About This Site

This site exists because the market for popunder traffic is described almost entirely by the people selling it. Search for the format and you get network landing pages and roundups assembled from those landing pages, recycling the same claims until they read as established fact. We started publishing to close the gap between what platforms say about themselves and what a buyer or publisher can actually verify.

The site launched in 2026 and covers one narrow subject deliberately. Popunder Ads: how the format is priced, how it is filtered, and which rules decide where it can legally run. We do not cover every advertising format, because breadth is what turns a resource into a directory, and directories are the thing this market already has too many of.

What Gets Published and What Never Does

Three kinds of material make it onto the site. The first is mechanics: how a pop auction meters an impression, why the click and the page load are the same event on this format, what a bid distribution tells you that a floor price does not. The second is policy: what Google's publisher rules actually prohibit, how Chrome's abusive experience enforcement works in practice, where the Coalition for Better Ads draws its line and where it does not. The third is verification: taking a claim that circulates unchallenged and checking whether the arithmetic holds.

What we refuse to publish is a ranked list of networks with scores attached. Those lists are the standard format in this niche and they are close to worthless: the ordering usually tracks commission rates, the criteria are never disclosed, and nobody behind them has run a campaign on more than two of the entries. We publish selection criteria instead, so you can apply them to any platform, including ones we have never written about.

We also refuse to publish invented first-hand measurements. If we have not run a test ourselves, we do not write that we did. Where a number comes from a third-party directory with no stated methodology, the page says so in the same sentence as the number. This costs us the confident tone that performs well and keeps the site honest, and we consider that a fair trade.

How the Site Makes Money

Some outbound links are commercial: if you open an account through one, the platform pays us. It costs you nothing and changes nothing about the terms you are offered. That is the entire business model. We sell no advertising space on this site, run no sponsored posts, and accept no payment for a mention, a placement or a better assessment.

The obvious question is whether a commercial link buys silence about a platform's weaknesses. The answer is on our pages: for the platform we link to most often we publish that optimisation is manual with no CPA-goal engine, that revenue share is stated nowhere in the publisher cabinet, and that site approval criteria are not public. Those are the three things a prospective user most wants hidden. They stay published. The editorial policy sets out the separation between commercial and editorial decisions in more detail.

Who Writes It

The site is written by a small editorial team led by Smith Jones, an ad tech analyst with a decade on both the buying and selling sides of programmatic display. Every page carries a named author and a publication date, and neither is decorative. Where a page rests on figures that go stale, such as platform pricing or entry minimums, the page itself states when those figures were read and from which document.

We do not publish anonymously and we do not use a house byline to disguise who wrote what. If a page is wrong, there is a person attached to it who is accountable for the error, and a correction process that leaves the correction visible rather than quietly editing the mistake away.

How a Claim Is Verified

Primary sources first. A platform policy is quoted from the policy page, not from an article about the policy. A standards change is taken from the standards body's own announcement, with its date. When two pages on the same organisation's site contradict each other, which happens more often than it should, we work out which one is internally consistent and say why we chose it.

Second, arithmetic. Headline volume claims are divided rather than repeated: a fill rate and a click-through rate that do not reconcile with the format being described tell you something useful about how the claim was assembled. Third, disagreement is published rather than resolved by preference. Where directories differ by an order of magnitude on a publisher's minimum traffic threshold, we print the range and note that none of the figures carries the platform's own name.

Fourth, gaps are labelled. If we looked for something and could not find it, the page says we could not find it. A site that never admits a gap is a site that fills gaps with guesses.

Independence, and What Would End It

No platform has any say over what appears here. We accept no editorial input from commercial partners, send no drafts for approval, and take no requests to remove a documented limitation. If a partner made removal a condition of continuing, the arrangement would end and the sentence would stay.

This is easy to write and hard to verify from outside, so the practical test is the one you can run yourself: read our pages and count the negative statements about the platforms we link to. A site with none is a site with a different business model than the one it describes.

Getting in Touch

Corrections, licensing enquiries, partnership questions and reader questions all go through the contact page, which explains which address handles what and how long each takes. Corrections get priority over everything else. If you have found a factual error, that message goes to the front of the queue.

How we handle data collected through the site is set out in the cookie policy, and the rules governing use of the material published here are in the terms.