As AI-generated content accelerates the production of made-for-advertising inventory, advertisers face a more fundamental question about the quality and value behind their media placements.

A recent investigation by DoubleVerify identified a coordinated network of more than 200 MFA domains. Individually, the domains appeared to be independent lifestyle blogs—  behind them, however, was a shared operation producing AI-generated articles and images designed around advertising delivery rather than the reader experience. According to DoubleVerify’s Fraud Lab, the network had generated tens of millions of impressions.

For advertisers, this makes transparency more important than ever: where do their ads appear, and what value do those placements really provide?

When scaling multiplies media risk 

MFA sites are not synonymous with AI-generated content. Generative AI can, however, make their content-production model easier and cheaper to scale. 

Digiday reports that DeepSee flagged at least 10,000 new low-quality AI sites per month during 2025, a pace that could accelerate further as generative tools become more accessible. In a separate analysis of approximately 20,000 sites, 70% were classified as content farms, 67% of the content on those sites was identified as AI-generated and 54% of the sites sent bid requests into the programmatic marketplace. Though these findings come from DeepSee’s monitored sample and are not to be taken as an estimate of the internet as a whole, they nevertheless illustrate how quickly low-quality, advertising-funded inventory can enter the media supply chain.  

 “When low-quality inventory becomes easier to scale, transparency must scale with it. ” 

AI-generated content is not automatically MFA. The concern arises when generative tools are used to scale low-quality content created primarily to attract advertising revenue.

Current evidence from the NewsGuard AI Tracking Center identifies 3,749 AI content-farm websites across 16 languages. Its criteria include substantial AI-generated content, inadequate human oversight, misleading presentation and no clear disclosure of AI use. NewsGuard also identifies programmatic advertising as a revenue source for many of these sites.

NewsGuard and Digiday use different definitions and methodologies, so their figures should not be combined into a single estimate of MFA exposure or wasted advertising spend. Together, however, their findings illustrate how AI can increase the supply of low-quality, advertising-funded inventory.

Passing a safety check is not the whole answer 

Responsible AI-assisted publishing should not be confused with content produced primarily to capture advertising revenue. Conventional brand-safety checks may also leave wider questions about inventory quality, relevance and value unanswered. Digiday reports that some MFA sites and low-quality AI content farms continue to attract programmatic advertising despite passing brand-safety checks.

ECI therefore recommends considering safety results as part of a broader assessment of the quality, relevance and transparency of the inventory purchased. When prices are low and delivery totals are strong, closer analysis can help determine whether the apparent efficiency has come at the expense of media quality.

Three questions to raise with your agency

MFA exposure should be managed as a measurable media-quality issue, with headline CPMs and standard brand-safety controls forming only part of the assessment.  

• Have we agreed clear quality requirements covering MFA exposure, viewability, brand suitability and frequency?
• Are cost and quality being measured separately, and where is actual delivery falling short of the agreed standards?
• Do agency KPIs and remuneration reward verified improvements in media cost and quality, rather than cheaper impressions or greater volume alone?

The key question is whether the agency can demonstrate that the inventory delivered the quality and value the advertiser intended to buy.  

Transparency before reassurance

As AI accelerates content production, advertisers need greater clarity about the inventory receiving their investment. Understanding where ads appeared, how quality was assessed and where measurement gaps remain provides a stronger basis for evaluating media performance.

Summary 

AI can increase the supply of low-cost MFA inventory, but lower prices and greater volume do not guarantee that those placements deliver the quality or media value advertisers expect. Clear quality requirements, transparent measurement and accountable agency incentives help advertisers understand what their investment delivered. More impressions for less can signal efficiency, but only closer analysis can reveal whether they delivered genuine media value.

Get in touch with our media experts to discuss how independent analysis can help assess cost and quality, identify MFA exposure and turn the findings into practical recommendations.

ECI works with advertisers across the agency relationship lifecycle, from deciding whether a pitch is the right route and managing the process, to reviewing contracts, remuneration, governance and ongoing performance.