The publisher’s interstitial UX reset: protecting revenue without losing the user
BY HAZEL BROADLEY, BEELER.TECH
This conversation is for our exclusive publishers and partners only community. Please ask in the community for the password to watch this video. You can also become a member of our community here.
Our recent Camp.Fire session tackled a tricky question: when a revenue opportunity risks an experience that users start to resent, where should publishers draw the line?
Evan Thor, VP of Revenue Operations at TextNow, shared his work on the user experience of an interstitial ad – which was a useful place to start, especially for app publishers where full-screen units can be valuable, intrusive and surprisingly difficult to control.
The real cost of high-performing interstitials
The problem is that full-screen interstitial units have drifted toward mechanics that confuse people, trap them, or nudge them into accidental clicks. That’s becoming a real problem for app publishers because ads are often the number one user complaint, even when publishers have little control over the programmatic demand they’re serving.
For example, the close button can sit way too close to the rounded edge of the phone, making it difficult to tap. Or a button that looks like the next step actually opens the app store. Or a timer, end card, or exit path can make leaving feel deliberately unclear.
🔎 Get the latest: Subscribe to The Traffic Report, our weekly newsletter
That’s why publishers need a shared set of UX expectations. Publishers need to ask partners for predictable close controls, timers that appear where users expect them, limits on end cards, maximum time-to-close settings, and generally honest button behavior. They also need more flexibility than today’s “conservative, medium, and aggressive” templates. Sometimes even the conservative option is still too aggressive.
The real cost of high-performing interstitials
The hard part is that these types of units can drive revenue. Everyone recognized the familiar internal pressure: leadership sees interstitials as an app revenue opportunity, product teams worry about the experience, and revenue teams are tasked with getting the numbers to work. One interstitial-style app placement carried a CPM of around $25 – high enough to make the trade-off very tempting.
🔎 Read more: Publishers, chasing revenue at all costs is, well, costing you
Measurement makes the decision messier still. Some sophisticated app buyers are already looking past CTR and to cost per install, CPA, or other performance targets. Direct buyers, though, may still expect unusually high CTRs from app interstitials, which can reward “slippery finger” behavior that looks encouraging in a dashboard but doesn’t reflect real user intent.
The context is a major factor, too. In casual gaming, repeated interruptions may be part of the accepted value exchange, and some ad networks feel forced to compete inside that aggressive loop. But in a weather, fitness, or utility app, the same experience can push a user to delete the app. So alternatives like drawer units, expandable placements, custom full-screen native, dark-mode-aware assets, and strict frequency caps deserve serious attention.
Why publishers need to solve this together
As Rob put it, it’s time to turn private frustration into a shared conversation about how to get louder, together. That could mean sharing experiences on LinkedIn or community Slack channels, bringing platforms and ad networks into the conversation, or working with groups like the Coalition for Better Ads to define clearer standards.
Any standards should make the experience transparent and fair without boxing publishers in, especially when markets, audiences, CTAs, subscription prompts, and even issues like backlink hijacking all have their own UX wrinkles.
That community is already starting to take shape. Connect Forward – our new mentorship and career development initiative – will pilot small-group peer support and sounding-board conversations on leadership, management, careers, and the human side of technical change. Watch this space for further details.
🔎 Read more: Ad ops is where other people’s bad decisions become emergencies
The aim is to help publishers understand what they’re adopting before they scale it. Meanwhile, Revenue Scape is being built to map revenue opportunities, partners, and use cases, including interstitials, while a new AI search function across Beeler.Tech content should make our growing library easier to use.
That work sits alongside Brian O’Kelley’s seller-agent push through AdCP, James Strang’s work on vibe coding and AI engineering, and Rob’s data-mapping session at Navigator London. They all point in the same direction: new tools can unlock revenue, but they can also create fragile workflows if publishers don’t fully understand what they’re adopting.
The interstitial reset is really a trust reset. What starts with something simple, such as a user trying to close an ad, quickly extends to standards, revenue, product, leadership, and the shape of publisher collaboration. Strong community efforts are needed so that publishers can protect the user relationship before bad incentives turn every short-term win into a long-term cost. After all, revenue shouldn’t depend on frustrating the people you’re trying to keep.
👉Want to stay in the loop with what’s happening in the Beeler.Tech community? Subscribe to our newsletter. If you’re interested in attending or sponsoring a future event, you can explore our upcoming events here.