The MFA site traffic craze was a hot topic in ad tech last year. Many questioned: are all MFA sites bad? What exactly distinguishes what an MFA site is? At the time of the craze, MFA sites made up 15% of global programmatic ad spend, but agencies were working to combat them, much like AdLib and Jounce, and are working on them now. 

In a strategic move to enhance the quality and effectiveness of programmatic advertising, AdLib Media Group has announced a partnership with Jounce Media by integrating its MFA detection technology. 

In an effort to guarantee that advertisers focus their media investments on premium publishers to drive real consumer engagement, AdLib is providing agencies with tools to optimize their digital ad spend by connecting Jounce Media’s advanced MFA detection technology to automatically block low-quality traffic. 

“MFA websites are a growing threat to advertiser success. By integrating Jounce Media’s technology, we can safeguard client campaigns against wasted media investment,” said Mike Hauptman,founder and CEO of AdLib.. 

Jounce Media President Chris Kane echoed this sentiment. If the industry proactively blocks low-quality traffic, it ensures that media investments go toward genuine publishers that influence consumer purchase decisions.

Mike Hauptman: The Future of Programmatic Advertising

Andrew Byrd: Why did AdLib partner with Jounce Media specifically to block MFA traffic? What stood out about their solution?

Mike Hauptman: We partnered with Jounce Media because their approach to detecting and blocking MFA traffic is both innovative and reliable. 

What really stood out to us was their ability to dynamically identify and classify MFA sites, ensuring that we’re always one step ahead of the curve. 

They don’t just rely on static lists—they continuously update and refine their detection methods, which is crucial given how quickly MFA sites can evolve. This level of precision and their commitment to transparency made them the perfect fit for AdLib, where our goal is to deliver the highest quality media experiences for our clients.

AB: How does this partnership align with AdLib’s broader mission and strategy within the programmatic advertising space?         

MH: This partnership is a natural extension of our mission to make premium programmatic advertising accessible to all agencies, regardless of size. Our strategy has always been about reducing complexity and increasing transparency in the ad buying process. 

By integrating Jounce Media’s technology, we’re ensuring that our clients can trust the inventory quality they’re purchasing. It’s about removing the guesswork and inefficiencies that have long plagued programmatic, particularly for mid-market agencies that don’t have the resources to tackle these issues on their own.

AB: What impact do you expect this partnership to have on your client’s campaign performance and overall media investment?

MH: The impact is going to be significant. By automatically blocking MFA traffic, our clients will see a reduction in wasted ad spend and an improvement in campaign performance. MFA sites are notorious for inflating metrics without delivering real value, so by eliminating them, we’re ensuring that our clients’ budgets are directed toward high-quality, impactful placements. This not only boosts performance metrics like engagement and conversion rates but also enhances brand safety and reputation. 

AB: How do you plan to further enhance AdLib’s DSP platform with similar integrations in the future?         

MH: We’re always looking for ways to bring best-in-class tools and technologies to our platform. The Jounce partnership is just the beginning. Moving forward, we plan to integrate additional solutions that address other pain points in the programmatic space. Our focus is on building a platform that’s not only powerful but also easy to use, so our clients can focus on strategy and creativity rather than the technicalities of media buying.

AB: What steps will AdLib take to educate and onboard clients about this new feature and ensure they fully leverage its benefits?

MH: The beauty of this integration is that it’s completely turnkey and automatically enabled for all AdLib clients at no additional cost. There’s no setup required—clients will immediately benefit from enhanced ad quality without lifting a finger. We’ll also provide insights through the platform to highlight the positive impact on their campaigns.

AB: Are there any initial testing results to share after Jounce integrated its MFA detection tech into your DSP?

MH: While we’re still in the early stages of gathering comprehensive data, the initial results from our beta testing have been very promising. We’ve already seen a noticeable decrease in MFA traffic, leading to a more efficient ad spend allocation and improved campaign outcomes. We’re excited to share more detailed results as we collect data.

Chris Kane: Accelerating the Shift Toward Premium Supply

AB: We’ve discussed the MFA problem. What is the current state of Made for Advertising sites from your perspective? Has the ad tech industry gotten better at eliminating MFAs?

