mFilterIt Experts

Traffic Quality vs Invalid Traffic Volume: What Really Drives Campaign Performance?

Every brand’s marketing program runs on one principle – more visits amount to more leads. While Google and META highly influence users’ journey but not all that stands true. The journey is simple but equally prone to the complexities of digital advertising ecosystem. This shifts the real question from how many visits your campaigns generate to where those visits are coming from or if they are leading to any conversions? We saw this firsthand while working with one of the USA’s leading aggregator players. For them, deeper validation of their campaign traffic was the turning point. When they looked closer at where their visits were actually coming from, the picture changed entirely. Irrelevant, low-quality sources were quietly eating into their budget and polluting their campaign data, making it nearly impossible to measure what was truly working. So, they made a call: blacklist the bad sources. Clean the data. And rebuild on a foundation they could actually trust. In this blog, we break down exactly how that played out: Sources that pollute Google and Meta campaigns and their impact How blacklisting changed the game The measurable impact of defending against fraudulent traffic Key takeaways for marketers Conclusion Source-Level Fraud in Google and META Campaigns We did a thorough analysis of the brand’s campaigns running on Google and META and here’s what we found – From META, brand received the highest Invalid Traffic (IVT) of 28.51%. From Google, brand got 8.15% IVT from various fraudulent sources. The difference in invalid traffic across platforms clearly shows that not every traffic source delivers the same quality of users. A campaign may generate high traffic numbers, but that does not always mean the visits are genuine or valuable. In some cases, a large portion of traffic can come from fraudulent or low-quality sources that never convert into real customers. For Google campaigns, the IVT percentage may appear lower compared to other platforms, but the advertising costs on these walled gardens are significantly higher. This means that even a small percentage of invalid traffic can result in substantial budget wastage and reduced campaign efficiency. To understand this better, let’s look at the major sources contributing to IVT and the direct impact they have on marketing campaigns – VPN/ Proxy Fraud: Traffic routed through VPNs or proxy networks to disguise real user identity and location. Impact: Bypasses geo-targeting and fraud filters, making fake traffic appear legitimate. Geo Fraud: Traffic coming from the geographies that were never a target at the first place. Impact: Creates a false sense of campaign success in priority markets. Behavior Fraud: Bots or automated scripts designed to mimic real user actions like fake clicks, scrolling, session duration. Impact: Inflates engagement metrics while delivering zero real intent. Device Repetition: Repeated interactions from the same device or a controlled pool of devices also called device farms. Impact: Indicates click farms or emulator-driven traffic, skewing user-level data. Pop-Under Traffic: Ads triggered in hidden or background windows without active user intent. Impact: Generates low-quality visits that look like traffic but don’t convert meaningfully. mFilterIt’s Solution: How Blacklisting Changed the Game for Leading Aggregator mFilterIt transformed campaign performance by shifting the focus from traffic volume to traffic authenticity. Through our ad fraud detection tool, brands attained real-time traffic validation and source-level analysis, identifying and blocking fraudulent or low-quality sources before they impact campaign