HUMAN BLOG

The ongoing challenge of made for advertising sites

John Waters

January 1, 1970

Categories: Ad Fraud

The ongoing challenge of made for advertising sites

When the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) released its Programmatic Media Transparency Study, the research highlighted the impact of made for advertising (MFA) sites on the digital advertising landscape and ignited much discussion. At HUMAN, we’ve monitored MFA sites since the phenomenon began.

Understanding made for advertising sites

MFA websites are designed with a clear focus: maximizing ad revenue and page views at the expense of user experience and content quality. These sites have rapidly proliferated throughout the digital landscape. ANA’s report estimated that MFA sites account for more than $10 billion in ad spend, a figure that continues to threaten the integrity of the interconnected programmatic advertising supply chain.

Also known as “made for arbitrage,” these sites employ aggressive tactics to drive user traffic. The creators of these sites direct users to their sites by purchasing cheap display ads, advertising on social media platforms, and requiring users to click through multiple intermediate sites to arrive at their intended content. This arbitrage model enables MFA operators to profit from the difference between their low user acquisition costs and the higher revenue generated per page view.

The impact of MFA on advertisers and publishers

For brand advertisers, MFA sites present significant quality and reputation risks. These pages typically feature low-quality, irrelevant, or even misleading content, potentially tarnishing the image of brands associated with them. As MFA pages typically host more ad slots than the average website, ad spend is wasted on low-quality impressions, reducing the overall efficiency of programmatic campaigns.

What makes MFA sites particularly insidious is their ability to exploit ad technology purchasing algorithms. These algorithms often prioritize domains with high viewability, low invalid traffic, or IVT, and the appearance of engaged users–all metrics designed to measure quality advertising opportunities. MFA sites often go out of their way to ensure viewability metrics are high to encourage purchasing of their inventory, tricking advertisers into believing they’re purchasing quality inventory when, in reality, their ads appear on clickbait-filled pages.

While they are often less concerned about inventory quality if they can meet short-term key performance indicators, performance advertisers face long-term risks to reputation when associated with low-quality sites. HUMAN has observed the practice we named “path-dependent content loading,” in which MFA sites use seemingly legitimate domain names to obscure the nature of their content, often leading users to inappropriate or illegal material. For example, users may think they’re being driven to  “latest-legal-news[.]com”, when in fact they are being directed to articles that contain vulgar, inappropriate, or illegal content, (think: “latest-legal-news[.]com/50-words-to-make-your-wife-fume”). 

Publishers, too, are feeling the impact of the MFA problem. The proliferation of low-quality content not only undermines the value of original work but also encourages the scraping (or copying) and repurposing of legitimate content. AI-powered tools make it easier for MFA sites to generate vast quantities of low-quality content based on stolen intellectual property, creating an unfair playing field that favors those willing to cut corners.

Moving forward: A multifaceted approach to made for advertising sites

After observing and assessing proposed MFA solutions and the evolving landscape, it’s clear that addressing this issue requires a collaborative, multifaceted approach from the industry. We at HUMAN believe the following strategies are crucial:

  • Increased transparency in bidding declaration fields, including information about the number of ads on a page.
  • Broader industry agreement on ad quality standards with actionable enforcement mechanisms.
  • Development of advanced detection methodologies that go beyond traditional ad fraud markers.
  • A shift from relying solely on lists of known MFA sites, as new ones can be created easily.
  • A deeper understanding of the characteristics and supply sources of MFA sites to identify them regardless of where they appear.
  • Publishers prioritizing quality content and investing in content protection measures.

The traditional approach to ad fraud, which focused on identifying clear instances of automated activity, is insufficient in combating MFA sites. Instead, we need a more nuanced understanding of their characteristics and behaviors.

By collaborating and implementing these strategies, the industry can combat the growing threat of MFA sites, protect the value of original content, and restore trust in the programmatic ecosystem. To support this, HUMAN has led and participated in industry working groups searching for a solution to the challenges these websites pose. As we move forward, HUMAN remains committed to monitoring this evolving landscape and developing innovative solutions to safeguard the digital advertising space.

Fore more on safeguarding your environment against MFA, check out HUMAN’s Advertising Protection here.

 

Spread the Word