Chris Kane: Because MFA publishers are highly dependent on paid traffic, the availability of MFA supply is extremely responsive to buyer behavior. As buyers spend more on MFA inventory, those publishers can afford to buy more paid traffic. And as buyers pull back their spending on MFA sites, those publishers can no longer profitably buy traffic. 

The result was a giant run-up in the availability of MFA supply from 2020 through mid-2023, peaking at 30% of all web auctions. But as marketers have implemented MFA blocking solutions, MFA has contracted to less than 10% of web auctions. Still, MFA is a very large share of available supply, and buyers need to actively manage whether they participate in MFA auctions.

AB: Please remind us how Jounce Media developed the technology to accurately identify and block MFA sites. Can you walk us through the process?

CK: We post our criteria for classifying inventory as MFA here. We perform a battery of tests every day on every RTB-traded website to quantify whether each domain meets our criteria for MFA classification. Based on that daily-updating process, we regularly add and remove sites from our MFA list, and AdLib will now similarly continuously modify their default exclusion list to block new sources of MFA supply and re-enable bidding on sites that have retooled their operations to create a premium advertising experience.

AB: How does Jounce Media differentiate between MFA sites and legitimate publishers that might have similar characteristics?

CK: In addition to the process described above, we publish our complete MFA list to all of our clients via dashboards and data feeds on a daily-updating cadence. There are over 3,000 advertising professionals from over 100 companies that have direct access to our data, making our MFA list far more transparent and far more pressure tested than any other solution in the market.

AB: In your opinion, how will this partnership with AdLib impact the broader industry’s approach to MFA supply?

CK: In addition to benefiting their clients, AdLib’s decision to block MFA supply by default will accelerate an industry-wide shift toward premium supply. SSPs feed DSPs what they eat. 

When buyers shift their spending patterns away from MFA supply toward premium publishers, SSPs reshape the mix of ad opportunities that they make available to DSPs. Premium publishers are more available in the bidstream today than they were last summer, and AdLib’s decision to block MFA will accelerate this trend.

AB: What are the next steps for Jounce Media to improve and expand its technology to identify low-quality traffic?

CK: We are continuously researching new sources of supply chain inefficiency and new opportunities to deploy RTB investments more effectively. Among other topics, we are currently studying the landscape of in-stream video, benchmarks on ad density, and the accuracy of user targeting signals.

AB: Can you share any initial testing results after integrating your MFA detection tech into AdLib’s DSP?

CK: In July 2023, MFA bid request volume was at 30% but has since decreased to 10%. Through their partnership, AdLib and Jounce are committed to implementing best practices to reduce this percentage further.

The post AdLib Media Group and Jounce Media Join Forces to Combat MFA Traffic appeared first on AdMonsters.

With hints of arbitrage, a dash of low-quality inventory, and a sprinkle of a bad user experience, digital media companies are working to rid the ecosystem of MFA sites like the bubonic plague. The issue is that the industry is still trying to nail down the exact definition of an MFA site. But are they all bad news? 

According to Sharethrough, MFA sites make up one-fifth of global programmatic ad spend because advertisers are under a lot of pressure to maximize their ad spend, and publishers are under pressure to reach their impression goals. This is why some believe that Black-owned sites are unfairly labeled MFA sites, but the industry is working to nail down a standard definition and how to move forward. 

After we published our article about Black-owned publishers’ concerns about being designated MFA sites, we spoke to some of these industry experts to understand how they define them, how to distinguish a bad site from a benign one, and to see if the industry’s standards label Black-owned publishers as MFA sites unfairly. There are some mixed opinions and some overlap in classification, but the industry has one goal—creating a sustainable ecosystem. 

What is an MFA Site? Industry Experts Weigh In

We’ve established mixed definitions for MFA sites, but what is the industry saying? 

“The term ‘Made for Advertising’ has created significant confusion within the industry,” said Jack Smith, CPO at DoubleVerify. Smith further asserts that while of course, MFA sites with misinformation and poor content are problematic, there are some ad-heavy sites that may attract the audiences some advertisers want to reach.

According to Scott Pierce, Sr. Director for Product and Fraud at Integral Ad Science, MFA sites have varied definitions, dating back to the early days of programmatic advertising. While they’ve been called spam sites or ad farms, MFA has recently gained popularity.

