In a newly released report by Adalytics, the digital marketing analytics firm has identified several major players in the ad tech industry that are excessively serving fraudulent and low-quality ads known as MFA (Made-for-Ads). These findings have brought to light the concerning practice of overconsuming MFA ads and its negative impact on brands.

The report, which builds upon earlier studies by Adalytics, exposes the vulnerability of various advertising platforms to unsuitable ad placements. While previous reports primarily focused on hypothetical scenarios, the current study highlights real ads being served to actual human visitors on low-quality websites.

Of the major ad carriers, Microsoft Ads and Xandr were observed as the major culprits, serving MFA ads to over 9,000 distinct businesses. This can be attributed to the vast number of small and local services, like barber shops and dental practices, that utilize the Microsoft Audience Network and are thus exposed to MFA ads through platforms like MSN and Bing.

Surprisingly, the report also identifies Google DV360 as the largest buyer of MFA ads, surpassing even Amazon, the second-largest offender, by roughly four times. Amazon's retail media network has been singled out for excessively placing MFA inventory with product listing ads. Retail media networks, including Amazon's, rely on targeting users based on their previous searches or online cart history, making them susceptible to MFA placements. Although these placements add little value, MFA supply can be attributed to post-view conversions, allowing Amazon to claim credit for conversions that may have occurred organically.

Notably, there are several ad tech companies that have managed to avoid involvement in MFA. Kargo, Ozone Project, and TrustX have been commended for their operations that heavily vet MFA and sell media only to specific news publishers, shielding them from MFA-related issues.

Among the standout DSPs (Demand-Side Platforms), Basis (formerly Centro) and The Trade Desk (TTD) have been recognized for their efforts to filter out MFA ads. TTD, in particular, has discreetly been blocking MFA for quite some time, giving the company a competitive advantage over other DSPs. However, industry observers speculate that TTD may have refrained from publicizing their success to maintain a positive perception of the programmatic web, as negative associations could harm their business.

The question arises as to why many ad tech companies still serve MFA ads when it is evident that they have the capability to block them. According to Adalytics, the problem lies in the fact that MFA is often treated as a one-time check-the-box issue instead of an ongoing concern. Despite previous announcements by SSPs (Supply-Side Platforms) and ad exchanges such as Magnite, Sharethrough, and PubMatic about efforts to weed out MFA, Adalytics found that these entities were still serving ads on MFA sites.

A significant challenge in combating MFA lies in the complex incentives of different stakeholders within the programmatic advertising ecosystem. Advertisers seeking cheap reach and incentivizing agencies or DSPs to maximize exposure to valid human audiences often inadvertently contribute to the prevalence of MFA ads. The reload feature on MFA sites further amplifies costs for advertisers while providing no tangible benefits, as the ads are often recycled multiple times without generating any additional value.

It is important for brands to be aware of the risks associated with MFA and to take necessary precautions to ensure they are not buying fraudulent or low-quality ad inventory. Adalytics' report serves as a wake-up call for the industry, urging ad tech companies to tackle the issue of MFA head-on and adopt ongoing maintenance practices to safeguard the interests of brands and consumers alike.