outcomes. This enables brands to take precise actions like blacklisting, ensuring that only genuine users move through the funnel. Here’s how it changed the game – IVT Dropped by 42% in META Campaigns What began at 38% dropped down to 22% in just three months, a major 42% reduction in IVT. This was not a one-time correction; it indicates a consistent, ongoing improvement driven by focused campaign optimization. As deeper traffic validation was done and low-quality sources were identified, the system was able to filter out fraudulent sources such as geo-masking and repeated device activity. Over time, this led to cleaner inputs, better targeting decisions, and more reliable performance signals. The continuous decline also indicates that optimization efforts didn’t just remove existing fraud but actively prevented its recurrence. IVT Dropped by 8.4% in Google Performance Max Campaign Below graph highlights reduction of IVT in Google performance max campaigns by 8.4%. Invalid traffic dropped from 15.84% in September to 14.51% in November—a noticeable improvement over a short period. In Performance Max campaigns, even a single percentage point reduction matters because these campaigns operate at scale and involve higher media spends. So, while the IVT reduction is 8.4%, the real impact goes beyond that number. Less wasted spend on invalid traffic means more budget is directed toward. Campaign Performance Over Time: The Impact of Traffic Quality Optimization Once the blacklisting began, the campaign showed progress in terms of traffic quality in both Google and META campaigns. Let’s see what each denotes – Performance Improvement in META Campaigns This table highlights how campaign performance evolved over a five-month period, Initially, when all traffic sources were allowed to run freely during August, the campaign delivered 1,753 clicks and 101 conversions, resulting in a conversion rate of 5.76%. While costs were moderate, performance was held back by poor traffic quality. As shown in the image below, the conversion rate significantly improves post blacklisting. Moving into September 2025, there’s an interesting shift. Although costs increased by 23.5%, the conversion rate improved to 6.31%. This suggests that cleaning up low-quality traffic sources (likely via blacklisting or filtering) began to pay off. Even with higher spend, the campaign became more efficient because the traffic quality improved. By October 2025, performance stabilizes. Costs remain nearly flat (+0.5%), but the conversion rate climbs further to 6.64%. This indicates that earlier optimizations are holding strong, and the campaign is now reaching a more relevant audience consistently. In November, the conversion rate jumped to 7.36%. The upward trend in conversion rate from 5.76% to 7.36%; is significant. It reflects a clear improvement in traffic quality and campaign efficiency, not just increased spend or scale. Performance Improvement in Google Campaigns The data highlights a clear turning point in campaign performance before and after blacklisting was implemented. In August, the campaign struggled with high cost per conversion (519) and a low conversion rate (0.48%), indicating inefficient spend driven by poor traffic quality. The campaign improved once blacklisting was brought in action as reflected in conversion rates. Post-implementation, starting September, performance improved significantly. Cost per conversion dropped sharply from 137 in September to as low as 67 by early November while conversion rates increased from 0.48% to 2.07%. This reflects the direct impact of filtering out low-quality and fraudulent traffic, allowing the campaign to focus on more relevant users. Overall, the trend demonstrates how traffic

