Localisation as transcreation
Expert: with sources and numbers. Plain: the same, without them, for beginners.
Why translating metadata produces text that ranks for nothing, and what to do instead.
Translation converts your words into another language. Transcreation finds out what people in that market actually type, and writes for that. The first produces metadata that ranks for terms nobody searches.
Why translation fails
A translated keyword field is a list of correct words that are not the words people use.
- The common term is often not the dictionary term. Loanwords, English borrowings and local brand-generics are frequently what people type, and a translator will correctly avoid them.
- Query length varies by language and market. How people phrase a search is a cultural habit, not a grammatical fact.
- Ambiguity does not survive. A word that usefully covers two meanings in English usually splits into two words elsewhere, doubling your keyword cost or halving your coverage.
- The category vocabulary may differ. What an app “is” can be named differently in different markets.
A This matters because every text field is set per localization (Required, localizable and editable properties, verified 2026-09-18), and A Apple’s search matches against title, subtitle, keywords and primary category (App Store search), in whichever localization the user is served.
Start from storefronts, not languages
A Each storefront has a default language plus additional supported languages, and which languages those are differs sharply: the US supports eight additional languages, Germany one, India ten. A What a user sees depends on the App Store language for their location, their device language, the localizations you have added, and your primary language; where nothing matches, it falls back to the storefront default or your primary language. (App Store localizations, verified 2026-09-18)
Two consequences people miss:
One localization can serve several storefronts. Spanish (Mexico) is indexed in the US storefront as well as across Latin America.
The cheapest expansion is usually inside a market you already have. Adding a language that your existing storefront additionally supports is often better value than entering a new country. See 10-07, and 10-11 for which languages each storefront indexes.
How to do it
Research in the target language, from scratch. Not “translate the English list then check it”. Start from how the problem is described locally: competitor listings in that storefront, reviews written in that language, store autocomplete with the storefront set correctly, your own support tickets from that market.
Use a person who uses apps in that language. Not only a translator. The question is not “what is the correct word” but “what would you type”.
Validate before committing. Terms you are unsure of can be tested in an Apple Ads campaign in that storefront before they take metadata space (30-09).
Localize indexed fields first, visible fields second. If budget forces a sequence: name, subtitle and keywords carry search; description and promotional text carry conversion. But do not ship a localized subtitle above an English description and call the market localized.
Tier your markets. A handful get real research and localized creative; the rest get correct, unembarrassing metadata. Fifty markets at equal depth produces fifty mediocre ones (00-06).
The cheap way in: machine translation where nobody reads it
Everything above is an argument against machine translation. There is one place the argument does not apply, and it is the useful exception when you are deciding whether a market is worth real money.
The iOS keyword field is not visible to users. So a machine-translated keyword field carries no conversion risk at all, the worst case is that it ranks for terms nobody types. That makes it a probe: fill it, watch whether anything moves in impressions and installs from that storefront over a quarter, and use the answer to decide whether to fund a real localization. Practitioners call this a minimum viable localization.
Two conditions, and they are not optional.
Check every translated term against a live search before you use it. A translation can be correct and still be the wrong word. The example that makes this concrete: machine-translating “film editor” into German returns Filmredakteur: which is the job title, not the activity, and a search shows almost no apps competing for it, because nobody looking for a video editing app types it. The translation is right; the term is dead. A results count or a Search Popularity check catches this in seconds (30-01, 30-02).
Do not extend it to visible text. Title, subtitle, short description and screenshots are read, and a machine-translated visible page costs conversion and credibility in exactly the market you are trying to evaluate. If the probe works, the visible text is the thing you then pay a human for.
This does not apply on Play. Play’s description is indexed and visible, so there is no hidden field to probe with. And Google already offers users an automated translation of an untranslated listing (20-01), so adding your own machine translation on top mostly replaces one automatic translation with a worse one you now own.
Creative is part of this
B Creative localisation is the most commonly skipped lever in ASO, and it is skipped because it is expensive rather than because it does not work. Screenshot captions are text a user reads in the search result itself; leaving them in English in a non-English storefront is the most visible possible signal that the app was not made for that market. See 40-07.
What goes wrong
Machine-translating the keyword field. Produces correct words nobody types.
Localising visible text only. The keyword field is where the ranking is, and it is the field nobody reviews internally because nobody reads it.
Treating a language as a market. Spanish in Mexico, Spain and the US are three different search vocabularies.
Leaving the primary language wrong. It is the fallback for every storefront you have not localised, the default experience for most of the world.
Adding localizations you will not maintain. A stale localization is worse than none: users still see it.
In short
Every fact on this page in one line, with its evidence tier, source and verification date, 4 A · 1 B. Generated from the claim register, so it cannot drift from the page above.
