Media planners are under constant pressure to deliver efficiency and transparency. Yet one of the biggest drains on budgets comes from Made-for-Advertising (MFA) sites. These websites are designed primarily to host ads rather than provide real value to users. On the surface, they look like affordable scale, but in reality, they inflate costs, distort reporting, and weaken campaign effectiveness.

What Are MFA Sites?

MFA sites are low-quality web properties engineered to maximize ad impressions. They often feature:

  • Clickbait headlines and endless pagination

  • Minimal editorial value, heavy ad clutter

  • Traffic often sourced from paid networks or arbitrage

  • Engagement metrics far below premium publisher benchmarks

Key Facts

  • MFA sites accounted for 15% of programmatic ad spend in ANA’s 2023 study, reduced to 4% among advertisers using advanced transparency controls (ANA & TAG TrustNet, 2024).

  • Users spend 40–60% less time on MFA pages compared to premium news or content sites (Comscore, 2022).

  • MFA impressions are up to 3x more likely to be non-viewable or invalid compared to premium supply (Jounce Media, 2023).

  • Cutting MFA sites can improve working media efficiency by 10–20% (WARC, 2023).

Why MFA Sites Are a Hidden Cost

Wasted budget

Ads served on MFA sites often fail to reach engaged audiences. While CPMs may appear lower, the effective cost per quality impression is higher due to poor performance.

Distorted reporting

High impression counts from MFA sites can make campaign reach look stronger, masking weak engagement and conversion rates.

Brand safety risks

MFA environments often lack editorial standards, putting brands next to irrelevant or low-quality content.

Sustainability impact

Every fraudulent or low-value impression still consumes energy. Serving ads on MFA sites increases the carbon footprint of campaigns without delivering business outcomes.

Forecasts and Trends

  1. Industry scrutiny: Agencies and associations are increasing pressure to eliminate MFA inventory from programmatic buys.

  2. Transparency tools: Independent audits and log-level data access allow advertisers to benchmark their MFA exposure.

  3. Supply curation: Growth of curated marketplaces and SPO practices helps shift spend away from MFA supply paths.

  4. Client demand: RFPs increasingly include MFA avoidance as a requirement for global brands.

Practical Takeaways / Solutions

  • Audit your supply: Use log-level data audits to identify spend going to MFA domains.

  • Adopt curation: Buy from curated marketplaces that exclude MFA sites.

  • Set contractual guardrails: Require DSPs and SSPs to disclose MFA exposure.

  • Educate clients: Show how reducing MFA spend increases effective reach and ROI.

  • Link to sustainability goals: Cutting MFA also reduces wasted impressions and associated emissions.

Benefits for agencies

  1. Higher ROI: More budget goes to quality, engaged audiences.

  2. Stronger trust: Transparency builds credibility with clients.

  3. Alignment with ESG: Efficiency measures support sustainability commitments.

Conclusion

MFA sites are not harmless low-cost inventory—they are a silent drain on budgets and brand value. By shifting spend toward premium, transparent, and sustainable supply, agencies can protect clients from wasted impressions and hidden costs. Eliminating MFA exposure isn’t just a best practice—it’s becoming a requirement for competitive media planning.

FAQs

Q1. How can agencies identify MFA sites?

Through log-level data audits, supply path analysis, and vendor tools like Jounce Media domain lists.

Q2. Are MFA sites the same as fraudulent sites?

Not exactly. MFA sites are technically legitimate but provide little to no value. Fraudulent sites often involve bots or misrepresentation.

Q3. Do clients care about MFA exposure?

Yes. Many brands now include MFA avoidance in RFPs to ensure their ads run in safe, effective environments.

References

Association of National Advertisers (ANA) & TAG TrustNet. (2024). Programmatic Transparency Benchmark Findings. ANA/TAG.

Comscore. (2022). Digital Media Quality Benchmark Report. Comscore Research.

Jounce Media. (2023). Programmatic Supply Chain Quality Report. Jounce Media.

WARC. (2023). Supply Path Optimization and Media Efficiency. WARC Research.

Share