Traffic Quality vs Invalid Traffic Volume: What Really Drives Campaign Performance? Read More »

Merchant Risk Monitoring in the Evolving Digital Payments Scenario

Blog, Brand Protection / mFilterIt Experts

Digital payments in India, led by Unified Payments Interface, are growing at an exceptional pace. Transaction values continue to rise year after year, reflecting how deeply digital payments are now part of everyday life. The graph below highlights this momentum, with transaction volumes growing YoY and an expected 300% increase in both transaction volume and rupee value by FY30 vs FY25. Emerging Trends: UPI payments are the key driver of this growth – with its ecosystem of participating Banks (~700), merchant ecosystem (~65 million) and serving nearly half a billion customers. UPI in terms of Volumes is expected to grow contribute ~85% in terms of rupee value of all digital payments by FY30. Add to this the 40 authorised TPAPs, the ecosystem is bound to flourish and is also insulated from external threats (eg. GPay, visa, mastercard shutting down in Russia); given that this is completely Made in India tech stack. A key component of UPI Payments is the Merchant Eco System – currently contributing ~30% of current value to ~63% in terms of Rupee value. Debit and Credit Cards comprising POS and Digital spends, expected to grow at a CAGR of 25%, with spends primarily coming from credit cards and increase penetration of UPI linked credit cards. The spends growth will be primarily driven by digital spends which is expected to be around 72-75% (FY30) from the current 63%. – this represents a a perceptible shift away from the traditional Brick and Mortar Merchant. Prepaid / Fastag & SI transactions is expected to see a steady growth with primary spends being digital in nature. Emergence of Fintechs, TPAPs, Payment Banks, Telcos once dominated primarily by banks and technology firms, the sector now attracts players from diverse fields such as retail, telecommunications, FinTech, and e-commerce, enabling cross-sector innovation and new market entrants. The above trends is a paradigm shift vis a vis what we have seen till a few years ago and brings with it, its own perils such as cybercrime and fraud risks. Cybercrime has evolved to such and extent that FY25 has seen a 24% spike in cybercrimes reported on the NCRP portal, with the rupee value of reported fraud loss being INR 22,495 crores. This is the reported numbers and the overall non reported instances could be approximated to be 1x in terms of rupee value. Given that this is majorly digital, the merchant eco-system plays a key role in the same; payment instruments like VPAs, underlying merchant accounts etc are used extensively as collections accounts to receive the proceeds of such crime or act as an intermediary in the laundering of such proceeds. Hence it is that much more imperative that there is a lot more focus on the kind of merchant who are being on boarded; given the digital nature of merchant spends and the ease at which the merchant can evolve post onboarding, a Life Cycle based Risk Management Approach is the need of the hour. Every merchant you onboard is a vote of confidence in your platform. But every transaction they process is also a new surface for risk. Hence, what starts at onboarding shouldn’t stop there; it needs continuous attention. In this blog, we will discover- How one-time checks are not enough in merchant onboarding How rapid growth in digital payments is increasing risk And how end-to-end merchant evaluation can make a real difference How One Time Risk Checks are not Enough in Merchant Onboarding? There is a traditional belief that all merchant risks can be tackled before onboarding and once the onboarding is completed, no merchant risks can travel, making the following, the key checkpoints of merchant onboarding – Verify business details Review website Approve and go live But as the digital payment ecosystem is growing more complex, merchant risk monitoring does not stop at onboarding. Assuming that merchants will remain compliant after initial checks is often unreliable. In reality, risks can emerge at any stage post-onboarding, such as – Change in website content Sale of restricted / banned / high-risk products Manipulate redirects or hidden flows Drift away from declared business categories All of this happens after onboarding, when visibility is often limited. How Scaling Digital Payments Elevates Risk in Merchant Onboarding While digital adoption is speeding up, it also brings in new risks that don’t just appear at the start, they continue throughout the merchant journey. More merchants mean: More variation in quality and intent More edge cases that manual checks miss Higher probability of fraudulent or non-compliant entities slipping through However, stopping the merchant ecosystem from evolving is not the solution- “Continuous Monitoring”, is. Why Onboarding Checks Alone aren’t Enough & How Continuous Monitoring Fills the Gap? Here’s how comprehensive and continuous merchant risk monitoring strengthens payment getaways, enabling them to fill the gaps created by just focusing on merchant onboarding – (also include business outcome) Onboarding-only monitoring limitations How holistic monitoring helps One-time snapshot of the merchant Continuous tracking of merchant behavior Misses post-onboarding risks Detects emerging risks in real time Relies on static documents Validates ongoing digital presence and activity No visibility into changes in offerings Flags deviations in products/services Cannot track compliance drift Monitors policy compliance risk continuously Misses malware or suspicious activity later Scans regularly for threats and anomalies Reactive issue resolution Enables proactive risk prevention Higher risk of regulatory/reputation impact Strengthens against compliance risk and brand protection End-to-End Merchant Evaluation: A New Outlook to The Merchant Life Cycle. Merchant onboarding now demands confidence that cannot be achieved without holistic evaluation of merchant lifecycle, one that goes beyond onboarding and keeps validating risk at every stage. That’s where mFilterIt’s approach and product offerings steps I; not only focussing on onboarding but also monitors and evaluates risk which may evolve at a later stage. Business & Operational Analysis We help you truly understand who you’re onboarding by looking beyond basic details-analyzing the business, verifying promoters, and checking location authenticity. Outcome: You onboard genuine, trustworthy merchants from the start. Pre-screening & Identity Verification We validate merchants using multiple signals like contact details, device, IP, and KYC documents to catch inconsistencies early. Outcome: Lower chances of fraud and stronger defence against compliance risk from day one. Website Risk Analysis (and beyond) We continuously monitor the merchant’s digital presence-checking website content, offerings, compliance, and any suspicious activity. Outcome: Early detection of risks and better control even after onboarding. Overall impact: You move from one-time checks to continuous visibility—helping you build a safer

