How bad is the ‘Made for Advertising’ problem?

Very bad, according to a new Adalytics report that appeared this week, finding that major brands including P&G, Unilever, Mondelez, Mars, Ford, Disney, Google, Pfizer, and Reckitt, among many others, are being placed on such low value inventory, potentially wasting millions of their ad budgets.

The study, which ran in January 2024, was based on observations of 22 websites deemed to be MFAs based on industry definitions and cross-referenced by multiple sources. Some of the allegations, which come in for a wide swath of major companies, have been rejected in statements from some network providers.

Adalytics’ report follows the explosive ANA Programmatic Media Supply Chain Transparency study back in December, which found that a focus on “cheap reach” had led to 19% of ad buying on open marketplaces and 14% on private marketplaces going to MFA sites.

Why MFA matters

Made for Advertising/Made for Arbitrage sites are largely useless for brands seeking to do anything but burn cash. Relative to some of the most expensive inventory on the market, MFAs can be staggeringly inefficient (see chart). 

Media agencies and ad exchanges have said that they are moving to identify, filter out or prohibit MFA ad inventory. While many brands are confident that they are protected, this new study suggests that this is not the case.

According to some observers, a fix is simple even if it might cost a little more: to optimise digital advertising to a particular conversion goal rather than aim for high online reach on a budget. 

Definition 

MFA sites typically feature low-quality content with a much higher density of ad placements and a super fast refresh rate, meaning that a single ad shows up as being served many thousands of times during a single user session. 

What Adalytics found

Hundreds of major brands continue to have their ads served on websites that meet the industry trade group definition of “Made for Advertising”. The ads were placed both through programmatic and non-programmatic channels.

• Over six months after the ANA’s Programmatic Transparency study, almost all of the participating brands continue to have ads placed on MFA sites. 
• Frequency capping is apparently not working, according to the study, with some ads being shown thousands of times during a single page view. This means that some brands are paying enormous amounts often to reach far fewer actual customers. Adalytics found that one major telco paid an effective CPM of $2,600 just to reach one unique viewer.
• All levels of the digital marketing supply chain, supply- and demand-side platforms, retail media networks, numerous brand safety vendors, and agency holding groups, were identified in the study. 

Sourced from Adalytics, ANA, WARC. 
^{[Image: Adalytics]}