“MFA sites offer a low-quality ad experience, often performing well on vanity metrics but delivering minimal value to marketers,” said Pierce. “Our findings, in line with research by Jounce Media and the ANA, indicate that advertising on MFA sites lacks meaningful campaign results, such as conversions and brand lift, making it a wasteful use of ad spend.” 

On the other hand, Jounce Media’s MFA Evaluation page defines MFAs as “inventory that achieves superficial KPIs like viewability by creating a user-hostile advertising experience.” However, Jounce Media specifies that a “user-hostile advertising experience” is subjective. Sometimes, it’s unclear where they draw the line for which RTB-traded websites meet MFA standards. 

How Do You Flag an MFA Site? 

IAS’s Approach: The media quality company’s approach focuses solely on performance, tying site characteristics to meaningful outcomes like conversions and brand lift. MFA sites are highly optimized to perform well against traditional campaign metrics such as click-through and viewability rates, but they don’t deliver actual value. 

“At IAS, we leverage AI to identify MFA sites. The model assesses various characteristics, including traffic sources, network associations, templating, and AI-generated content,” said Pierce. “Key focus areas involve ad clutter, evaluating factors like the ad-to-content ratio, total ads on a page, presence of auto-refreshing ads, refresh rates, autoplay video ads, and pop-ups.” 

Jounce Media’s Approach: Jounce performs a daily battery of tests across every RTB-traded website to evaluate three hallmarks of MFA supply: 

• Paid Traffic: MFA publishers heavily depend on clickbait ads from social networks and content recommendation platforms, making paid traffic their main cost driver.
• Aggressive Monetization: They manage these costs using aggressive monetization tactics like high ad frequency and rapid auto-refreshing placements, creating a user-hostile advertising experience while seeking arbitrage opportunities.
• Superficial KPIs: Despite achieving high viewability and video completion rates, our research shows that MFA publishers’ products do not influence consumer purchase decisions.

In addition, Jounce is now working with the DSP, Basis Technologies, to identify MFAs and steer ad dollars away from them.

Basis will integrate Jounce’s MFA site block list into its DSP, automatically applying it to all campaigns, but marketers and agencies retain the option to opt out. Ian Trider, Basis’s VP of product, highlighted that using a dynamic definition allows sites to make improvements that could reclassify them positively.

DoubleVerify’s Approach: DV created its exclusive MFA analysis process by combining human and AI auditing. Customers can directly activate this solution within their brand safety and suitability profile for measurement and monitoring.

“With the rise of AI tools that can rapidly spawn MFA sites, DV’s AI tech can assist global brands in identifying, measuring, and avoiding problematic MFA content in real-time and ultimately drive better marketing outcomes,” said Mark Zagorski, CEO of DoubleVerify.

More specifically, they look to see if:

• Ads dominate the page with high density, frequently refreshing to maximize earnings per visit. 
• Monetization relies heavily on paid traffic like social and native ads, lacking organic traffic. 
• The content aims to keep users endlessly engaged within the site, often duplicating verbatim across multiple sites and occasionally generated automatically by AI.

Myth or Fact: Are Some Black-owned Publishers Unfairly Labeled MFA Sites? 

There have been many facets to the MFA site conversation in ad tech, but a prominent concern developed when some Black-owned publishers became labeled as MFA sites. There are some mixed opinions about the validity of this claim. 

There is a history of stigma around traffic buying, but some Black-owned publishers purchase traffic to expand their platforms through SEO and editorial promotions. Of course, some agree that there are better practices outside of arbitrage, encouraging them to grow organic SEO engagement. 

Jounce Media acknowledged that brand safety standards have often suppressed diverse-owned media but stood on the fact that the MFA reformation does not marginalize diverse-owned publishers. “It is 100 times more likely for a non-diverse publisher to be classified as MFA than for a diverse-owned media company,” said Chris Kane, Founder of Jounce Media. 

However, there is still some concern from diverse-owned and small publishers that the MFA scourge will hurt their businesses. Dévon Christopher Johnson, CEO and founder of BleuLife Media Group and co-founder of non-profit organization BOMESI, said that telling Black-owned publishers not to buy traffic is “like telling a developing country ‘Don’t use fossil fuels’ after Americans used fossil fuels for 150 years to grow its economy. It’s kind of a slap in the face to do that.” 

However, just because you buy traffic does not automatically make you an MFA site. 