Merchant Risk Monitoring in the Evolving Digital Payments Scenario Read More »

Affiliate Marketing is Here to Stay. But Are You Compliant Enough

Infographics / mFilterIt Experts

Affiliate marketing remains the most scalable method for promoting business, since brands can efficiently get access to greater numbers of consumers. At the same time, there is an obvious connection between scalability and higher vulnerability to various risks, such as affiliate fraud, idleness, and lack of compliance. Hence, the absence of proper ad fraud detection and affiliate compliance solutions will quickly turn this method into budget leakage and performance impairment. The presented infographic shows the problems that arise in affiliate marketing, from invalid traffic to attribution gaps and brand safety issues. Based on the insights from the industry experts, the infographic emphasizes the importance of moving towards a more robust framework for affiliate marketing in order to achieve more transparency, control, and security of the process. It also provides a practical checklist for brands and affiliate program managers to ensure authentic results and strengthen compliance throughout. Check out the infographic to know more. Download Submit

Affiliate Marketing is Here to Stay. But Are You Compliant Enough Read More »

Affiliate Growth vs Brand Infringement: How BFSI Brands in MENA Can Stay Protected

Guide, Brand Protection / mFilterIt Experts

The affiliate economy in the Middle East and Africa is scaling fast; valued at USD 370.24 million in 2024 and projected to grow at a CAGR of 7.7% through 2031. For BFSI brands, this isn’t just growth; it’s a fundamental shift in how customer acquisition happens. (Source) The numbers clearly indicate that affiliate partnerships and Direct Selling Agents (DSAs) have become foundational to BFSI growth across MENA. Yet, the same ecosystem driving acquisition can impact compliance posture and customer trust often without immediate visibility. Previously, we explained the factors polluting campaign metrics with a real analysis of campaign data. Read Here But fixing performance without addressing partnership risk is only a partial solution. Because even clean metrics can sit on top of brand impersonation or non-compliant messaging. In a region as vast, linguistically diverse, and fast-moving as MENA, these risks do not surface easily. They secretly slip into digital noise, adapt to local contexts, and scale faster than most teams can track using traditional methods. In this guide, we break down: How affiliates and DSAs can misuse marketing programs intentionally or otherwise How brand infringement in MENA is rising faster than most brands realize What BFSI brands must do to build visibility, control, and trust across their partner ecosystem How Affiliates Manipulate BFSI Campaigns and Attribution While the stats reflect brand’s reliance on affiliate programs, one thing that they cannot afford to ignore is the misuse of marketing programs by brand’s own partners. Some partners very strategically claim the conversions of traffic they did not influence on the first page. Here’s how it happens – Brand Bidding Violations Under brand bidding, brands bid on their keywords so that if users search for a product/service, their website ranks on search engine, making user journey to your website, seamless. In this, the core purpose of affiliates is to attract organic traffic to brand’s website that later converts and adds value to the revenue. However, many affiliates divert that organic traffic through brand bidding violations. These affiliates quietly bid on brand’s keywords causing two-fold impact on brand – First, it increases the cost of the brand’s keyword bids, making paid search campaigns more expensive. Second, it diverts traffic that was already likely to reach the brand organically, forcing the brand to pay twice for the same user, once through higher acquisition costs and again through affiliate commissions. Real World Use Case This is what we found in one brand’s case where an affiliate ad was running under brand’s name for a keyword the brand had already bid on. When a user clicks on the affiliate ad, they are redirected to the brand’s website through an affiliate link, allowing the affiliate to claim credit and commission for traffic that would have reached the