How can mobile marketers win over skeptical baby boomers?
Stafaniya Radzivonik, senior director of partnerships-supply at Verve, dives into what it takes to effectively court the elusive silver surfer.
Blog
Skipping supply-path layovers to maximize ROAS
You wouldn’t book a flight with three layovers if you could fly nonstop, right? So why settle for a multi-stop journey in your ad-buying strategy? As a programmatic trader, your job is to get from Point A (the media budget) to Point B (real outcomes) as efficiently and transparently as possible. But many programmatic paths are anything but direct. They’re littered with stopovers — DSPs, resellers, fraud filters, measurement layers — that drain fuel from your budget and delay arrival to your audience. Let’s walk through the programmatic journey — and how supply-path optimization (SPO) is your ticket for a direct flight to better return on ad spend (ROAS). What’s in your programmatic itinerary? Every trader knows that costs come with scale, data, and automation — but how much of your media dollar actually makes it through the entire journey? According to ANA’s 2024 benchmarks, only $0.44 of every ad dollar reaches the end destination: a real, viewable impression served to a human in a brand-safe environment. The rest of your budget? Waiting in line at security or stuck on the tarmac. Here’s the breakdown of that rocky route: Programmatic hop % of ad spend What it means Ad tax 29.8% Multiple intermediaries (DSPs, resellers, etc.) add markup and fees for each transaction — even if they add little value. Ad waste 26.3% This includes non-viewable impressions, invalid traffic (IVT), unmeasurable placements, and fraud. It’s like landing in the wrong airport entirely. Net effective spend 44% What actually delivers outcomes — aka the clean, final destination your campaign was targeting. Breaking down the ad tax What determines how much you spend on ad tax? An analysis of $235 million in ad spend found that well over half of transaction costs (56%) were charged by demand-side platforms (DSPs). How supply-path optimization (SPO) can boost ROAS This is where supply-path optimization (SPO) comes in. Think of SPO as your GPS for programmatic: it helps you plot the most efficient, cost-effective, and direct route between budget and performance. With SPO, you can eliminate advertising layovers and transfers like resellers and unnecessary intermediaries. Finding a more direct path for ad budgets to reach audiences creates efficiencies and offers major benefits for advertisers, including: Reduced costs: Fewer programmatic layovers means less fees. Transparency: Clearer insights into bidding, pricing, and inventory. Brand safety: Direct supply paths offer more control and reduce the risk of fraud. Sustainability: Fewer hops in the supply chain inherently reduces how much energy is used to deliver an ad. These efficiencies ultimately improve ROAS because more ad spend actually reaches your audience. So, what’s the easiest SPO route? Buying direct from a premium SSP. Direct flights only: Why SSPs are the express lane Working directly with an SSP is like flying business class, no layovers. No chaos, no mystery charges, and no detours through out-of-the-way airports. With SSPs that are validated by independent authorities (like Pixalate’s SPO Rankings or Jounce Media’s supply path reports), you can trade with confidence knowing the path is clear. As a media buyer, you’re the pilot of every campaign — and your passengers are ad dollars. You control the route, manage the fuel, and are responsible for a smooth, safe landing. So why take the long way? To ensure a smooth, profitable journey for your media dollars, work directly with a trusted SSP like Verve to reduce turbulence and eliminate hidden fees. Ready to skip the programmatic layovers and fly direct? Let’s optimize your programmatic flight plan. Book a strategy session and we’ll help you map it.
Blog
Back to Basics: How to calculate eCPM and increase ad revenue
What is eCPM, and how can you optimize it? This guide breaks down eCPM calculation, ad buying models, and practical strategies to help publishers maximize revenue.
Blog
Addressing advertising’s over-reliance on the open web
In recent years, the allocation of advertising spend has failed to keep pace with rapid shifts in consumer behavior and technology capabilities. As a result, many brands are pouring tremendous spend into the open web, neglecting the fact that targeting capabilities and consumer attention aren’t what they used to be. At the same time, brand safety concerns on the open web — despite more than a decade of intense scrutiny — continue to leave brands exposed when existing systems allow headline-grabbing nefarious content to slip through, as evidenced by the recent Adalytics CSAM report. The open web, as we once knew it, is struggling. Advertisers need to adjust accordingly—and fast. Let’s look at the forces contributing to a rapid decline in ad opportunities on the open web, as well as the new and more-promising opportunities that are emerging to fill the gap. The continued brand safety crisis Despite ad tech’s best intentions and good-faith efforts to combat the monetization of nefarious content, the most recent Adalytics report calls attention to the ways in which content filters can fail in the open web. This should serve as both a wakeup call and an opportunity for brands and their agencies to identify alternative ways of ensuring brand-safe ad placements. Open-web advertising relies on automated placements across a vast, unregulated landscape. Many advertisers lack full URL-level transparency, making it difficult to know exactly where their ads appear. Meanwhile, previously “safe” walled gardens are stripping away content moderation controls and other safeguards, compelling advertisers to turn elsewhere. Technical filters and moderation do a lot of heavy lifting, but they unfortunately are not always enough to prevent these egregious breaches of trust. Advertisers need to take a hard look at where they’re placing their programmatic dollars. White-listing has been a proven strategy against MFA and other undesirable UGC content, but the real opportunity now is in under-invested, high-quality channels outside the open web. The forces driving consumers away from the open web There are myriad industry shifts underway that are collectively altering the role of the open web in today’s larger media landscape. For example, Google is under immense scrutiny for its alleged monopolistic practices, and forthcoming regulatory mandates could dramatically reshape the services and data connections available to advertisers for use on the open web. At the same time, Google — and the rest of the digital ecosystem — is already repositioning itself for the future. That’s because the real disruption to both search and traditional display channels is coming from generative AI, which is steadily eating into