Here’s a bold statement: Most businesses are missing the mark with Apple Search Ads, and it’s costing them dearly. But why? Viktor Orlov, a seasoned expert in app growth and App Store auctions, took the stage at Business of Apps Berlin 2025 to shed light on this very question. Two years prior, his workshop had been overly theoretical, leaving attendees with more questions than actionable insights. This time, Orlov was determined to deliver something different—a practical, hands-on approach to mastering Apple Search Ads for stable growth and higher ROI. And this is the part most people miss: Apple Search Ads isn’t a mysterious black box; it’s a system with clear rules, but teams often optimize for the wrong metrics.
Orlov began by challenging the industry’s obsession with novelty. In a world chasing the next big thing, he argued that Apple Search Ads remains one of the most powerful acquisition channels in mobile—not because of efficiency or scale, but because of intent. When a user types a keyword into the App Store, they’re already on the brink of a decision. This direct search intent translates to the highest purchase intent across the marketing mix, creating a stability that’s hard to find in social or display channels. Prices don’t fluctuate wildly, and volumes don’t collapse overnight. But here’s where it gets controversial: While Apple Search Ads rewards correctness over novelty, it’s still a manual, labor-intensive channel with no native post-install integrations or meaningful automation.
So, what’s the secret to success? Control. Orlov emphasized that the default approach of bundling hundreds of keywords into a single ad group is inefficient. Instead, single-keyword ad groups—though tedious at first—offer the clarity needed to understand the auction dynamics. “The more control you have, the better it works,” he asserted. Control isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s the linchpin of relevance, which determines whether Apple allocates impressions to your ad at all.
And this is where it gets even more intriguing: When asked about their biggest competitor, most teams point to other advertisers or aggressive bidders. Orlov’s response? They’re all wrong. The real competitor is the number one organic result. Paid ads don’t exist in a vacuum; they compete directly with organic listings for attention and clicks. If your ad isn’t more relevant than the top organic result, Apple has little incentive to show it, no matter how high your bid.
The heart of Orlov’s talk was IPM—installs per thousand impressions. While not a headline metric in Apple’s dashboard, IPM combines tap-through rate and conversion rate into a single measure of relevance. Here’s the kicker: Below a certain IPM threshold, campaigns feel artificially constrained. But cross that threshold, and impression allocation accelerates, volumes grow faster than spend, and CPIs drop. Orlov calls this the “invisible wall”—a point where relevance is rewarded disproportionately.
To boost IPM, Orlov highlighted the untapped potential of Custom Product Pages (CPPs). Despite Apple allowing up to 70 CPPs per app, most teams treat them as an afterthought. Yet, CPPs are where relevance becomes tangible. Tailoring messaging, visuals, and onboarding flows to specific keyword intent not only improves conversion but also signals to Apple that your ad is highly relevant. Deep links further enhance this by sending users directly to the feature or offer they searched for, shortening the path to value.
Now, for the controversial part: Orlov challenged the common belief that competition drives CPI. For apps with in-app purchases, Apple has near-perfect visibility into revenue, and keyword prices reflect average profitability. For apps without IAPs, Apple’s estimates are remarkably accurate. If a keyword isn’t profitable for you, it’s because it’s profitable for someone else. Apple Search Ads isn’t broken—it’s a performance benchmark. Poor results often stem from misaligned execution, not the channel itself.
Tools may have converged, but knowledge remains the missing layer. Understanding how the auction works is what separates success from failure. Across case studies in fintech, utilities, mobility, and subscriptions, the pattern was clear: improved relevance leads to lower prices, higher IPM drives scale, and execution matters more than category.
Apple Search Ads isn’t for the faint of heart. It doesn’t reward haste or shortcuts. Instead, it rewards teams willing to treat it as a system worth mastering. The work isn’t glamorous, but it’s honest. If your results fall short, the feedback is there—in impression share, relevance, and conversion. For those willing to put in the effort, this may be its greatest advantage.
Thought-provoking question for you: Do you see Apple Search Ads as a complex system worth understanding, or just another channel to automate and forget? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s spark a discussion!
