Interstitial v Postitial: Aggregate Findings
We are really excited about the data points we’re seeing from DSPs, publishers, and our ad exchange partners. Below, we’ve summarized key qualitative and anecdotal findings.
Overall, publishers are reporting higher CTRs and CPMs being generated by the Postitial placement, with the majority of these coming from full-screen static ads.
The key takeaways from conversations with publishers are as follows:
- Creates new, incremental full-screen inventory that can support full-screen static ads, rich media, and video.
- Generates a new, incremental revenue stream.
- Yes, it‘s about more ads—but Postitial respects the user experience and only displays ads when a user is done using an app.
- Now integrated with the main mobile ad exchanges.
- Enables a portion of new inventory to be allocated for cross-promotion, without impacting the user experience or existing revenue streams from in-app advertising.
Ad exchange partners
Our ad exchange partners are excited about Postitial, as they see true value in giving publishers a new option for advertising that supports larger ad formats and better aligns with brand marketing dollars. One of our larger mobile ad exchange partners has reported significant value generated from Postitial versus interstitial, when viewed on aggregate across all publishers.
Within the same application, DSPs are seeing higher CPMs being generated by Postitial versus interstitials. This can be explained by the fact that Postitial click-to-conversion rates are higher, and therefore DSPs are more willing to bid higher and more frequently for Postitial than for interstitial ad placements within the same app.
The key takeaway from the pool of data shared with us by DSPs is that Postitial is more likely to achieve lower CPI than interstitial. Clearly, the main factor behind this performance is the timing of when Postitial ads are displayed—when a user is ending an app session, they are more likely to be receptive to ads.