Monetization Optimisation Should State What It Refuses to Damage
“Increase ad ARPDAU by 10%” is a valid target. The brief is incomplete until it also says what the team is not willing to damage getting there.
A monetization target on its own is incomplete.
“Increase ad ARPDAU by 10%” is a valid target. But the brief should also state what we are trying not to damage while getting there, and how much deterioration we are prepared to accept.
Take a change in interstitial frequency. Revenue may move fairly quickly. Retention will take longer to read properly. Payer conversion may move only for certain segments. UA may see the effect later, once enough paid cohorts have matured.
Looking only at the immediate revenue movement gives us part of the answer, not the full decision.
Not every metric has to stay flat
That does not mean every product metric has to remain unchanged. For an ad-heavy casual game, a small decline in retention may still be acceptable if the improvement in monetization produces a stronger total LTV.
In an IAP-heavy game, the same increase in ads may be a poor trade if it changes payer behaviour, reduces the value of the paid experience, or pushes high-value users away from the product.
Four things to decide before the experiment starts
- The revenue metric being improved.
- The product or business metric being protected.
- The amount of deterioration that is acceptable.
- The point at which the test is stopped or rolled back.
The thresholds will vary by game, cohort, stage, and business model. What matters is deciding them before the results arrive. Otherwise, the team ends up judging whether the trade-off was acceptable only after it already knows which metric improved.
Good monetization optimisation is not about expecting every number to move in the right direction together. It is about being clear about what the additional revenue is allowed to cost.