Full screen ads get a bad reputation. And rightly so in some instances. We’ve all been there, reading an article, playing a game, and boom, the entire screen gets hijacked by an ad and no matter how many times you slam your hand down on the “X” button, you’re stuck watching (at best) a ridiculous amount of time ad that feels unnecessary and at worst, makes you delete the app for good.
But the truth is, when done correctly, interstitials are one of the most powerful ad formats available. They capture attention like banner ads can’t, boast staggering engagement metrics, and most importantly do not ruin user experience whatsoever.
What separates the interstitials people love from those that make your app a one-and-done are a few basic principles regarding timing, placement and human psychology.
Why Full Screen Works
The human brain is hardwired to pay attention to large visual stimuli. When something is in your line of sight, it’s impossible not to process it, at least momentarily. This is why billboards work, this is why in-theater ads work, this is why interstitial ads outperform smaller formats in engagement and click-through.
Ultimately, as well, they get full screen coverage. Unlike banner ads sitting in a corner of a screen (something which users have become accustomed to ignoring), interstitials are not only impossible to ignore but also impossible to miss. The advertiser gets 100% screen real estate meaning there is more space for impact visuals, messaging clarity and calls-to-action.
This translates directly to performance. Publishers looking to boost their interstitial ads revenue often see CPM rates two to three times higher than standard banner placements. Advertisers pay more because the format delivers results, higher viewability, better brand recall, and more conversions.
But all of that means nothing if users don’t stick around to view multiple ads. And this is where most implementations fail.
Timing is Everything
The truth about interstitials is not about the ad itself, it’s about when it’s shown.
Think about moments of natural pauses in user experience. Between game levels. Upon completion of a productivity app assignment. Switching chapters in an eBook. These moments exist because users are taking a pause anyways, transitioning anyways, anticipating some sort of lag at this point anyways.
Show an interstitial during this natural moment of pause and it feels like a legitimate break. Show it in the middle of someone doing something, mid-level, mid-article, mid-task, and it feels like an assault on their psyche.
But that’s the problem. Some publishers get greedy. They think if one interstitial every five minutes yields x revenue, then one every minute must yield quintuple that amount. Wrong. In reality, what happens is users leave, retention drops and overall revenue per user plummets despite higher frequency.
Studies repeatedly show that interstitials shown at natural break points experience significantly lower abandonment rates than those shown at arbitrary levels. Users don’t mind waiting for a full screen ad if it’s at a moment that they were going to wait anyways.
Frequency Matters More Than You Think
This does not mean that a user should see endless amounts of interstitials in quick succession.
The first time someone sees an interstitial they might be mildly annoyed. If they see one again five minutes later, they’re begrudgingly frustrated. If they see a third? They’re searching for the uninstall button or closing out the tab.
Savvy publishers implement frequency caps based on anecdotal evidence. One per new session. One every thirty minutes. One every three natural break points. The number itself doesn’t matter as much as the realization that it does exist and less is more.
It’s not only polite to users (which it is), but it’s also good revenue sense for lifecycle value purposes. A user who engages with your app/site over months with small interstitials holds more life value than one who sees a bunch of ads and then never returns again after their first session.
The Skip Button Should or Shouldn’t Exist?
Should there be a skip button? If so, when should it appear?
This is one of those inquiries where data sometimes conflicts with instinct. In terms of sheer ad effectiveness, allowing the user to view an ad fully for 5-7 seconds before allowing them to exit boosts brand awareness and message retention up to levels that allow the advertiser guaranteed exposure which means higher chargeability to publishers for that guaranteed viewability.
But from a user experience angle? Not allowing someone an out transforms an ad from an obnoxious temporary inconvenience into a hostage scenario.
The best implementations allow a happy medium, the skip button appears after a few seconds, long enough for the advertiser to get their message out there but short enough not to imprison the user in a highly negative circumstance. Various platforms even test different delay times for different segments of users to find the right mix between ad effectiveness and user satisfaction
What’s most important is that whatever method of skip exists is clearly visible and easily clickable. Those tiny X buttons shoved into corners that require pixel-perfect accuracy to exit? That’s user-unfriendly design and it breeds resentment toward both publisher and advertiser.
Mobile vs Desktop
Interstitials work differently between devices; publishers need to adopt their strategy accordingly.
For example, on mobile screens are generally smaller than desktops so an interstitial does not feel dramatically different from normal content size. Additionally, since mobile devices house apps that transition easily between full screen views regardless of context at a specific moment, users are generally accustomed to full screen experiences and therefore an interstitial serves as appropriate padding at a transition point.
On desktop however, commandeering someone’s huge monitor feels much more intrusive. Desktop users normally engage in multiple tabs/windows so taking over their entire opportunity reroutes their momentum even more so. This does not mean interstitials on desktop do not work; instead they require even more personalized settings for implementation.
Additionally mobile apps have the benefit of controlling the entire space, wholly designed apps can promote interstitials as part of a greater user journey. Websites have less control as users have less incentive (back buttons exist; tabs can close) if they feel stuck or overwhelmed, they’re less committed.
Creative Quality Changes Everything
Even a perfectly placed interstitial will cause frustration if the ad itself is poorly created. Slow loading images, auto-playing videos with sound, confusing layouts and unclear calls-to-action all contribute negatively even when user intentions are right.
The full screen format gives opportunity and responsibility, there’s no reason with so much space that a publisher can’t make clear artistic choices without convoluted design or messaging. The best ads take advantage of high quality visuals with concise copy and one clear action for the user.
Animation/video incorporated into an interstitial can work but they need to be dialed into quick loading and seamless viewing. The last thing anyone wants when they sit through an unwanted ad is a loading wheel because their Wi-Fi isn’t cooperating.
Making Money Work
For publishers there’s an obvious appeal, the higher CPM means more revenue per impression, but it requires careful monitoring to ensure that it’s consistently better than not utilizing interstitials because doing so will inflate numbers short term but damage long term relationships with users.
Instead key metrics include session length, return user rate and overall revenue per user, not just CPM or fill rate, an interstitial plan that’s 40% raised in cost but 50% lowered user retention is a poor plan.
Testing variable frequencies, placements and creative mix helps identify when everything works best together so revenue increases but not at the cost of sacrifice. This level exists but varies greatly depending on content type, user demographic and overall app/site quality.
Publishers with high quality content or addictive apps can afford more aggressive strategies because there’s more incentive for users to stay; publishers with easily replaceable content need to be more timid because otherwise users can go anywhere else.
The Final Word
Interstitial ads aren’t good or bad, they’re tools. When used properly they provide value across the board, publishers generate solid revenue, advertisers receive guaranteed visibility/engagement and users experience adds between natural breaks instead of mid-sentence interrupts.
Publishers/app developers who do well with interstitials are those that think over time, they don’t succumb to greed by maximizing short-term ad income potential at user experience expense; they test out ideas and find the sweet spot based on true retention and engagement statistics.
Full screen ads work because they’re impossible to ignore, but that power comes with responsibility and screen real estate needs to value the user’s time and attention. Get that right and interstitials are sustainable revenue sources that subsidize content creation without losing users.
