Choosing between building ad tech in-house or adopting third-party solutions is rarely simple. At Relevant Digital, we've seen both sides of the equation through our work with publishers. There are clear benefits to both approaches, but each comes with trade-offs that aren’t always obvious at first.
This article offers practical perspectives to help publishers make more informed decisions about their technology stack. We’ll explore the roles of key stakeholders, common operational challenges, and the real cost of in-house development. And at the end, we’ll share our own experience: how building Relevant Yield shaped our views.
Tech decisions in publishing often involve three main groups:
Each group has its own priorities, workflows, and technical skills. Operational users tend to look for solutions that are quick to deploy and solve immediate pain points. Decision-makers weigh business goals, ROI, and strategic alignment. Developers often focus on compatibility, scalability, and the chance to innovate with custom-built solutions.
From our perspective, procurement often starts with either a decision-maker or operational lead. Through discussions and product demos, we work to understand the underlying need and whether an external solution can deliver real value, fast!
One of the most common challenges publishers face is balancing day-to-day operational needs with longer-term development goals.
For example, it’s not unusual for a publisher to have a data warehouse in place, but with limited usability for commercial stakeholders. This can slow down access to vital data and complicate reporting workflows. External solutions can offer tailored reporting around metrics like sales channel efficiency or advertiser performance, speeding up decision-making for teams across the organisation.
At the same time, developers may view off-the-shelf tools as a missed opportunity. In-house development offers full control, alignment with internal systems, and the satisfaction of solving technical challenges with custom solutions.
Striking the right balance requires a strategic view — one that aligns both short-term efficiency and long-term flexibility.
The Real Costs of In-House Development
Oftentimes, there is a builder bias when a publisher decides to build proprietary ad tech. However, many underestimate how much time and resources go into building and, most importantly, maintaining internal tech tools, especially in the fast-moving world of programmatic advertising.
Common risks include:
Even when the initial build is fast, tech that isn’t continuously developed becomes outdated quickly, especially in an environment where standards and best practices evolve rapidly.
While in-house development can look more cost-effective on paper, the hidden costs, from missed opportunities to slower innovation cycles, are easy to overlook.
Technology decisions aren’t just operational, they’re strategic. The right tech stack can streamline workflows, unlock new revenue opportunities, and help publishers adapt to evolving market demands.
Before building in-house, decision-makers should ask:
In some cases, like data sovereignty or custom integrations, internal development might be the right move. But in many others, ready-made tools offer faster go-to-market times, built-in expertise, and continuous development, often with influence over product direction through feedback loops.
Large publishers can build almost anything. The challenge is knowing what they should build — and what’s better sourced from a partner.
We faced this same decision ourselves back in 2017. At the time, we needed a better way to manage and report on advertising revenue across a network of around 80 websites. The solutions on the market didn’t quite meet our needs, and came with high price tags, so we decided to build our own platform.
Developing the first version of Relevant Yield took around a year. The tool, which is now known as the Ad Revenue Insights module, helped reduce manual work, centralise reporting, and bring transparency to revenue data. In 2018, we launched version 1.0 to external partners, and the response confirmed we weren’t alone in facing these challenges.
Since then, we’ve continued to invest in the platform, expanding it with modules like HB Manager and HB Analytics. These tools help publishers implement and monitor Header Bidding setups (including mobile and server-side) without needing to code, while surfacing valuable insights for ad revenue optimisation.
Most recently, we launched Relevant AI — our own AI assistant designed specifically for ad tech workflows. Developing this capability required significant resources: not just in terms of technical implementation, but also in curating relevant datasets, fine-tuning models for programmatic use cases, and ensuring the assistant could deliver real value without overwhelming users. Building AI in-house is an entirely different level of investment, demanding dedicated talent, continuous iteration, and deep integration into the product.
The decision to turn Relevant Yield from an internal tool to a SaaS product transformed the project from an internal fix into a core part of our business. For us, the initial investment paid off, but only because we committed to long-term development and could monetise the platform.
Whether you build or buy, the most important thing is aligning your tech decisions with your business goals, available resources, and appetite for ongoing investment.
In-house development offers control and customisation, but requires a serious long-term commitment. External solutions offer speed, support, and built-in expertise, helping publishers stay agile in a fast-changing industry. Either way, the decision shouldn’t hinge on “Can we build this?” but rather, “Does it make sense for us to build this, and maintain it over time?”
Recently, we hosted a webinar covering this topic. Watch the recording here.