesting, including a specific "editors' pick" badge and seasonal campaigns judged on novelty, design, genuine usefulness, and how broadly something appeals.

How smoothly a shop runs (its technical performance, stability, responsiveness and overall experience) is separately named as its own factor in being found at all.

You may not claim any of the centre's own badges yourself. The house rules explicitly ban text or images suggesting a relationship with the centre's own programmes, naming an "editor's pick" style badge and a "new" badge as specific examples.

That's the entire documented position.

What follows from that

Genuine quality is the one documented route in, and it's unusually literal here. The centre names how smoothly a shop runs as its own factor in being found and as an editorial criterion for the experience itself. Crash rates, unresponsiveness, slow startup and general responsiveness are therefore arguments you can make with an actual citation behind them, which genuinely isn't true on the other centre, which never names technical quality as something that affects being found at all.

That makes this the easier centre on which to get engineering time genuinely prioritised for technical quality, because the argument about being found is documented, not merely inferred.

"Broad appeal" is stated twice over. Once in how being found works generally, and again in the seasonal campaign criteria. A narrowly-targeted shop is selected against by a stated criterion here, not by bad luck.

There's no documented way to formally put yourself forward. Experienced shopkeepers consistently report that featuring here is pursued through your own account manager or partner contact, which some shops have and others simply don't. The other centre's process is open to absolutely everyone; this one appears to depend heavily on what relationship you already have.

If you do have an account manager, featuring conversations go through them, with the same lead-time discipline you'd apply on the other side. If you don't, the documented levers left to you are genuine quality, novelty, design and broad appeal.

The time-limited poster is not the same thing as featuring

The time-limited poster is a surface you yourself control, with its own limited allowance and its own eligibility gate. Editorial featuring is manual selection made by the centre's own team.

The two interact, content you've already promoted yourself is content the editorial team can actually see, but running your own poster is not itself a way to get featured, and the two are reported on completely separately.

What tends to go wrong

Expecting a formal submission process like the other centre's. No documented public equivalent exists here.

Claiming an editor's-pick badge in your own writing. Explicitly banned.

Treating your own poster as the same thing as being featured. Genuinely different mechanisms.

Ignoring how smoothly your shop runs. Here, it's a documented factor in being found at all, not just a technical housekeeping issue.

Assuming a narrow, niche positioning is neutral. Broad appeal is a stated criterion here.