Tier-1 vs Southeast Asia: The iGaming Campaign Data Every Media Buyer Needs to See in 2026

The acquisition landscape for iGaming brands is diverging. Tier-1 markets such as Western Europe, Australia, and regulated North America provide high-LTV players with strong deposit intent and predictable conversion patterns. However, these markets face increasing competition, stricter advertising policies, and consistently rising acquisition costs.

Southeast Asia presents a contrasting scenario: lower CPIs, less advertiser saturation, and a rapidly expanding base of mobile-first users. However, the region features different funnel dynamics, longer times to first deposit, and user behaviours that do not align with Tier-1 strategies.

​Most operators rely on a single approach, pursuing either Tier-1 LTVs or SEA volume. Q1 2026 demonstrated that both markets are viable, but only when the appropriate strategy is applied to each. This also reflects a wider shift in iGaming traffic strategies in 2026, where operators and affiliates need to judge each market by acquisition cost, user intent, funnel behaviour and long-term player value.

​Despite sharing a platform and vertical, the two campaigns operated in entirely different market environments.

The campaign was conducted for an established iGaming app partner with a clear objective: maintain a stable, predictable funnel from install to deposit while controlling costs at every stage. The primary challenge was ensuring reliability, not reach. In-app events didn’t consistently match reality. KPIs shifted mid-campaign. These are familiar problems for anyone running iGaming app campaigns in competitive Tier-1 markets. What they require is methodology, not just budget. For teams reviewing paid acquisition setups, Ace Alliance’s discussion on paid media, tracking, and automation in iGaming offers useful context on how traffic buying, attribution, and campaign control are evolving. 

Strategy: Patience for a Competitive Advantage:

The core decision was to avoid premature optimisation. Campaigns were allowed at least two days to stabilise before any adjustments. In a multi-step funnel where deposits occur days or weeks after installation, early data is often misleading. Optimising based on this data can result in ineffective adjustments.

Bidding was executed in two stages. The CPA Goal was launched first, providing fast, automated identification of converting zones without manual setup. Once these zones were confirmed, the campaign transitioned to SmartCPM for precise, zone-level control over bids and traffic sources.

As Karlina Berzina, Senior Account Strategist at PropellerAds, puts it: 

The best results come from combining both — knowing when to trust the algorithm and when to take control.

Format expansion followed a disciplined approach. The campaign began with Onclick only. Once stability was achieved, Push Notifications and In-Page Push were introduced sequentially, with each new format validated before full implementation. Ace Alliance has also covered this wider shift in data-driven affiliate performance, where campaign tools, partner relationships, and scaling discipline all influence long-term results.

The Zone Rules That Made the Difference

Traffic quality was managed through a structured three-rule system:

​No Signal Rule — Any zone spending the equivalent of two FTDs without generating a single install, registration, or deposit is immediately blacklisted.

• Empty Promise Rule — Any zone producing high registration volume at deposit cost, but failing to drive follow-up deposits, is blacklisted.
• Proven Performer Rule — Any zone that consistently delivers conversions at an efficient cost earns a win. This asymmetry is significant. Blacklisting is immediate and reactive, removing underperforming zones quickly. Whitelisting is a slower, more deliberate process. The first meaningful whitelist evaluation occurred after one week, while a fully optimised whitelist required two months, as it involved tracking users through to deposit rather than just installation.

​Operators who shorten this process risk losing the compounding efficiency essential for sustainable Tier-1 deposit economics.

Deposit conversions doubled from January to February, while install costs decreased as whitelists matured. The initial In-Page Push test resulted in 7,105 installs and 212 deposits from 4.87 million clicks, indicating further potential for scaling.

The strategy was to acquire large volumes of traffic initially, then refine targeting based on conversion data. Bids were intentionally set low to observe traffic behaviour before entering more competitive segments. As valuable patterns emerged, bids were increased, but only for segments that demonstrated clear value.

Multibrand rotation was a big advantage. Running many brands sped up testing, reduced dependence on a single offer, and helped combat creative fatigue. When one funnel plateaued, the rotation handled the change without affecting performance.​

The pre-landing page and PWA flow improved conversion rates. Users first engaged with a gamified page, which reduced friction and enhanced install quality. This approach bypassed app stores, offering a key advantage in markets where app store usage and trust differ from Western standards.