“I’m aware of concerns about MFA labels impacting black-owned or DEI sites. The industry must not penalize small publishers, including DEI publishers, using content recommendation platforms to build an audience,” said Scott Pierce. “Sourcing traffic from a partner doesn’t inherently make a site MFA. At IAS, we focus solely on how a site performs for marketers, emphasizing the importance of ad clutter and overall performance over traffic sources.” 

Redefining the Stigma Around Paid Traffic

Recently at our PubForum New Orleans conference, Justin Barton, SVP, Digital Strategy & Partnerships at Black Enterprise spoke about how he recently joined the 4A’s MFA Working Group which includes the ANA, IAB Tech Lab, Jounce Media and other publishers. This will allow publishers and parties from all sides of the industry to voice their concerns. 

Barton is focused on highlighting the significance of paid traffic and how that affects publishers being tagged on MFA lists. He believes that marketing through paid means shouldn’t be restricted for publishers, despite certain research organizations associating paid traffic with negative outcomes in native ads.  

“My aim is to normalize paid traffic for publishers by advocating transparency. This means ensuring that publishers engaging in paid traffic disclose their actions properly, refrain from excessive ad loads or aggressive video players on pages, and maintain transparency to avoid being labeled as MFA,” said Barton.

The post Ad Tech Industry Experts Weigh In On the MFA Scourge and Black Publishers’ Concerns appeared first on AdMonsters.

In August 2022, the IAB Tech Lab released a set of video ad standards that changed the definition of instream and outstream video. 

The updated guidelines defined instream video as sound on and playing before, during, or after streaming video content that the user requested, delivering within a player, monetizing content the publisher provided, and including linear and nonlinear ads, which didn’t need to be videos.

Unfortunately, those updates created a challenging video ad landscape for publishers, especially smaller ones. About 90% of what used to be considered instream inventory was now labeled outstream. In addition, it restricted plenty of quality inventory from being labeled as instream, thus wounding both publishers’ and advertisers’ capabilities. 

To remedy this mistake, the IAB Tech Lab has further amended their 2022 video ad updates to redefine the meaning of instream and outstream video inventory. 

Jenn Chen, President and CRO, Connatix 

Andrew Byrd: Can you walk me through, more specifically, exactly how publishers were struggling with the previous standards?

Jenn Chen: The industry had standards to define instream, but they needed to explain it more clearly. Part of the new definition puts the onus on the publisher to amend how their videos are showing. The video will either have audio or have a bunch of other things to oversimplify it. 

The challenge was a surprise because tons of publishers have excellent video content. For years, they intentionally showed video content without audio, even if there was an abysmal experience because it’s very interruptive for the user. Consequently, most of what they want to convert will take time and investment. 

Even if they don’t want to convert to audio, they have to make highly relevant videos and create something from scratch that matches the article exactly, or they have to change their entire page layout to conform to some of these other requirements. It began a slippery slope where the industry struggled to monetize the video inventory. It has implications for their business model and how advertisers perceive their website’s quality. It also created a new way of pricing a marketplace and a much more rigorous and calculated approach to defining video.

Luca Bozzo, Associate Director Programmatic Partnerships, Connatix

Andrew Byrd: The recent video ad updates were to help rectify the challenges the initial standards created. What are the more recent updates? 

Luca Bozzo: The working group set out to solve some of these issues by slightly expanding the definition of instream to the root of its meaning. The heart of instream is simply video that the consumer requested and consumed. For example, if a consumer searches YouTube for a video and clicks on it, that is instream content. 

But there are other ways to signal intent other than sound on. Sound on is one way, but if a consumer clicks to start the video experience, that can infer intent to consume. Suppose they go to the video section of a website. In that case, there’s nothing else to watch other than video content, so even if it starts witj sound off, it technically still would be content that the consumer requested and hence instream. The main goal at first was to broaden that definition. 

Chris Kane, Founder, Jounce Media

Andrew Byrd: You have a very well-rounded overview of the state of the internet and the supply chain. How do you think the struggle to define instream vs. outstream affects the supply chain overall? 

Chris Kane: Every ad tech company, The Trade Desk, Google, Magnite, and PubMatic, has inventory quality standards, which tend to be extensive sprawling documents. It is impossible to enforce those policies comprehensively. The goals are aspirational. This is how we would like to run our ad tech platform, recognizing that we will never achieve 100% compliance with these policies, but we’re striving to get as close to 100% as possible.