brand organically. This is also called organic hijacking. Browser Extension Another method that affiliates opt to claim wrongful attribution is dropping cookies in user’s browser extensions. Here’s how it goes a user has an extension (like coupon or deal tools) that silently triggers affiliate link without user’s permission. Hence, if a user makes any purchase from brand’s website, this link attributes the purchase to that affiliate. How Brand Infringement Is Increasing Across MENA Brand infringement is yet another very crucial factor for BFSI brands that they cannot overlook especially in a sensitive area like MENA. In markets, where digital adoption is growing at an unprecedented pace, even a single instance of fake listings, impersonation, or misleading brand communication can have far-reaching consequences. Let’s know in what more ways the impact surrounds brands by creating a false angle around brand name. Fake social media handles Fraudsters create pages and profiles that closely mirror official brand accounts, matching names, logos, and messaging styles. These handles are used to push fake offers, fraudulent helpline numbers, and phishing attacks, misleading customers who engage in good faith believing they’re talking to the real brand. Real world use case Suspicious social media handle of renowned bank of Dubai was discovered on Facebook where fraudsters were manipulating customers by using bank’s digital assets. APK copycat apps Cloned mobile apps replicate a brand’s interface, name, and user experience to deceive users into downloading them. Distributed outside official app stores, these fake APKs are used to steal login credentials, financial information, and sensitive personal data, posing a serious risk in markets where mobile is the primary touchpoint. Phishing websites Lookalike websites replicate official pages and login portals with enough accuracy to deceive users who aren’t scrutinising every detail. A minor domain variation is often sufficient. For BFSI brands especially, where customers routinely submit sensitive data through digital forms, the damage from a single phishing attack can be swift and far-reaching. Logo misuse Unauthorised use of brand logos and visual assets across rogue websites, affiliate pages, and social platforms lends false credibility to scams and fraudulent promotions. The familiar look is enough to make a scheme appear legitimate at first glance and repeated misuse gradually erodes the trademark’s legal strength and brand reputation. Deepfakes and Synthetic identities AI-generated videos, cloned voices, and fabricated identities are now being used by fraudsters for brand impersonation where these synthetic personas spread false investment advice, fake announcements, and scam communications at scale and by the time the content is debunked, the reputational damage is already done. Misinformation and fake narratives False claims, fabricated complaints, and manipulated stories about a brand can spread across digital channels faster than any correction can follow. For BFSI brands, misinformation around policy changes, rate updates, or security incidents can significantly dent public trust and algorithms keep surfacing these narratives long after they’ve been disproved. For BFSI brands, where trust is the foundation of every customer relationship, any misdirect can invite irrecoverable repercussions. The stats below highlight exactly this, the severity of brand infringement in MENA – 48% of infringement cases lead to revenue loss across BFSI and ecommerce sectors 72% of consumers lose trust after encountering fake or misleading brand content 7 in 10 MENA consumers hold the brand responsible, not the platform, for counterfeit or scam listings These numbers highlight a simple but important reality: consumers rarely separate the platform from the brand being impersonated. When they come across fraudulent or misleading content, the loss of trust is directed at the brand itself. What BFSI Brands Must Do to Bring Transparency in Affiliate Ecosystem The reality is this: partnerships aren’t the problem; blind spots are. Brands today are walking a tightrope. On one

Affiliate Growth vs Brand Infringement: How BFSI Brands in MENA Can Stay Protected Read More »

How a D2C Beverage Brand Drove 82% Orders Growth on BlinkIt in 30 Days Using Unified Ad Manager

