Ready for a friendly chat about the wave-making happenings in the ad tech industry? Let’s get comfy and talk about the current kerfuffle surrounding Made For Advertising Sites (MFA sites) or, as some cheekily call them, Made For Arbitrage Sites. In one corner, we have our big-name brands, generously splashing out on advertising and genuinely caring about their image. In the other corner, we find our hard-working publishers, the relentless individuals and teams who keep the content flowing.
What is Made For Advertising (MFA) sites?
So, what exactly is an Made For Advertising (MFA) Sites , you may ask? Well, it’s a bit like trying to pin down a cloud – there isn’t a textbook definition. For now, MFA is a term introduced by a well-known ad tech leaders to label sites that house low-grade content. Those sites main goal? Drive ad clicks, often at the expense of offering users enriching, enjoyable content. The content often feels a little shallow, lacking that certain sparkle, and it doesn’t always leave users feeling fulfilled. As a result, the user experience isn’t always top-notch. But it’s not just about the quality of the content. Ethical issues can crop up too, like leading users astray with false or exaggerated content, or playing games with search engine algorithms to boost visibility over genuine relevance.
For instance, peer39 keeps a keen eye on the situation with a category (or should we say a blacklist?) called “Made For Advertising Fraud Pages“. The sites that find their way onto this list are the ones that peer39 has earmarked as Made For Advertising (MFA). This category may empowers advertisers who are deeply invested in their brand and hold the conviction that Peer39 has performed an admirable job in identifying those websites that generate low-quality traffic and subsequently poor Return on Investment (ROI). It provides these advertisers with the option to blacklist these underperforming sites during the campaign creation process. This is especially beneficial for those who value the integrity of their brand and wish to associate it only with high-performing, reputable websites, thereby maximizing their ROI and establishing a strong online presence.
The Publisher Side
What are the issues associated with these types of categories or blacklists? The prevailing issue that arises centers around the lack of transparency. When a website is added to this list for not adhering to certain rules, it appears there is no straightforward way of being removed, even if the site administrators rectify their errors and begin to follow the guidelines set by the ad tech leaders who initially reviewed the site and added them to blacklist. You might be wondering, why is this the case? The underlying reason is a distinct absence of clear, concise published guidelines.
Most MFA sites in the category follow marketplace guidelines and steer clear of any prohibited activities. You will not find in them activities like Click fraud (you know, when individuals or bots deliberately click on an advertiser’s PPC ad with zero intention of buying the product or service), Ad stacking (that’s when they pile multiple ads on top of each other in a single space to up the impression claims by each ad), and Pixel stuffing (that’s when individual pixels are turned into ad space, recording impressions for ads that users can’t even see).
Does paying for readers means poor traffic?
The MFA reviewers suggests that a ‘Paid Reader’ – a reader who has arrived at the content through social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, or Instagram via paid link – is considered to be of lesser value compared to a reader who has found the content through a search engine. This is an interesting perspective and may be true for some sites.
However, if they are indeed asserting this point, they should support it with quantifiable data or statistics. It is essential to substantiate such claims with empirical evidence for the specific site to ensure that the argument is grounded in fact and not merely personal opinion or conjecture.
Bad Content Quality?
The MFA reviewers proposes that the primary determinant of content value lies in the quality of our writing. However, this leads us to question, what exactly defines “acceptable quality”?
Does the inclusion of popular culture references, such as discussing celebrities, automatically degrade the quality of the content we produce? Similarly, does the incorporation of internet phenomena like memes into our discourse make it inferior? These are significant questions that need to be addressed when considering the quality of written content.
Too Many Ads?
Many MFA reviewer may be overwhelmed by the sheer number of advertisements that he encounter? There are, in fact, already existing guidelines in place within the marketplace to regulate this. However, if you find that these guidelines are not satisfactory, and you do not have the power to instigate change. It’s entirely possible for you to create your own standards.
The crux of the matter is to clearly define and articulate your understanding of what constitutes an excessive quantity of advertisements on a single webpage.
Dear MFA reviewer, you might want to consider whether more than 200 words per advertisement slot is your standard of acceptability, or perhaps you’d be more comfortable with more than 400 words per slot? Both of these are perfectly acceptable standards to have and it really depends on what you believe best serves your purpose.
Additionally, you may also want to consider the visual aspect of the page. Are there too many images cluttering up the page, distracting from the content? Be sure to specify what you consider to be an acceptable number of images per page.
Furthermore, you may consider the number of requests being made by the page to fill these ad slots as many MFA reviewers find that excessive requests can lead to slow page loading times and a poor user experience. Therefore, it’s important to determine and state what you believe is the acceptable number of requests that doesn’t impact negatively on the user experience.
The Future: Clarity and Fair Policies For MFA Sites Are Needed
In a landscape where there are no clear guidelines, no transparency, no established standards, and no definitive definition of what constitutes MFA sites, it is unsurprising that many publishers who are struggling to sustain their livelihood find themselves in a challenging situation.
