Basic versus Advanced
Expert: with sources and numbers. Plain: the same, without them, for beginners.
Two products, not two tiers: different pricing models, different ceilings, different control.
Not a beginner mode and an expert mode. They price differently, which changes what you are buying.
The differences
A Verified 2026-09-18. (Compare Apple Ads solutions)
| Basic | Advanced | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Cost-per-install (CPI) | Cost-per-tap (CPT) |
| You bid | Max CPI (most you will pay for a download | Max CPT) most you will pay for a tap |
| Budget ceiling | $10,000 (U.S.) per app, per month | No minimum spend; no stated ceiling |
| Placements | Top of search results | Today tab, Search tab, search results, product pages |
| Keywords | Not chosen by you | Chosen, or auto-bid with Maximize Conversions |
What the pricing difference means
On Basic you pay for outcomes. You pay per install, so a poorly converting product page costs you nothing extra. Apple absorbs the taps that do not convert. Risk sits with Apple, and in exchange you get no keyword control and a hard monthly ceiling.
On Advanced you pay for taps. Conversion risk sits with you. A product page that converts badly means paying for taps that produce nothing, which is precisely why product page conversion work (40-06) and custom product pages (90-08) have direct and measurable value in Advanced and almost none in Basic.
That is the real decision. Not “how sophisticated are we” but “do we want to own conversion risk in exchange for control”.
When Basic is the right answer
- Spend genuinely below the $10,000 monthly ceiling per app
- Nobody available to manage keywords and bids weekly
- The goal is a predictable cost per install rather than learning
Basic is a legitimate endpoint, not a stage to pass through. An unmanaged Advanced account usually performs worse than a Basic one.
When Advanced is the right answer
- Spend above the ceiling, or heading there
- You want placements beyond search results
- You want the Search Terms report as a research instrument (30-09). This is frequently the strongest argument, independent of the media value
- You want to direct traffic to custom product pages
- Someone owns it weekly
What goes wrong
Treating Basic as a trial. Different pricing model, not a smaller version.
Moving to Advanced without an owner. CPT pricing punishes neglect.
Forgetting the $10,000 ceiling is per app, per month.
Ignoring that conversion risk moves with the pricing model. On Advanced, product page work pays for itself twice, in organic conversion and in paid efficiency.
In short
Every fact on this page in one line, with its evidence tier, source and verification date, 2 A. Generated from the claim register, so it cannot drift from the page above.
Not a simple mode and an advanced mode. They charge you in genuinely different ways, and that difference changes what you're actually buying.
The differences
One kind charges you per actual walk-in: you set the most you're willing to pay for someone who actually takes your product home, there's a hard monthly spending ceiling per shop, it only runs in the slot next to the desk's own answer, and you don't personally choose the words, the centre handles that for you.
The other kind charges you per person who merely stops to look: you set the most you're willing to pay for a single glance, there's no minimum spend and no stated ceiling at all, it can run in any of the four locations, and you either choose your own words yourself or let an automatic system bid for you.
What the charging difference actually means
On the pay-per-walk-in kind, you're paying for outcomes. You pay per actual customer, so a page that converts badly costs you nothing extra, the centre itself absorbs the cost of anyone who looked and walked away. The risk sits with the centre, and in exchange you get no control over which words are used and a hard monthly ceiling.
On the pay-per-glance kind, you're paying for attention. The risk of a poor conversion sits entirely with you. A page that converts badly means paying for a lot of attention that produces nothing at all: which is exactly why real work on your page's first impression and a specially-dressed window have direct, measurable value here, and almost none on the pay-per-walk-in kind.
That's the real decision. Not "how advanced are we," but "do we want to own the risk of a poor conversion in exchange for real control."
When the pay-per-walk-in kind is the right answer
Your spending genuinely sits below its hard monthly ceiling. Nobody's actually available to manage words and bids on a weekly basis. Your goal is a predictable cost per customer rather than learning anything new.
This is a legitimate destination in its own right, not merely a stage you're meant to grow out of. An unmanaged pay-per-glance account usually performs worse than a well-run pay-per-walk-in one.
When the pay-per-glance kind is the right answer
Your spending is above that ceiling, or heading there. You want locations beyond just next to the desk's own answer. You want the billboard company's own read-out of actual words people asked as a genuine research tool. This is frequently the single strongest argument for it, entirely separate from the advertising value itself. You want to send traffic to a specially-dressed window. Somebody genuinely owns it on a weekly basis.
What tends to go wrong
Treating the pay-per-walk-in kind as merely a trial. A genuinely different way of charging, not a smaller version of the other.
Switching to the pay-per-glance kind with nobody actually owning it. Pay-per-glance pricing punishes neglect harshly.
Forgetting the hard ceiling on the pay-per-walk-in kind is per shop, per month.
Ignoring that the risk of poor conversion moves with the charging model. On the pay-per-glance kind, work on your own page's first impression pays for itself twice over. Once in unpaid conversion, once in paid efficiency.