Forbes, a prominent figure in the business media realm, has recently faced accusations of misleading advertisers by allegedly selling premium ad inventory on a subdomain, www3.forbes.com, rather than on the main www.forbes.com site.
This means that some ads were sold with the understanding that they would appear on Forbes.com, but they appeared on the www3 site, which could have a different audience and have diminished their impact.
Ad quality and transparency firm Adalytics brought these allegations to light, indicating that the subdomain generated a significantly disproportionate number of ad impressions compared to the primary site, sparking concerns about the integrity of the Forbes ad space being offered.
It must be noted that it was Forbes that called the www3 site a “subdomain” to clarify that it's not an alternate site, according to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ).
The Controversial www3 Subdomain
Forbes has reportedly been using this subdomain for ad placements since at least May 2017, with ads intended for Forbes.com being placed there since late 2021.
According to the Adalytics report, www3.forbes.com accounted for a notable share of Forbes' ad impressions, despite representing a mere 1% of its user base.
Major brands like Microsoft, American Express, McDonald’s, and even WSJ, were found to be running ads on this subdomain, with a significant portion of its traffic originating from content recommendation platforms.
“The ‘normal’ www.forbes.com root domain appears to get 90%+ of its readership through organic search and direct page navigation, whereas the “hidden” “www3.” sub-domain appears to source more than 70% of its readership through paid display ads,” the Adalytics report stated.
The www3 does not have subscriber paywalls and was not searchable via search engines or Forbes.com, but was only promoted through Outbrain and Taboola.
The subdomain hosted ads in formats like slideshows and listicles, significantly increasing the number of ads that can be placed on one page.
For instance, Adalytics found that one article in the form of a slideshow showed over 250 ads.
The subdomain appears to be a made-for-advertising (MFA) site, which brings to question if the cost per mille (CPM) paid to Forbes by advertisers was worth it.
“One consumer was shown 27 New York Times subscription ads and 201+ ads total while viewing a 52-slide slideshow on the “www3.” Forbes subdomain. The New York Times paid an effective cumulative CPM of $60.39 to serve ads to that one consumer,” Adalytics wrote.
Adalytics sent an advanced copy of its report to some of the companies involved and urged them to compare the findings with their own logfiles.
“I am now questioning my comfort with placing ads on Forbes as this feels like domain spoofing that is not being captured by IAS [ad measurement and verification firm Integral Ad Science],” a marketing executive from a Fortune 500 company said.
“I would never knowingly serve ads on any destination that can only be accessed via the chum bucket and are "hidden" from the true domain,” the executive added.
Forbes' Response and Industry Ramifications
Forbes has refuted Adalytics' allegations, labeling the report as "deeply misleading" and clarifying that the subdomain was initially intended for testing purposes and not commercial use.
The subdomain was deactivated on April 2 following concerns raised by the WSJ, with Forbes explaining that because the www3 subdomain “represents a very small part of Forbes’ user base and an insignificant part of our overall business, we’ve decided to shut it down.”
Despite media[.]net claiming the spoofing was the result of a technical error, the Forbes MFA subdomain is nowhere to be seen now. Not a terrible outcome!
— DeepSee.io - Publisher Intelligence (@deepsee_io) April 4, 2024
Always a delight collaborating with @AdalyticsHQ to take down fraud and waste!
WSJ reported that while Forbes pointed its finger at ad tech firm Media.net, which manages its ad-bidding software, the latter gave the excuse that “an unintentional error” in the software confused the bidding slots between Forbes.com and the www3 subdomain.
The fallout from this controversy has prompted advertisers to scrutinize their records for potential refunds related to impressions served on the MFA subdomain.
However, if taken more seriously, the accusations leveled against Forbes could be interpreted as a form of ad fraud, as the company stands accused of enticing advertisers to purchase ad space on an MFA subdomain while paying a premium to advertise on the main site.
