«Pure Crash Approach - 100% Roulette.»

I continue to cover the opinions of different parties on crash approaches. This time we talk to the CEO of DEPHOUSE Alexander Omelianovich.

⚡️ In your experience, do advertisers often ask to cast crashes?

It all depends very much on the GEO.

Tier-1 and tier-2 GEOs in practice are almost never asked to cast crashes, because these approaches do not work there. Only if high rollers get caught on a large volume, but it is not a fact that they will be able to pull payback.

On tier-3 they ask more often, because on these GEOs it is cheaper to fill more players and get payback on volume traffic. Plus in poorer countries will not be so noticeable difference in the standard of living of a player who came from the slot approach or from the crash. So it is more profitable for an advertiser to accept a lot of crash traffic in some cases.

⚡️ In your experience, how often do quality of traffic conflicts with crashes occur?

If you initially set a KPI on an offerer under the crash approach - there are often cases when traffic falls a little short of passing. It's hard to say in % ratio, but I think it's at least 60-70%.

⚡️ The public says that crash approaches yield poor quality traffic: it just doesn't play. Your experience?

It's simple. As I described above, it depends on the GEO. There are very few cases where crash traffic played out on tier-1 / tier-2 GEOs. On tier-3 - more.

And from the experience of our inhouse product - we had most of our traffic flowing to crash approaches, because they showed better results than slot approaches in terms of payback and payout/quality ratio. The product was on tier-3 GEO.

⚡️ Do you agree with the thesis that crash approaches are roulette?

If a clean crash is 100% roulette.

⚡️ Do you agree that crash traffic can play for a long time, you just have to know how to work with it?

You can say that about any traffic.

The minus of the crash approach is that it creates a WOW effect when the player sees the brands ads, and comes to get that «emotion». After playing around a bit - gets disappointed or doesn't get what he expected - and leaves the product. But definitely, if a product can retenue players - it's a big plus, and it's important how the product itself is organized: what kind of usability, gameplay, promo and structure it has.

⚡️ The quality of traffic with crash is not very good with crash approaches pouring. Why do you think this is so?

It's cheaper than slot/column approaches.

It is very difficult for teams without experience and expertise to get payback at the start, or at least to get to 0 on slot approaches. Crash approaches allow you to do this.

⚡️ It turns out that young inexperienced teams need to pour crashes to get to the plus side, but very often because of crashes there are conflicts (failure to meet KPIs, non-payments)? So it's a vicious circle.

It's a vicious circle if you don't have buyers on the team with experience with other approaches.

To get out of it, you need to learn how to work with other approaches and try to get out of such bays at least to zero, at best to a small plus. Or you should take buyers with experience and cases with slot/coloslot approaches on volumes (from 50-80k revnue/month).

If newbies from scratch are going to learn how to cast slots/slots - you should try to find capes with crash approaches without KPIs to diversify. Better to do it through grids, not directly from advertisers who often cut crash traffic even if there was no KPI. A grid with a well-trained business department can defend traffic or, in extreme cases, cover it from their own (if you have been working with the grid for a long time and have trust).

In general, it's better for young teams to «hit the ground running» with networks that have traffic diversification, rather than immediately trying to work directly with advertisers, increasing the risk of cutoffs.