Blog, Digital Shelf Analytics / mFilterIt Experts

This blog is a look at what changed when structured campaign management replaced manual processes, and what the data showed one month later. Here’s some background for you. A fast-growing beverage brand was running keyword and product listing campaigns on Blinkit across multiple cities in India. While the brand had an established product catalogue and a reasonable ad budget, their campaign performance was inconsistent. To overcome this, the brand adopted a performance marketing management platform to bring structure and intelligence to their campaign and optimization processes. The result was a 60% increase in revenue within a month. Continue reading further to find out how Unified Ad Manager (UAM) worked. Three Gaps That Were Holding The Performance Campaign Results Back Most brands running campaigns manually hit at least one of these problems. This D2C beverage brand was dealing with all three simultaneously. Campaign inconsistency Between 6th to 21st November 2025, campaigns were near-inactive for 15+ days, which means effectively zero visibility on the platform during that period. A day without active spend is a day where competitors fill the shelf space. Limited keyword coverage Keyword gaps mean entire search queries go uncontested. Only 77 keywords were active, leaving large portions of search demand for tonic water, mixers, and sodas uncaptured. High cost per order An ACoS of 69.2% and ₹189 per order made scaling the campaigns economically difficult to justify. Without time-aware budget pacing, money gets spent during off-peak hours when purchase intent is low. What Automated Campaign Management Using Unified Ad Manager Changed The brand adopted mFilterIt’s Unified Ad Manager (UAM), a performance marketing management platform that provides ecommerce analytics in a single view to address the structural gaps across three areas: campaign scheduling, keyword discovery, and bid optimization, with one additional feature that turned out to be the most impactful of all. Here’s how: Continuous campaign activation Automated scheduling, dayparting, and budget pacing ensured campaigns ran without gaps every day. The extended blackout periods that had cost the brand significant impression share in November were eliminated entirely. Daily spend remained active and performance compounded week over week as optimizations had time to take effect. Broader keyword coverage The keyword discovery capabilities of Unified Ad Manager (UAM) expanded active targeting from 77 to 130 keywords (a 60% increase). The expanded keywords were kept tightly aligned to the brand’s product categories (tonic water, soda water, ginger ale, cocktail mixers), so reach grew without ignoring relevance. Dynamic bid and budget optimization The Unified Ad Manager (UAM) also helped the brand adjust bids continuously based on real-time performance signals, rather than keeping all bids static across all keywords. Budget was also systematically reallocated toward product listing campaigns, which delivered stronger ROAS, received a larger share, while product recommendation spend was scaled to a more appropriate level. The Day-Parting Insight That Showed Major Impact Of all the changes made between November and December, automated day parting showed significant and measurable results. In November, spend was distributed without any time-based structure. This meant ad budget was regularly consumed during periods of low traffic, like early mornings when conversion rates were lowest. The ROAS across those campaigns was 0.92x: spend was effectively generating less than ₹1 of revenue per ₹1 spent. In December, with unified ad management platform, the brand identified evening hours as the peak demand window for quick commerce beverage purchases and shifted 99% of active spend there. The outcome was a ROAS of 1.58x on those campaigns (a 72% improvement), driven not by increasing the budget but by changing when it was used. This means the ads were showing at exactly the moment purchase intent was highest, improving both conversion rates and the return on every rupee spent. The Impact D2C Brand Saw After Leveraging Campaign Management & Insights from Unified Ad Manager Metric Nov 2025 Dec 2025 Change Orders 1,211 2,204 +82% Revenue ₹3.3L ₹5.3L +60% ROAS 0.92x 1.58x +72% ACoS 69.2% 63.6% −8.1% Cost per Order ₹189 ₹153 −19% Active Keywords 77 130 +60% Ad spend grew by 47% month-on-month. Revenue grew by 60%. This gap where revenue outpaces spend is the signature of genuine efficiency improvement, not simply higher investment producing higher output. In simple terms, each additional rupee invested in December generated more revenue than it did in November, even as order volumes nearly doubled. This wasn’t just seasonal demand; it points to smarter, more optimized campaign performance. The same trend is visible in cost efficiency. Cost per order dropped from ₹189 to ₹153 (a 19% reduction) despite operating at twice the scale. The result: higher volumes, lower acquisition costs, and stronger returns, all at the same time. Key Takeaways: What Ecommerce & Quick Commerce Brands Actually Get When They Move to Unified Ad Management The results above are specific to one brand and one platform, but the underlying problems they solved are not. Fragmented campaign visibility, reactive bid management, unstructured budget spend, and keyword gaps are patterns that show up across categories and platforms whenever campaigns are managed manually. Here’s what changes when marketers start leveraging Unified Ad Manager by mFilterIt. You stop managing campaigns across platforms in silos A unified interface brings everything together in one place, making it easier to create, update, and monitor campaigns. This reduces operational effort and improves consistency in execution. Bids adjust in real time, not once a week when someone reviews the dashboard With dynamic bid management and optimizations, bids are continuously updated based on performance signals like ROAS and traffic trends. This ensures campaigns stay aligned with performance at all times, even beyond working hours. Budgets start moving towards what’s actually working A rule-based budget reallocation engine shuffles spend across campaigns in real time, shifting budgets towards high-performing sources and pulling back from lower-ROAS ad types. AI and ML-based campaign rules replace guesswork or manual decision-making A custom rule engine lets brands define the conditions under which bids should increase, budgets should be reallocated, or campaigns should pause. It executes those decisions automatically when the conditions are met. This removes the human bottleneck from time-sensitive optimisation and ensures the campaign strategy is actually reflected in live spend, not just in a planning document. Performance is tracked at the granular level Keyword-level, campaign-level, and platform-level logs tell you why and where to fix it. Detailed activity tracking across campaign overview, ad group, keyword, and rule engine logs helps in accuratedecision-making to improve campaign efficiency at scale. Therefore, by bringing structure, automation, and real-time decision-making into campaign management, the brands can grow faster while becoming more efficient at the same time. Ready