There was some ambiguity in the definition of instream versus outstream. It was hard for DSPs to enforce an ambiguous standard, and the video supply landscape got sloppy over the last five years. That’s the backdrop for why IAB Tech Lab, Connatix, The Trade Desk, and others are trying to get organized on video standards.

AB: The next step is to establish these new guidelines as an industry standard, and the Trade Desk announced that they would start implementing the new measures. Will this help move the needle along? 

CK: I’m more pessimistic about this than I was a couple of weeks ago. The first step that needs to happen in the industry is that the IAB tech lab needs to build consensus around a standard, and they’ve done that. They struck out the first go-round, but now there’s a consensus around this new set of criteria. Now some powerful ad tech company needs to go and enforce those standards. Nobody needs to comply until a giant buyer says you must comply, or I’m not spending money.

That means that The Trade Desk or Google must start enforcing the standards. If they required accurate video inventory labeling, that would push the industry in a good direction.

Paul Bannister, Chief Strategy Officer, Raptive

Andrew Byrd: The end goal for the updates is to create industry-wide standards. Is this something the ad tech industry needs to work on? 

Paul Bannister: Standardization benefits every advertising medium — CTV, video display, mobile, etc. The more we can standardize and increase transparency, the more we can make it so buyers know what they’re buying and feel they can trust who they’re buying from. Sign us up all day to make those standards happen and push those things forward — a cleaner, more transparent, and more well-lit industry creates more opportunities for publishers, advertisers, and creators to win.

The post IAB Tech Lab’s Video Ad Guidelines: The Journey to Industry-Wide Implementation appeared first on AdMonsters.

That explains a lot about how the triopoly has been able to maintain its stronghold of the majority of ad spend (roughly 85%), even though it’s getting much harder to target the people who actually want to buy stuff. Together, they know a heck of a lot about all of the people that advertisers want to reach and their walled gardens have been the most effective way of reaching those people for cheap. Especially Amazon, which owns the customer experience all the way from product discovery to checkout.

But we’ve seen Facebook and Google’s latest revenues dampened by privacy restrictions. And we can expect them to prioritize their own ad businesses over making any major investments in the future of the open internet (which means publisher survival).

So what does that mean for the rest of the open web?

If open internet media companies want to continue to grow, they’re going to have to reduce their dependence on the triopoly and they’ll also need to diversify their revenue.

“Big publishers have some very structural advantages in their ability to hedge against some of these risks for Google, Amazon, and Meta — but just more generally to build a durable source of revenue,” says Chris Kane, Founder and President, Jounce. “And, I think what that sets up is that the open internet supply is going to get more and more concentrated with a relatively small number of publishers.”

Considering about 1 million properties get transacted programmatically, it might be easy to think of the open internet as this very fragmented supply.  But really only a small number of media companies control the vast sea of properties that comprise the open internet. In fact, the 10 largest web publishers capture half of all web spend.

Check out the following chart, from Jounce’s 2022 Market Outlook, which plots the distribution of programmatic web, mobile app, and CTV spend by publisher:

Companies like Disney, NBC Universal, and Warner Media operate diverse multi-channel portfolios that concentrate open internet supply. Scaled media companies like these have technical sophistication, sales presence, negotiating leverage, and data richness at their disposal helping them to catch more programmatic dollars than their media peers. And with all of the recent M&A activity we’ve seen happening in the industry, the supply is only going to become more concentrated.

To learn more about Open Internet Supply Concentration, as well as Walled Garden Coopetition and Supply Chain Compression, head over to Jounce and download: The State Of The Open Internet: A Data-driven Perspective On The Forces That Will Shape The Ad-supported Open Internet In 2022.

The post Supply Concentration: Handful Of Media Companies Capture Majority Of Spend appeared first on AdMonsters.

In the halcyon days of header bidding, publishers were delighted to integrate one demand source after another into their newly integrated wrappers. But even then many knew the shopping spree couldn’t last—the amount of duplicative auctions would eventually catch up with the buy side (causing immense pain to the DSPs, but hey—they had some good times during the waterfall age) and publishers would have to determine which partners boasted unique demand.

