Amid discussions on how websites made for advertising can negatively impact honest publishers, such as previously considered Forbes.com, a recent report has called into question the actions of the Forbes publishing house. According to a study by Adalytics, a company specializing in advertising transparency, #Forbes has been using a subdomain for MFA for many years, unknown to ad buyers until this month.

Context of the Situation

The Forbes subdomain used for #MFA (Made For Advertising) secretly ran ads intended for the main site over many years, a fact that only became known in early April 2024. This has caused significant concern among agencies and their clients who invested substantial budgets in ad campaigns placed on the controversial subdomain.

Read more about this situation here.

Initial Investigation Results

The publication Digiday interviewed several advertising agency directors and they reported that the situation is far from resolved, as it is still unknown how much of their clients' budgets was spent on advertising placed on the Forbes subdomain (www3.forbes.com). However, initial checks showed that 4 to 5% of ad impressions (per advertiser) or 25% (per agency), which they intended to spend on ads on the main Forbes site, were actually on this substitute site.

A more serious problem for advertising agencies is the fact that their clients' ads were shown on this site for many years, and this went unnoticed by verifiers, DSP/SSP, or even within the agencies themselves. This means that control over reporting is at an inadequate level.

Details of the Adalytics Report and Its Implications

According to the report by #Adalytics, first noticed by the Wall Street Journal, the substitute site published articles from the main Forbes site but with significantly more advertising. The amount of advertising could exceed that on the main site by up to 19 times. This approach matches the characteristics of MFA sites, raising serious questions about the publisher. According to representatives of advertising agencies, they were unaware they were purchasing ad inventory on a substitute platform.

According to Similarweb data for March, the Forbes subdomain had only 147,000 page views, while the main site had 37 million. The main traffic to the substitute site was purchased through platforms Outbrain and Taboola.

Impact on Advertisers and Agencies

The revelation of this scheme has caused significant concern among advertisers and advertising agencies, who have begun to review past campaigns to understand where their money went and how to prevent similar situations in the future. In the short term, this has led to advertisers pulling budgets from Forbes. However, representatives of advertising agencies say this won't last long. They are more concerned about the possibility of such situations recurring in the future and how to prevent them.

«I don't chase a CPM of $0.25 [on the exchange] because I want to be sure that I'm getting the best inventory from [the publisher]... but now I think: well, darn, the publisher is swapping [domains]. Maybe it's worth returning to buying cheap traffic? This story casts a shadow on all publishers», said one advertising agency director.

Implications for Publishers

The situation with Forbes highlights the need for publishers to pay attention to the operation of advertising platforms and monitor where their revenue comes from. This is especially important in an environment where even large publishers may use questionable methods to increase advertising revenue. Website owners should demand transparency and accountability from their advertising partners to protect their investments and reputation.

Long-Term Implications for the Industry

This story also underscores the importance of transparency and openness in advertising technologies, which is crucial for maintaining trust and reputation in the eyes of advertisers and partners. Publishers must actively engage with advertising platforms to ensure that advertising budgets are used effectively and appropriately.

Further Reading:

• Market participants still use MFA sites
• What are MFA? Insights from secret meetings