Translation turns your words into another language. Local re-writing finds out what people in that place actually type, and writes for that instead. The first produces filing words that fit for nothing anybody actually asks.
Why straight translation fails
A translated hidden pocket is a list of correct words that simply aren't the words people use.
- The everyday word is often not the dictionary word. A borrowed foreign word, or a local brand-turned-generic term, is frequently what people actually type. And a good translator will correctly avoid exactly that word.
- How long a question is depends on the place, not the grammar. How people phrase what they want is a local habit, not a rule of the language itself.
- Double meanings don't survive. A single word that usefully covers two meanings in one language usually splits into two separate words somewhere else. Either doubling your cost, or halving your coverage.
- The very category itself can be named differently. What a shop even is can be called something different in a different place.
This matters because every piece of writing is set separately per sign-language, and the desk matches against your sign, the line beneath it, your hidden pocket and your floor, whichever sign-language a given shopper actually gets shown.
Start from branches, not from languages
Every branch has its own default sign-language plus a set of others it also reads, and which ones those are differs sharply from branch to branch. What a shopper actually sees depends on their own location's setting, their own device, which sign-languages you've actually written, and your own primary language. And where nothing matches, it falls back to the branch's own default, or to yours.
Two consequences people miss:
One sign-language can serve several branches at once. A language that's merely "additional" in one huge branch might be the default across a whole group of smaller ones.
The cheapest expansion is usually inside a branch you already have. Adding a sign-language your existing branch already reads is often better value than opening in a whole new country.
How to actually do it
Do your homework in the target language, from scratch. Not "translate the local list and check it after." Start from how the problem is actually described there: a rival's own shopfront in that branch, reviews written in that language, autocomplete with that branch actually set, your own complaints from that market.
Use someone who actually uses shops in that language. Not only a translator. The real question isn't "what's the correct word". It's "what would you personally type."
Check before you commit. A word you're unsure of can be tested with a small paid billboard in that branch before it takes up any real room in your writing.
Write your filed pieces first, your persuasion pieces second. If you can only do one at a time: sign, the line beneath it, and your hidden pocket carry filing weight; your leaflet and flyer carry persuasion. But don't ship a translated sign above a leaflet still in the wrong language and call the market done.
Sort your branches into tiers. A handful get real homework and locally-made photos; the rest get correct, unembarrassing basics. Treating every single branch with the same deep attention produces a pile of mediocre ones instead.
The cheap way in: a machine translation nobody actually sees
Everything above is an argument against machine translation. There's exactly one place that argument doesn't apply, and it's genuinely useful when you're deciding whether a branch is even worth real money yet.
The hidden pocket is never seen by a shopper. So a machine-translated hidden pocket carries no risk to conversion at all, the worst that happens is it fits for words nobody asks for. That makes it a probe: fill it, watch for a season whether anything moves in that branch at all, and use the answer to decide whether to fund the real thing. Experienced shopkeepers call this a bare-minimum opening.
Two conditions, and they aren't optional.
Check every translated word against a real, live search before using it. A translation can be technically correct and still be the wrong word entirely. The clearest example: machine-translating a phrase can return the job title for a role instead of the everyday activity, technically correct, but almost nobody looking for the shop actually types the job title. The translation is right; the word is dead on arrival. A quick popularity check catches this in seconds.
Never extend this trick to anything visible. Your sign, your pitch line, and your window captions are all read by people, and a machine-translated visible page costs you conversion and trust in exactly the branch you're trying to evaluate. If the probe works, the visible writing is the thing you then pay a real person for.
This doesn't apply on the other side of the centre. There, the leaflet is both indexed and visible, so there's no hidden pocket to probe with. And that centre already offers shoppers its own automatic translation of an unwritten branch, so bolting your own machine translation on top mostly just replaces one automatic translation with a worse one you now personally own.
Your window photos are part of this too
Redressing your window for a local audience is the most commonly skipped lever in this whole job, and it gets skipped because it's genuinely expensive, not because it doesn't work. A caption on a window photo is text a shopper reads right there in the desk's own answer; leaving it in the wrong language in a local branch is the single most visible sign that the shop wasn't actually made for that place.
What tends to go wrong
Machine-translating the hidden pocket and stopping there. Produces correct words nobody actually types.
Localising only the visible writing. The hidden pocket is where the actual filing happens, and it's the one thing nobody reviews internally, because nobody ever reads it.
Treating one language as one market. The same language spoken in three different places can mean three completely different sets of words people actually type.
Leaving your primary sign-language wrong. It's the fallback for every branch you haven't written for, the default experience for most of the world.
Opening sign-languages you won't actually maintain. A stale one is worse than none at all, shoppers still see it.