[Guest Member Blog Post] Navigating MFAs and Ad Clutter to improve efficiency and boost performance with IAS

In this week's member guest blog post, we hear from Nick Welch, Head of Programmatic, EMEA at IAS, who shares effective tips on how to navigate MFAs and ad clutter, to improve digital advertising campaign efficiency and performance.

MFA, an acronym for Made-for-Advertising, describes a category of websites built on catchy headlines, clickbait, and controversial content to drive traffic and ad revenue. These sites inundate users with intrusive ads and pop-ups in a relentless pursuit of revenue. 

MFA sites aren’t sources of fraudulent inventory, as per typical definitions. In fact, they actually do perform well against traditional ad metrics, like viewability and click-through-rate, so on the surface can check a lot of boxes for advertisers. However, once a brand’s campaign is appearing on MFA sites, the main issue becomes clear — MFA websites simply do not drive meaningful results and lead to wasted ad spend.

The Difference Between MFA and Ad Clutter 

Though they have similar characteristics, there is a significant difference between MFA sites and “Ad Clutter”, and being able to distinguish between the two is important for advertisers who want to mitigate risk and maximise their campaign performance.  The key distinction lies in their monetisation strategy. 

Unlike MFA sites, which engage in ad arbitrage by buying traffic excessively in order to monetise it, Ad Clutter sites do not purchase traffic but may still inundate users with excessive advertisements. Though they may compromise user experience and brand perception, they do not engage in the same level of deceptive practices as MFA sites.

Distinguishing between MFA and Ad Clutter sites allows advertisers to tailor their strategies accordingly, mitigating risks and optimising campaign performance. By leveraging IAS’s MFA measurement and optimisation products, advertisers can identify and block MFA sites at scale, safeguarding their brands and maximising return on ad spend.

Though there are key differences, both MFA and Ad Clutter sites can be problematic for advertisers.

While MFA and Ad Clutter sites present a host of issues for advertisers, there are three reasons why they stand out as particularly detrimental to campaign success and brand integrity:

1. MFA sites often prioritise quantity over quality when it comes to content. To attract clicks and maximise ad revenue, these websites churn out sensationalist headlines, clickbait articles, and controversial content. Consequently, users are bombarded with shallow or misleading information, eroding trust and credibility in the digital space.
2. User experience takes a backseat on MFA sites, where intrusive ads, pop-ups, and autoplay videos dominate the landscape. These disruptive elements not only detract from the browsing experience but also hinder engagement and interaction with advertised content. As a result, advertisers risk associating their brands with negative user experiences, ultimately impacting brand perception and loyalty.
3. Advertising on MFA sites exacerbates environmental concerns. MFA sites often engage in more instant auctions for ad inventory than websites with typical ad loads, resulting in higher carbon emissions. In fact, there is a 73% decrease in carbon emissions when comparing quality sites to MFA sites. This discrepancy in carbon footprint undermines advertisers’ efforts toward carbon reduction goals, highlighting the urgent need for sustainable advertising practices.

A Data-Driven Look at Ad Performance on MFA sites

Global view of ad impressions on MFA

In an observational study conducted by IAS, we found the harsh truth behind MFA and Ad Clutter sites. First, we looked at how the rate of ads that end up on MFA sites varies globally.

The good news is that European sites for the most part fell below the global average of ad impressions on MFA sites, which is 3.84%. Looking at APAC, Japan hit the lowest global rate at 0.33%. MFA ad impressions in the Americas often lay above the global average, climbing as high as 5.21% in the U.S. and even reaching 10.61% in Mexico.

Vertical view of ad impressions on MFA

Ad impressions on MFA sites also varied quite a bit by vertical — but all verticals came in above the 3.84% global average in this study.

We observed that the lowest rate, 3.85%, belonged to advertisers in the automotive vertical, while CPG followed closely at 4.14%. Retail rounded out the top three at 4.71% — still almost an entire percentage point above the global average.

The government/non-profit/education, packaged together in this study, reached a high MFA rate of 7.21%. The travel vertical also experienced a surprisingly high MFA rate of 6.84%.

Conversions and cost efficiency tell an even bigger story

After dissecting global MFA ad impression rates by vertical, we wanted to understand how conversions really differ on MFA and Ad Clutter sites versus quality sites.

Conversion rates on quality sites were 174% higher than those on MFA sites. Plus, conversion rates on quality sites are 91% higher than conversion rates on Ad Clutter sites — showing a major difference in low-funnel campaign performance on quality sites versus MFA and Ad Clutter sites.

Cost per conversion (CPCV) data followed a similar story. CPCV rates on quality sites were 51% lower than on MFA sites, and 25% lower than those on Ad Clutter sites, rounding out the notion that, when it comes to MFA, advertisers don’t need to choose between quality and cost efficiency.

At IAS, through the fusion of advanced machine learning and real-time data analysis, our AI-powered model detects and blocks MFA sites at scale, empowering advertisers with control over their campaigns. Our MFA measurement and optimisation product supports the ANA’s definition of MFA and has been trained, and is routinely vetted against, Jounce Media’s widely adopted list of MFA domains, resulting in a pressure-tested solution for detecting and blocking MFA at scale.

When identifying sites as MFA or not, the fundamental question we want to answer is: is the site conducting ad arbitrage? To get to the bottom of this, we have to ask two key questions:

1. Is the majority of traffic coming to the site paid or organic? Supply chain data collected from our partner Jounce Media helps us find a conclusion to this question.
2. Is the primary purpose of the site to deliver content or ads? We then examine site characteristics collected from our partner Sincera to answer this question.

Our machine learning model then incorporates the Jounce and Sincera signals along with additional signals from IAS. If the majority of traffic coming to the site is paid and the primary purpose of the site is to deliver ads, then the model will flag the site as MFA.

The impact of MFA detection transcends conventional metrics. By avoiding MFA sites, advertisers can unlock greater campaign performance and maximise return on ad spend.