Additionally, the absence of an accessible process to remove one’s name from the blacklist only compounds these difficulties. As a result, these publishers, in an attempt to continue publishing their valuable content, often find themselves forming partnerships with publishers who are deemed legitimate by the MFA reviewers. This unfortunate scenario underscores the need for more clarity and fair policies in the ad tech landscape about MFA.
Clear Definitions of MFA Sites
We truly believe it’s super important to set up thorough and specific guidelines that clearly describe what a Made For Advertising (MFA) site is. By doing this, we make sure that our MFA reviewers have all the tools they need to provide publishers with a crystal-clear and accurate guide for navigating the intricate world of ad publishing.
Having these guidelines in place stops publishers from accidentally overstepping the mark, making it a breeze for them to get to grips with the ins and outs of the ad network. By knowing what to watch out for and how to keep in line with the network’s rules, publishers can feel confident in creating content that fits perfectly with these standards.
Plus, having a set of solid criteria doesn’t just benefit the publishers, it also helps to create a more open and fair industry. By laying out clear expectations and standards, we’re doing our bit to encourage a space where everyone involved in ad publishing can flourish.
So in doing this, we’re not just supporting individual publishers, but we’re also helping to boost the overall wellbeing and fairness of the ad network industry. And that means we’re contributing to the overall integrity of the digital advertising ecosystem.
Fair Appeals Process
In the interest of fostering transparency and justice within the system, it is absolutely paramount that we put in place well-defined, easy-to-understand policies to govern a fair and impartial appeals process. This is a critical step in our commitment to uphold the principles of fairness and equality.
While it is commendable that ad tech leaders are seeking to create blacklists for their advertisers of sites that generate low-quality traffic and subsequently poor Return on Investment (ROI), it is simply not sufficient.
As the adage goes, ‘with great power comes great responsibility.’ This implies that they need to go beyond just creating blacklists, but also to ensure that are using this power responsibly and not causing harm inadvertently.
One of the potential pitfalls is the unfair labeling of a website as an MFA site, which can severely limit a publisher’s access to ad placements and revenue opportunities. This can be detrimental to publishers, especially those who are producing legitimate content but are mistakenly identified.
To alleviate this, it is crucial that we have clear and precise policies in place. Such policies will enable accurate assessments, thereby preventing unintentional financial consequences for these publishers.
This approach is not just a matter of fairness, but also a necessity for providing a platform that is equitable for all publishers, particularly those who believe they may have been inaccurately identified as a Made For Advertising (MFA) site. By offering a well-structured avenue for appeal, we afford these publishers the opportunity to present their case in a comprehensive and detailed manner.
Allowing them to present their case not only offers a chance to potentially sidestep any undeserved penalties or restrictions that may have been imposed due to this label, but also ensures that everyone involved in the process has their rights duly protected. In doing so, we foster an environment where every voice is not just heard, but is also taken into serious consideration.
Such a measure thereby aids in maintaining the integrity of our platform and ensures fairness is maintained at all levels. By ensuring that every voice is heard, we uphold the principles of transparency and justice, thereby reinforcing the trust of our users in our platform.
Open Communication With Collaborative Solutions
Industry leaders! you’ve got a super important role to play in helping our eager publishers boost their content quality and overall user experience. How about you do this together with publishers and advertisers and guide them to a brighter path, away from the dreaded Made For Advertising (MFA) site characteristics?
To achieve this, let’s open up our lines of communication wide and clear. Transparency is king here, and it paves the way for those oh-so crucial, heart-to-heart conversations about any worries or potential hiccups related to MFA site classification. Plus, it gives our publishers a golden chance to get a grip on and roll with practices that align with your shiny new industry standards.
Here’s a thought: why not foster a collaborative environment to make sure our ad ecosystem stays in tip-top shape? We can co-create fair and just policies that benefit everyone if we bring together the best minds in ad tech and publishers. It’s not just about making rules that everyone can get behind, it’s also about nurturing a sense of shared responsibility. And believe it or not, this collective effort is the secret sauce to keeping our ad ecosystem thriving and full of life.
[Update : 29.05.2024] Winds of Change Are Already Here
It looks like the winds of change are already blowing our way! According to the good folks at adexchanger, our pals at Perion, a big deal in the industry, have made the bold move to close down their content division, Content IQ. This particular part of their operation was all about advertising. The move is stirring up some waves, hinting at a possible shift in their game plan, or maybe it’s just a response to the above changes happening in the ad tech landscape about Made For Advertising sites.
Wasn’t that a shocker from Perion? It felt like they turned our world on its head, leaving us all scratching our heads, wondering what’s next. Could this be the first failing domino brick in a chain of changes in the ad tech universe? Like any rollercoaster in this industry, we’ll just have to buckle up and see where the ride takes us!
Peering into the future, it looks like we’re in for quite a thrilling journey, my friends! Publishers are on tenterhooks, curious about the aftermath of this MFA labeling. What does this mean for their businesses, and how will it shape their tomorrows? This is their defining moment – that’s why they need Clear Policies!
It feels like we’re standing on the threshold of an exciting new era, a fresh take on how things operate. Will the big publishers vanish or will they team up with ad tech frontrunners to demystify what an MFA site really is? Excited to find out where this adventure takes us!