For the last few years, evaluating demand partners in headers has been a huge topic among publishers, inspiring a playbook and countless Publisher Forum sessions—there’s even one at PubForum Santa Monica, led by Hive Media’s Jennifer Chau and Azhar Salim focusing on A/B testing. Most publishers these days seem more focused on culling demand partners and supply path optimization than popping in Johnny-come-latelys.

Which is why I was surprised to see in the latest Jounce Media RTB Supply Path Benchmarking Report—available to those with Monstership subscriptions—that auction duplication was up over the past several months. Jounce’s research through always on-bidding of 61 publishers discovered that on average a publisher had 18.3 open-auction supply paths in January 2020, versus 17.8 in December and 17 in November.

I bet I wasn’t the only one who furrowed their brow at that stat. If publishers are weaning the header ranks and further pursuing supply path optimization, the number of duplicative auctions should be going down. Even if publishers added a few partners to take advantage of eager fourth-quarter spend, you’d think that would taper off in January.

But that got me wondering about some other research AdMonsters recently conducted on fill rates with GeoEdge. The final report found that while limiting partners in the header was a key way to reduce the probability of malvertising and redirects, more demand sources present created increased bid density and ultimately higher CPMs (and fill rates).

Especially in the open auction, it’s still in publishers’ interest to keep up high bid density via a large number of demand partners—which in turn results in duplicate auctions. This puts continuing pressure on the buy side to engage in supply path optimization—publishers aren’t lying when they point out the benefits for advertisers!

There’s even more amazing data in this month’s RTB Supply Path Benchmarking Report in the Monstership section. And you can also catch Jounce Media’s Chris Kane chat with the AdMonsters content team about the fate of the open programmatic ecosystem at Publisher Forum Santa Monica, March 8-11.

The post Jounce: Duplicate Auctions Still on the Rise appeared first on AdMonsters.

Are you panicking at the idea that the majority of your inventory will soon lack identifiers? Are you hyperventilating about digital publishers’ chances of survival?

Then you’ll want to grab one of the limited seats at AdMonsters’ 50th Publisher Forum in Santa Monica, Mar. 8-11.

Here are five sessions you don’t want to miss:

1. Monday Morning Keynote With Jamie Gutfreund

As strange as it may seem, the demise of the third-party tracking cookie—as well as other tumultuous industry shifts over the last few years—is not terrible for publishers.In fact, these major changes are presenting premium publishers great opportunities—in particular, the ability to cozy up to advertisers and serve as a guide for a landscape that’s transformed dramatically in the past few years. Using anecdotes from her long career on the buy-side, Monday Morning Jamie Gutfreund will show you just how to demonstrate your enhanced value with audience targeting, measurement, and insights to clients big and small.

2. Digital Media Drilldown With Jounce Media

Jounce Media’s research and predictions on the programmatic space have become quintessential reading for all digital advertising professionals. With a new report on “The State of the Open Internet” just released, the AdMonsters content team will grill Chris Kane about the bigger-picture consequences of Google’s cookie slaughter—consolidations, closings, courtships, oh my!

3. The Future of the DMP

OMG—without third-party tracking cookies, data management platforms are toast! Hold on there, partner—Lotame’s Adam Solomon will explain why the Chrome cookie dump is just part of a new chapter for DMPs, one in which they’ll become even more vital for publishers than before.

4. Let the Data Flow Throughout Your Organization

The exit of third-party tracking cookies calls for bold new strategies in data management—ones thinking beyond just the revenue department. Buzzfeed Director of Data Management, Josh Peters, shares his company’s experiences overhauling their data management program and its progress in building a circulatory system supplying multiple divisions outside revenue—think marketing and editorial—with actionable data insights.

5. Escaping CCPA Limbo

As if publishers didn’t have enough to worry about with the third-party cookie crumbling, more and more state governments are setting up data privacy laws faster than you can say “Consent.” Highest on every publisher’s mind is the California Consumer Privacy Act, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, will start being enforced July 2020… and doesn’t actually have finalized text! Loeb & Loeb digital privacy legal expert Jessica B. Lee will help you figure out how to future-proof your tracking and data programs to ensure you’re respecting user privacy and staying on the right side of the law(s).

Of course, third-party cookie talk will permeate the entire agenda of the Publisher Forum—truth be told, there isn’t one session you want to miss!

The post The Big Google Cookie Crumble: 5 Sessions To Help You Prep appeared first on AdMonsters.