How a D2C Beverage Brand Drove 82% Orders Growth on BlinkIt in 30 Days Using Unified Ad Manager Read More »

How Frequency Cap Breaches, Brand Safety Issues, & Invalid Traffic Waste Budget in OTT Ads

Infographics / mFilterIt Experts

OTT advertising may seem efficient, but hidden issues waste your budget. An audit of 756M+ ad requests across CTV and mobile revealed key challenges—high blocked requests, especially on one platform, due to frequency capping breaches, brand safety risks, and invalid traffic. Some devices were flooded with repeated ads, far exceeding set limits, reducing reach to new audiences. At the same time, ads were found alongside unsafe content, putting brand reputation at risk. A portion of traffic also came from outdated devices, spoofed browsers, and data center IPs—indicating non-human or low-quality traffic. With real-time checks in place, these issues were controlled before delivery. The result? Ads reached genuine viewers, appeared in safe environments, and were distributed more effectively—driving better viewability and reliable performance. The bottom line: without proper monitoring, OTT ad spend can easily be misused—but with the right safeguards, every impression counts. Dive into the full infographic to explore the insights. Download Submit

How Frequency Cap Breaches, Brand Safety Issues, & Invalid Traffic Waste Budget in OTT Ads Read More »

What is Invalid Traffic and How Does It Impact Your Ad Campaign Performance?

