At Relevant Digital, April has been about moving from discussion to practical validation. Instead of just following industry conversations, we’ve been testing new setups in practice, gathering real data, and looking beyond surface-level metrics to understand what truly drives performance.
In this month’s Ad Tech Insights, Ronny Linder (CPO & Partner) shares early findings from testing The Trade Desk’s OpenAds initiative, highlighting why controlled experiments and transparent measurement matter more than assumptions. Petri Kokkonen (CEO & Partner) reflects on key takeaways from the DanAds Summit Europe, focusing on holistic revenue optimisation and the need to move beyond siloed thinking.
Finally, Suvi Leino (Head of Marketing) presents insights from our latest customer satisfaction survey, covering what publishers value most today and how tools like Relevant AI are increasingly supporting day-to-day optimisation work.
Last month, we looked at The Trade Desk’s OpenAds initiative and what it could mean for publishers. Now we’ve been testing it in practice. For those less familiar, OpenAds is essentially The Trade Desk’s approach to running its own wrapper environment alongside traditional Prebid setups. It gives TTD more control over how its demand is executed and prioritised in the auction.
As mentioned, we enabled OpenAds support in Relevant Yield, allowing publishers to run the TTD bidder in two different ways: in a standard Prebid setup or via the OpenAds wrapper. Both can be managed through a single interface, making it easy to test without heavy technical effort.
What did the test show?
We’ve run initial split tests comparing these setups. At this stage, results are still early, but we haven’t seen any significant performance differences. There have been small variations in bidding behaviour, but nothing that would clearly justify moving fully into one setup over another.
What stands out more than the results themselves is the importance of testing. Without a controlled setup, it’s difficult to tell whether changes actually improve yield or simply shift demand.
How the analysis was done
Evaluating setups like this requires more than top-level revenue.
Using Relevant Yield, we compared bidder participation, bid density, win rates, CPM distribution, and latency across environments. This level of visibility is critical, as high-level reporting alone rarely tells the full story. The real value was not just in running the test, but in understanding what actually changed and why.
What does this mean for publishers?
So far, OpenAds doesn’t appear to be a clear replacement for existing setups. But it does signal a broader shift. Large demand platforms are increasingly looking to control more of the transaction layer. For publishers, this creates both opportunities and trade-offs.
The key takeaway is not to make a decision too early. Instead, publishers should test different setups, measure real impact on revenue and performance, and avoid locking into a single approach without data. Flexibility and transparency matter more than ever.
- Ronny Linder - CPO, Partner and Member of Several IAB Tech Lab Task Forces
DanAds organised their Spring Summit on April 15th, gathering publishers and sell-side professionals from all over the world in springtime Stockholm. Our team was there to catch up with peers and learn new things from high-quality panel conversations.
Of course, big A and I were mentioned maybe a couple of hundred times, but this time I thought I'd avoid writing about Agentic, MCP, and other (important) buzzwords to calm down my serious AI overload.
One interesting panel caught my attention and got my thoughts back to this, my all-time favourite theme. Unified Revenue Per User (URPU - I just made that up, feel free to forget). The point here is that if the publisher has both subscription and ad business (or other revenue streams), revenue optimisation should be done on a higher level, combining subscription and advertising revenue. Gain learnings on how things like ad load, formats, and prices correlate if the visitor is a paying subscriber or not. Thinking holistically about how we personalise our setups and user experience towards different probabilities and goals. Meaning that if we believe we can sell subscriptions for this user, maybe we should calm down the ad experience.
I am aware that the theme is not new, but why are we not talking more about it? Do we still live in silos?
Another inspiring thought highlighted was the HR side of the future. And I already know we're getting back to the… AI. What kind of skill sets do companies need? What is the profile of the people companies should hire? Should leaders focus on candidates with superb LLM and automation tooling expertise? Seniors who can handle junior tasks with AI. Do companies hire juniors at all? This is a super fascinating and important topic, which deserves more attention.
One panellist nailed part of the answer. Technical skills are mandatory, but we also need creative people. People who really understand how marketing works. And people who see the big picture of the business they are in. Prompting or vibe-coding skills are not enough. And companies need to foster a diverse and rich culture by hiring people from diverse backgrounds and demographics.
We definitely need to get back to this topic later.
- Petri Kokkonen - CEO & Partner, Member of the IAB Finland Board and Co-Lead of the IAB Europe Programmatic Working Group
In April, we conducted a customer satisfaction survey among Relevant Yield clients, with responses representing approximately 30% of our customer base spanning more than 20 countries. Customer satisfaction is a top priority for us, and we continuously develop our products and services based on customer feedback.
For those who are not yet familiar with us, Relevant Yield is a modular platform designed for publishers. It helps manage and grow ad revenue by combining reporting, optimisation, and header bidding management in one place. The goal is to simplify day-to-day work, reduce the need for multiple tools, and provide a clearer overall view of how ad inventory performance evolves.
Key insights from the survey
Based on the survey, customers particularly value improved visibility and reporting, easier testing and optimisation, and operational efficiency and time savings. Many respondents also highlighted that the platform reduces reliance on development resources and provides greater control and transparency in inventory management. These benefits were consistently mentioned across roles, from ad operations teams to senior decision makers.
Relevant AI on the platform is still relatively new to many users. However, those actively using it reported that it supports analysis, helps identify optimisation opportunities, and speeds up decision-making. In several responses, it was described as a tool that helps prioritise tasks and provides additional insight for daily optimisation work.
In particular, our customer support received a very strong rating, averaging 9.2 out of 10. Speed, expertise, and the smoothness of collaboration were frequently highlighted, and many respondents described the team as a key contributor to overall value, beyond the technology.
Final thoughts
The results confirm that comprehensive data, ease of use, and expert support are key factors in successful ad sales management. We will continue to develop the platform in close collaboration with our customers, with a particular focus on usability, reporting, and automation.
A big thank you to everyone who shared their feedback. We truly appreciate it and are always happy to hear from you.
- Suvi Leino - Head of Marketing