I had tried them a few years ago with similar results. I'd tried talking to them, and their only advice was to give it more time. So I didn't try saying anything this time; I figured that any tweak might increase it a little, but there's no way they could tweak something to make it increase it by 3,000% to be even comparable to Adsense.
All that I ever saw was a list of text ads. It's possible that they showed image ads to others, but the text ads were all that I saw. They definitely weren't based on the content of the page, but they might have been targeted more to my browser history or something... but I honestly don't remember being entranced by any of them.
I specifically tried a 300x250 and a 728x90. The leaderboard had a slightly better RPM... $0.07 as compared to $0.04.
Did you folks noticed it taking time to report any revenue? I have now media.net ads on about 10% of traffic on my site... Seeing some impressions (mid-five digits) but $0 revenue. Is this because it takes time to "learn" about the site or just really a bad alternative in this case?
Is this because it takes time to "learn" about the site
Since media.net is not personalizing ads, you can see by yourself if ads showing are relevant or not to the content of your site. That's a good starting point. If the ads are off topic, contact media.net, they'll certainly check on this. If the ads look fine, click on one of them (media.net is double click network, so this is risk free to click your own ad links, as long as you not clicking on the ads showing on the next page). And see if the advertisers showing are appealing or not.
media.net seems a mystery to me. It seems to be a powerful platform, bought for $900 millions, or something like that, claim to be the largest inventory, etc. etc... but performances seems more than terrible. So I am puzzled. Or may be, being an Indian / Chinese company, they perform much better on these markets ?