Mobile publishers must move "from reacting to directing" their ad stack, says Teqblaze CPO

• Lack of transparency leads to hidden auction logic and buyer behaviour.
• Appearance frequency, timing and quality shouldn't be automated.
• Publisher control enables more informed decision-making.
• Automation helps remove routine work.

In the competitive landscape of mobile gaming, ad monetisation remains a critical revenue pillar. Yet, for many publishers, the ad stack remains a 'black box' where performance can shift without a clear understanding of the underlying logic.

Olga Zharuk, chief product officer at Teqblaze, believes the fundamental problem is not a lack of optimisation, but a complete lack of control over the infrastructure itself.

The PocketGamer.biz team spoke with Zharuk about why studios must take ownership of their ad experience, how a white-label supply-side platform (SSP) protects player retention, and why the future of monetisation is about directing your own demand rather than reacting to external systems.

PocketGamer.biz: Why is the main problem for mobile publishers today not optimisation, but the lack of real control over their ad stack?

Olga Zharuk: From what I see, many publishers are asked to optimise results without really seeing what drives them. They look at the numbers, but the auction logic and buyer behaviour stay hidden, so it is hard to understand why performance changes at all. Their stack is also split across tools that make their own decisions. One prioritises demand, another adjusts pricing, a third manages traffic, and the publisher only sees the final output.

For me, the main issue is this lack of visibility and ownership. When a studio controls the data, the formats and the logic behind selling impressions, the whole process becomes clearer and more manageable. You move from reacting to directing.

Which parts of the ad experience should developers control themselves to make sure advertising doesn’t hurt player retention?

I think the most important piece is control over when and how often ads appear. Frequency and timing shape how players feel about the game, so those decisions can’t be left to automated defaults. It also matters which formats you allow and how they’re introduced into the gameplay. Some formats work well in certain genres, others break the rhythm, so the developer needs the final say here.

Quality is another big factor. You need the ability to block advertisers or categories that don’t match your audience, and to keep an eye on how creatives behave, especially end cards. When something feels intrusive or misleading, players notice it immediately.

Stability plays a role too. If an ad freezes, loops or fails to load, the player won’t separate that experience from the game itself.

And finally, developers need to see how each ad affects player behaviour. When you understand how a placement influences session time or churn, it’s much easier to adjust your approach and protect retention.

Can a white-label SSP truly give publishers control not only over revenue but also over the quality of the ad experience?

Yes, because a white-label SSP changes the role of the publisher. Instead of relying on external systems with their own rules, the studio works through an infrastructure it actually owns. That creates a very different level of visibility and influence.

The publisher decides who can access the audience, which formats are allowed, and how they appear inside the game. Some creatives simply do not fit certain genres or session patterns, so having the ability to set your own standards makes a noticeable difference for the player experience.

Transparency is another part of it. When you can see how the request moves through the chain, where value drops, or which partners create friction, you can make adjustments based on clear signals rather than assumptions.

And ultimately, a white-label setup lets the studio build its own logic for how ads should behave in its ecosystem. You align monetisation with your game’s rhythm, your economy and your audience, instead of adapting to decisions made outside your control.

Many publishers worry that if they take more control over their ad stack, they will lose access to strong demand. What actually happens in practice?

In reality, control does not push demand away; it simply organises it. The publisher stays open to all partners but sets the rules for who enters the auction and on what terms. This does not reduce demand; it just makes it more manageable.

Strong buyers also prefer clear and stable inventory. When a publisher brings order to the stack, demand usually does not drop. It often increases because buyers know exactly how the traffic behaves and what to expect.

When does adding more partners stop strengthening the stack and start creating chaos

When there are too many partners in the stack, transparency drops very quickly. Performance changes from week to week, but it becomes harder to see which source actually caused it. Even a small slowdown or revenue dip takes much longer to investigate because the system produces too many scattered signals. At that point, the stack stops helping and starts getting in the way of decision-making.

There is also the technical side. Every partner requires integration, updates, testing and attention from the team. If supporting all of this takes more time than improving monetisation itself, the stack becomes overloaded. It can affect game stability and slow down the team’s work, so at some point, adding new partners stops being useful and organising the existing ones becomes more important.

What hidden operational costs do developers often underestimate when their ad stack becomes too complex?

The first thing that is usually overlooked is the amount of work required to maintain SDKs. Every partner needs updates, compatibility checks and separate testing, and over time, this takes a significant share of the team’s resources.

The second issue appears when something goes wrong, and you need to understand why. The more partners in the stack, the harder it is to identify who influenced the result. A simple investigation turns into a long process and slows down decision-making.

There is also the growing workload on engineers and analysts. As the number of integrations increases, so does the number of tools, logs and manual tasks, which leaves less time for actual monetisation improvements.

And finally, a complex stack increases the risk of technical issues in the game itself. Additional integrations can affect stability, loading times and the quality of ad delivery, and these issues directly impact user experience, retention, and ultimately revenue.

What does a “healthy” ad stack look like for a mid-sized or large publisher who needs more control without building a huge in-house team?

A healthy ad stack starts with a single management system that brings together integrations, auction logic, formats and technical settings. This reduces complexity and allows a small team to run monetisation effectively. Another important element is a focused set of partners.

Mid-sized and large publishers usually benefit more from a few demand sources with a clear and stable contribution. When it is visible who drives results and who creates unnecessary load, the stack becomes much easier to manage.

The studio needs to own the rules of how ads appear. It selects the formats, placement points and types of advertisers and defines its own auction logic. This protects the player experience and keeps the system predictable.

Automation helps remove routine work so the team can focus on strategy. Testing partners and configurations should be quick and not depend on long release cycles. The easier the experiments, the faster the revenue grows. Transparent analytics are essential.

Publishers need to understand how demand behaves, where value is lost and which changes actually move the metrics. The stack should scale without constant hiring and remain stable as traffic grows.

A healthy stack gives the publisher clarity, control and room to grow without operational overload.

Which parts of the ad infrastructure should a publisher keep under their own control, and what can be safely outsourced?

A publisher should keep control over everything that affects the game and the revenue. This includes the logic of how ads appear, the choice of formats, the rules for who gets access to the traffic, the quality of creatives and the analytics that guide decisions.

Everything else can be handled by a platform. Technical integrations, auction infrastructure, automation, traffic filtering and partner support do not require the studio’s direct involvement and can be safely outsourced to a white-label solution.

Do you expect large publishers to move toward more independent models in the next few years, where they run their own auctions and control their own data?

I think yes, and it is already happening. Big publishers are tired of guessing what happens inside someone else’s auction and why their data disappears into external systems.

The moment they get a setup where they can actually see the traffic, set the rules and understand the outcome, everything becomes simpler and more predictable. And once you work like that, it is hard to accept anything less.