search’s dominance as a way of finding and organizing information. As users increasingly rely on conversational interfaces to access information, they are not using traditional search platforms, and they are not seeing traditional search ads. Likewise, they are also not clicking out to third-party sites, meaning they won’t see display ads on those sites either. This behavioral transition is still in its infancy, but its long-term impact on the open web and our industry will be massive. A move toward quality and control As open web advertising continues to be plagued by upheaval and uncertainty, advertisers are beginning to shift their budgets away from long-tail cheap reach on the web and toward higher-quality, higher-control environments. Advertisers that diversify their media mixes with more direct supply on connected TV (CTV), mobile in-app, and digital out-of-home (DOOH) reduce their brand safety risks while improving outcomes on several fronts. The capacity for brand safety is built into the fabric of in-app and CTV in ways the open web can’t match. That’s because apps are vetted by the app store or device before becoming available to download on a connected TV or mobile phone. There are no blind placements because every ad runs in a controlled, verified environment with full transparency. For CTV and in-app, users have already opted in at least once (often twice on mobile). At the same time, buying direct inventory in these environments reduces costs by eliminating hops in the advertising supply path, ultimately improving ad spend efficiency. By prioritizing non-open-web channels, advertisers naturally prioritize inventory that is curated and largely pre-vetted for brand safety. In addition, these channels offer exclusive full-screen opportunities not available on the open web. This approach ensures advertisers don’t unknowingly fund harmful content. While brand safety vendors are a key part of the equation, the latest Adalytics revelations demonstrate that they are clearly not the only approach to ensuring brand safety. As an industry, we must do more to ensure that our ad dollars are flowing to reputable, trustworthy and quality ad placements. Editor’s note: A version of this article originally appeared in Streetfight Magazine.
Blog
How can mobile marketers win over skeptical baby boomers?
Stafaniya Radzivonik, senior director of partnerships-supply at Verve, dives into what it takes to effectively court the elusive silver surfer.
Press
Top 5 adtech tools this week: Magnite, Exclaimer, Media.net, Adobe and Verve
From Magnite’s new CTV/OTT solution to Exclaimer’s integration with LinkedIn, here’s our round up of new ways to power up your tech stack.
Read the full article at Performance Marketing World.
Blog
Top monetization mistakes in hypercasual gaming (and how to fix them)
Monetizing hypercasual games can be a goldmine, but it comes with a set of unique challenges. As competition continues to heat up in ad tech, many publishers fall into common traps that can significantly hinder their revenue potential. Whether it’s relying too heavily on default settings or missing out on premium demand, even small missteps can have a big impact on ad revenue and player experience. Here are the top four monetization mistakes hypercasual publishers make — and, more importantly, how to avoid them. Not experimenting with pricing An often-overlooked lever in hypercasual game monetization is pricing — specifically, setting and testing competitive price floors. Many publishers rely on default settings or gut instinct when establishing bid floors, but without ongoing experimentation, they may be leaving significant revenue on the table. Setting the right price floor ensures that your inventory isn’t undervalued. Finding the sweet spot is all about testing. By experimenting with live traffic and monitoring how demand partners respond, publishers can better understand the true value of their impressions. Run A/B tests with different floor prices to see how fill rates, eCPMs, and overall revenue shift. Choosing the wrong ad mediation partners Third-party ad mediation platforms have become a staple for hypercasual game publishers — and for good reason. They’re relatively easy to integrate, offer access to multiple demand sources, and can simplify day-to-day monetization management. But not all mediation solutions are created equal. Choosing the right mediation partner is crucial for hypercasual game publishers looking to maximize ad revenue and improve overall performance. Ensure that your partners are not operating on outdated waterfall models, which are inefficient compared to modern solutions like header bidding. Instead, select partners capable of in-app bidding technology. This will grant you access to a wider range of demand sources, drastically improving your monetization outcomes. Poor ad placement and frequency In hypercasual games, ad placement and frequency can make or break the user experience. Many developers make the mistake of placing ads in unpredictable spots or showing them too frequently. For instance, showing an interstitial ad immediately after a rewarded video ad can leave players feeling punished, which might result in them abandoning the game altogether. To avoid these pitfalls, it’s essential to test different ad placements and frequencies. Rewarded video ads, for example, are a great way to engage users without negatively impacting retention if placed during natural gameplay breaks. By balancing ad types and ensuring they align with player behavior, you can optimize your monetization strategy without overwhelming your audience. Treating all ad formats equally Not all ad formats are created equal. A one-size-fits-all approach to monetization often leads to inefficient ad placement strategies. For instance, rewarded video ads are highly popular in hypercasual games, but if used too aggressively, they can cannibalize in-app purchases (IAPs) and reduce overall revenue. Full-screen ads are best suited for players who generate lower amounts of revenue. To avoid ad cannibalization, hypercasual publishers need to be strategic in how they integrate different ad formats into their games. Rewarded ads should be targeted to users who prefer them, while interstitial ads should be used sparingly and at the right moments. By monitoring key metrics like ARPDAU and user retention, you can optimize your mix of ad formats and improve overall revenue generation. The key to successfully monetizing hypercasual games is to stay curious. Test often. Don’t settle for default settings. And remember, it’s not just about maximizing revenue — it’s about creating a seamless, enjoyable experience for players while ensuring long-term success. Whether you’re rethinking your mediation setup or wondering if your current strategy is really pulling its weight, please reach out. Let’s unlock more value from your game.
No posts found
No content matches the selected criteria
