About Us
Last updated: 30 July 2026
We publish research on how to buy website traffic, what it really costs, and which platforms are worth a budget. We exist because the search results for this subject are dominated by sellers reviewing themselves, and because most of the numbers circulating in the niche have never been checked against a primary source.
The problem we set out to fix
Search for a phrase like buying website traffic and the first page is almost entirely written by companies selling it. Several of those articles rank their own product first in their own comparison table, and disclose the conflict, if at all, in a line beneath the conclusion.
The second problem is arithmetic. The niche repeats a claim that packaged visitor traffic is the cheap option, yet a thousand United States visits from a package seller and a thousand real popunder impressions on the open market cost roughly the same. Nobody in that search result runs the comparison, because running it undermines the product.
The third problem is staleness. Reviews of advertising networks routinely list formats that were retired years ago and omit ones added since. We found listings from 2026 still describing a network by a format it no longer offers, alongside two of the formats it added in the meantime going unmentioned.
What we do
We take one commercial question at a time and answer it with figures that can be traced to a source. Platform capabilities come from the platform's own documentation and interface. Policy claims come from the published policies themselves, not from someone's summary of them. Market context comes from named industry research with the date attached.
Where a figure exists only as a company's own claim, we label it as self-reported and unaudited rather than presenting it as measurement. That discipline is what our main reference on how to buy website traffic rests on. Where sources contradict each other, we publish the contradiction instead of quietly picking the more convenient number.
Where we could not resolve something, the page says so. A gap stated openly is more useful to a buyer than a confident sentence covering it up.
What we do not do
We do not sell traffic, operate campaigns, or take a position between you and a platform. We are a publisher, and the practical consequences of that are set out in our terms and conditions.
We also do not publish scored rankings of competing networks. A weighted rating implies a controlled comparison across platforms, and we have not run one. Publishing a league table we cannot defend would be exactly the behaviour that made this niche unreliable in the first place.
Who writes this
Smith Jones
Performance Media Buyer
Nine years buying performance traffic across push, popunder, in-page and native inventory, mostly for iGaming, dating and software offers in Tier-1 markets. Most of that time went into source-level reports and cutting placements that look healthy on a dashboard and convert at zero.
Every page carries a named author, a job title and the date the sources behind it were checked. Anonymous material is not published here, because a claim nobody will put their name to is a claim nobody has to defend.
How the site pays for itself
We earn commission when a reader clicks through to an advertising platform and later opens an account there. That revenue covers hosting, research time and writing, and it is the only way the site is funded, on terms set out in our cookie policy and terms. Readers pay nothing.
The arrangement is disclosed on every page that contains such a link, and it does not decide what those pages say. We publish one-star feedback about a platform we earn from when that feedback is real and recent, and we name the specific things a platform does badly alongside the things it does well.
The reasoning is not moral so much as practical. A reader who follows our recommendation, loses money and discovers we knew about the weakness does not come back, and a site nobody returns to has no commercial value at all.
Standards we hold ourselves to
- Traceable figures. Every number on the site can be traced to platform documentation, a published policy, or named research with a date. Numbers we cannot trace do not get published.
- Named weaknesses. Each page about a platform states at least one concrete drawback in plain language, not a hedged compliment dressed as a criticism.
- Visible dates. Pages show when their sources were last checked, so you can judge for yourself whether the pricing is still likely to hold.
- Corrections in the open. When we get something wrong we fix it and say what changed. The process is described in the editorial policy.
Talk to us
If a figure on this site looks wrong, tell us and we will check it. If you work at a platform we cover and think our description is unfair, tell us that too, with documentation, and we will correct anything we got wrong.
The fastest route is the contact page. Corrections go to the editorial address listed there and are handled first.