Traffic quality was enhanced through whitelisting in close collaboration with account managers. As a result, install costs steadily declined, reaching $0.25 by quarter’s end.

All KPIs were achieved, demonstrating scalability. The model continued to deliver results as registered users converted to deposits beyond Q1, reducing cost per deposit and enabling cost-effective scaling without compromising deposit performance.

​The campaign structure was designed to deliver ongoing results in Q2 and beyond, rather than focusing solely on short-term outcomes.​

Applying Tier-1 methods in Southeast Asia, such as high CPI tolerance, slow whitelist development, and narrow rules, results in overly complex campaigns. Conversely, using Southeast Asia methods in Tier-1 markets, such as broad bids, pre-lander funnels, and multi-brand volume, generates installs but does not achieve the required Tier-1 economics.

The strategies differ because the markets themselves are fundamentally different. While this may seem clear in hindsight, it is not always apparent during the planning phase.

With the World Cup traffic window approaching, major sporting events will compress campaign timelines. Operators who build and optimise funnels in advance of peak traffic consistently outperform those who respond reactively. The Q1 2026 data offers a clear framework for preparation, especially for teams still reviewing traffic sources, affiliate partners, and performance platforms through the Ace Alliance directory. 

1. Align your campaign architecture with market depth rather than vertical. While iGaming is a single category, campaign structures vary significantly within it. Begin by assessing the market’s competitive density and user behaviour, then develop the appropriate methodology.
2. ​In Tier-1 markets, commit to the whitelist development timeline. Achieving $8–$45 install-to-FTD economics requires 6–8 weeks of disciplined optimisation. Campaigns that end this process prematurely, either by changing strategy or reallocating budget before whitelists mature, seldom regain optimal efficiency.
3. ​In Southeast Asia, prioritise funnel simplicity and brand diversification. A gamified pre-landing page and streamlined PWA flow outperform complex direct-to-product paths in markets with high installation friction. Multi-brand rotation mitigates the risk associated with single-offer fatigue.
4. In both markets, begin with a narrow focus and scale once stability is achieved. Both campaigns started with a single format and expanded only after confirming its stability. This approach ensures clean performance data before increasing complexity.

Both approaches are available on PropellerAds, including zone-level deposit optimisation tools for Tier-1 campaigns and multi-format CPA infrastructure for SEA volume strategies. iGaming brands planning H2 campaigns can access these frameworks and the dedicated iGaming account team at PropellerAds.com.

The SEA campaign’s CPI advantage was partly due to market structure. Southeast Asia iGaming traffic experiences significantly lower advertiser density than Tier-1 markets, which directly impacts cost per install.

As advertiser concentration increases in a market, CPIs rise, and whitelist economics become more challenging, as seen in current Tier-1 markets. The SEA opportunity in Q1 2026 existed partly because competitive pressures that elevated Tier-1 costs had not yet reached similar levels in Southeast Asia.

Markets below a certain saturation threshold consistently deliver more efficient install economics. The optimal time to enter is before this threshold is surpassed.

The Tier-1 campaign’s whitelist required two months to fully develop. This duration is not a sign of inefficiency but a structural necessity for deposit-optimised iGaming campaigns.

​Blacklisting is immediate and reactive; zones that spend without generating conversions are removed promptly. Whitelisting, however, requires tracking the full user journey from install to registration to deposit, a process that takes several weeks.

Campaigns that disrupt this window by changing strategy or reducing budget before whitelists mature eliminate the mechanism that enables Tier-1 FTD economics to scale. Patience in this phase is an active and essential part of the process.

The SEA campaign bypassed the app store entirely. Users transitioned from a gamified pre-landing page to a PWA install without interacting with Google Play or the App Store, eliminating a layer of friction that can reduce conversions in markets where app store trust and download behaviour differ from Western standards.

In markets with uneven app store penetration or lengthy approval timelines, the PWA approach consistently achieves higher install conversion rates than native app store flows. Although the funnel is more complex to develop, Q1 2026 results indicate it is a worthwhile investment.

Source: ​Data sourced from the PropellerAds Q1 2026 campaign analytics. Campaign details represent anonymised partner results. Karlina Berzina, Senior Account Strategist at PropellerAds, contributed strategic commentary.