Brand Advertising, Brand Safety, Industry News & Events
When the Wall Street Journal revealed that Forbes was selling inventory on a Made-for-Advertising (MFA) site in early 2024, the industry became aware of just how big a problem it had. An estimated 15% of all programmatic dollars spent on the traditional web go to MFA sites. In some cases, shockingly, marketers had allocated those funds for premium inventory – which they clearly weren’t getting.
The best definition comes from ANA’s Programmatic Media Supply Chain Transparency report:
MFA sites typically use sensational headlines, clickbait, and provocative content to attract visitors and generate page views, which in turn generate ad revenue for the site owner. MFA sites also usually feature low-quality content and may use tactics such as pop-up ads, auto-play videos, or intrusive ads to maximize ad revenue.
According to the same report, which tracked $123 million spent by 21 advertisers over 35 billion impressions, MFA sites accounted for 21% of impressions and 15% of ad spend.
The ANA lists the following criteria to identify an MFA site:
The problem with MFAs is that they tend to deliver more ads than quality content and have little respect for user experience. They’re close cousins to the adware sites that used keyword-stuffed content to earn contextual ad revenue but far more insidious. While they score well against vanity metrics like viewability and impressions served, they deliver low-quality traffic that generally doesn’t convert. And those frequently refreshed ads cost advertisers money, even if they were purchased at a lower CPM.
Furthermore, because these sites typically serve low-quality content and poor user experiences, they are a threat to brand safety. Traffic to these sites typically arrives via click-bait ads on social media, and the content – which may have been legitimately licensed or simply low-value, AI-generated, or possibly offensive – is overwhelmed by ads. High-value brands do not want to be associated with low-value content and negative experiences.
Last but not least, they undermine trust in online advertising. MFAs are nearly impossible to avoid, even in private marketplaces. Worst of all, the industry appears to have little interest in tackling the problem.
As Digiday reports, “Ad tech vendors, once dismissive of MFA inventory, are now embracing it, leading to an influx of sales opportunities for these duplicitous impressions. Publishers are also jumping on the trend, enlisting MFA specialists to maximize their ad revenue. Furthermore, MFA sites are becoming increasingly adept at acquiring traffic at remarkably low costs, adding to the challenge.”
Worst of all, these sites don’t technically constitute fraud, so they’re not “illegal,” but they do pose a threat to brands in terms of wasted funds and brand safety.
Maintaining a brand’s reputation takes a substantial investment of time and budget. The very worthwhile payoff is that consumers will become lifelong customers, standing in line for a brand’s newest product release or reordering the same running shoes year after year.
Consumer sentiment can be fragile, however, so brands have to be vigilant.
Brand safety protects that reputation. Ads that appear in harmful or inappropriate contexts – common with MFAs – can damage a brand’s image, leading to a loss of consumer trust and loyalty. Negative associations can spread rapidly online, so for brands, maintaining a safe advertising environment is critical.
Practicing brand safety involves taking measures to prevent advertisements from appearing in contexts that could harm its image. This includes avoiding placements next to inappropriate or harmful content such as violence, hate speech, fake news, or placement in any low-quality or “spammy” environment.
Despite numerous industry reports identifying and calling out the presence of MFAs, the problem persists in the traditional advertising world – involving some of the most respected players in the industry and impacting some of the best-known brands in the world.
There are some key differences between “traditional” digital advertising and mobile ads. For one, the World Wide Web doesn’t really have stringent publishing criteria. Anyone can publish a website and, with enough traffic, profit from running ads. And because many campaigns, particularly branding campaigns, value upper-funnel metrics, fraudsters have a much easier time getting away with their scams.
In contrast, in-app advertising, with its focus on performance, offers some critical advantages for maintaining brand safety. To list a few:
Furthermore, while they harm on-the-level premium publishers and advertisers, MFAs on the traditional web actually benefit multiple players in the ecosystem, from publishers who license their domains to supply-side and demand-side platforms. The more impressions, the more money these players make.
This model simply couldn’t be sustained in the performance-focused mobile world. Mobile advertisers aren’t looking for vanity metrics; they’re looking for downloads or sales. If they’re not seeing the return on investment from a particular publisher or network, they’ll move their budgets to a higher-performing network or channel.
While there is an MFA equivalent in the app world, it’s safe to say it will never become as pervasive as it is on the traditional web. As AppLovin’s Alex Li stated in a recent AdExchanger article:
The failure of MFA-like apps to thrive reflects the mobile industry’s broader understanding that apps perform better when they deliver positive experiences and serve relevant, appropriate ads to users.
Performance is the yardstick of measurement for both publishers and brands on mobile. MFAs simply don’t deliver, and they pose a threat to brand safety. Performance marketers know better than to take that risk.
MFAs are an ongoing concern in digital advertising, posing a risk to brand safety as well as media budgets. With its performance-based success metrics and more discerning publishing guidelines, mobile advertising offers a safe environment for wary brands.
For brands concerned that fraudulent digital advertising may damage their reputations, it might be time to experiment with apps. (And if you need more convincing that mobile advertising is a great opportunity for brands, read this post next. )