Blog, Ad Fraud / mFilterIt Experts

Are you proactively analyzing the ad traffic of your campaigns? Is it really coming from genuine users or just being generated by bots? Yes, a significant portion of traffic that makes your ad campaigns seem successful could be invalid traffic. According to mFilterIt’s analysis featured in FICCI Report 2025, invalid traffic contributes to as much as 30–50% of activity across digital channels, directly distorting performance metrics and draining ad budgets. This means the performance you see on dashboards may not always reflect real user intent. Instead, it could be influenced by automated systems, proxies, or manipulated interactions that inflate impressions, clicks, and even conversions. In this blog, we break down what invalid traffic really is, why it’s increasing, differences between general invalid traffic and sophisticated invalid traffic, and how you can identify and mitigate its impact to ensure your campaigns deliver genuine results. What is Invalid Traffic? Why is it Increasing Rapidly? Invalid traffic simply means ad activity that doesn’t come from real users but still shows up as genuine impressions, clicks, or visits. This happens when bots or automated systems interact with ads, making it look like people are engaging when they actually aren’t. Over time, this traffic has become more advanced and harder to spot. Bots now easily mimic real user behaviour, such as browsing pages, scrolling, or clicking on ads. Moreover, developments in technology, AI usage, and advertising infrastructure also contribute to this. Here’s how: AI is making bots smarter Earlier, bots were easy to detect because they behaved like machines. Today, AI-powered bots can scroll, pause, click, and even mimic browsing patterns. Some can simulate entire user journeys, making fake engagement look real in analytics tools. The ad ecosystem has become more complex Modern advertising runs through multiple layers and channels, DSPs, SSPs, ad exchanges, networks, and resellers. This fragmentation creates blind spots, making it easier for low-quality or fraudulent traffic to enter without being noticed. Cheap infrastructure fuels large-scale ad fraud Server farms allow fraudsters to generate massive volumes of ad traffic at very low cost. What once required physical devices can now be scaled instantly using virtual environments. Limited transparency and visibility Limited transparency and visibility across the digital ecosystem make it harder for advertisers to verify traffic quality. With restricted access to detailed user-level data, identifying whether engagement is coming from real users or sophisticated invalid traffic becomes more challenging. As long as advertisers pay based on clicks or impressions, there’s always a chance for misuse. Fraudsters take advantage of this by generating invalid clicks or views to earn money, especially when proper checks are not in place. Therefore, detecting invalid traffic has become more important than ever. Invalid traffic is generally classified into two main types: General Invalid Traffic (GIVT) and Sophisticated Invalid Traffic (SIVT). Two Major Types of Invalid Traffic Invalid traffic is broadly classified into two categories based on how complex the fraud technique is. What is General Invalid Traffic (GIVT)? It refers to non‑human or automated interactions that inflate ad metrics, caused by easily identifiable bots, spiders, or crawlers. These bots typically do not attempt to mimic real human behavior. They’re not malicious in intent but can distort campaign reporting and waste ad spend due to their automated nature. Because the patterns are predictable, platforms and verification tools can often identify and block this traffic using ad fraud detection techniques. Here’s what we observed in one of the campaigns . VPN and proxy traffic contributed 12.4% of total activity, indicating that a significant portion of traffic was not genuinely coming from real users. Several visits appeared to come from genuine mobile users but traced back to VPN and proxy networks, that were being used to hide the real user’s location. A deeper analysis showed that these IP addresses were linked to data center hosting providers (DCH) instead of real user networks. What is Sophisticated Invalid Traffic (SIVT)? Sophisticated Invalid Traffic (SIVT) refers to advanced forms of fraudulent or non-genuine traffic that are designed to look like real user activity. Unlike basic invalid traffic, these methods use automation, scripts, or manipulated devices to mimic real behavior, making them harder to detect with simple filters. Here are some sophisticated invalid traffic techniques we have observed in various campaign analysis: Sample Observation 1: In this case, the sophisticated invalid traffic technique that is being used is pop-under activity. It occurs when a website opens in the background instead of the active browser tab, meaning the user does not actually see or interact with the page. This is what we observed: the page loaded behind the main window and showed no real user interaction, indicating artificially generated visits. This type of activity is used to inflate traffic numbers without genuine engagement, and here, pop-under traffic contributed about 6.1% of the total traffic. Sample Observation 2: This shows a case of device spoofing, where traffic pretends to come from a real mobile device. Normally, smartphones support touch actions like tapping, scrolling, or pinch-zooming. However, in the above data, some devices marked as mobile showed “Not Standard” touch support, meaning these normal mobile features were missing. This suggests that the devices were not real smartphones but simulated environments or automated systems pretending to be mobile users. In this analysis, device spoofing made up about 2.7% of the traffic, indicating automated activity trying to appear like real user interactions. Sample Observation 3: Server farm-driven activity contributed 3.2% of total traffic, highlighting the presence of sophisticated, non-human interactions. In this case, traffic appeared to come from mobile devices across different sources. We noticed very high hardware concurrency values (192 and 96) from devices shown as mobile. Hardware concurrency simply means how many tasks a device can handle at the same time. Normal mobile phones can only run a limited number of tasks, so numbers this high are unusual for real users. This suggests that the traffic is likely coming from multiple channels, like bot farms, proxy-based execution, and automated browsers instead of real mobile devices. These systems are

What is Invalid Traffic and How Does It Impact Your Ad Campaign Performance? Read More »