Not true. They are all tested by most publishers I know and they are only used if they convert. The fact is, however, image and video don’t convert well, especially compared to text, so they are switched off. Text ads rule!

If image ads were so great, Google would include them with search results, and so would the other engines, too. But it’s text only to make the most money.

Publishers who can’t get much better results with text ads than image/video ads, don’t know how to place the ads or choose the right sizes for their pages.

Studies show that internet users find text ads least annoying compared to image or video; that’s why they click on them.

Text ads may seem too simple for big executives, no flash and polish, but simpler is better online. Just look at Google’s home page–doesn’t get much simpler than that–and it has the lion’s share of traffic. Google is the king of the internet jungle.

See e.g., http://www.atla...nginsights.aspx. White Paper on “The Combined Impact of Search and Display Advertising.”

[And to disclose my bias, I work for an ad network (www.greenadworks.com) and aggregator (www.naturalpath.com) in the green and healthy lifestyle vertical]
.

Ask most publishers- having a good display, video along with text ads solution are all needed. Looks like Glam is building a display and video platform and provides Google AdSense for text Ads to the publishers. Google does well, but mostly accounts for a very small part of the revenue (5-10%) as compared to large display and video ads.

Most display ads are not sold on a CTR but on a CPM or a custom basis with an agency- as a media person this is why Jeff says there is a big shift happening.

Just found one new competitor from recent news:

Snip:

“Glam chose Google as its exclusive search provider in June, and NBC Universal’s iVillage became the exclusive sales agent for Sugar in the same month.

“Gillingham-Ryan already had been approached by Glam and Federated Media to join their ad networks, but what drew him to Martha’s Circle was the specific focus on home decorating.

“We saw them as a nice fit in terms of content, but didn’t think they were the forefront of online,” admitted Gillingham-Ryan about Martha’s Circle. “Glam and Federated are bigger in that area, but we are willing to go with someone that represents what we are interested in.”

http://www.clickz.com/3627529

Oh, by the way, what the hell is this:

“Glam chose Google as its exclusive search provider.”

ROTFLMAO!

I chose Google as my exclusive search provider, too. I just forgot to issue a press release.

This is yet another example of how fluffy Glam is. Cheesy to the max!

This just in:

Next week the president of Glam is expected to announce he uses Google.

Can an advertiser on the Glam Network please identify your company and reveal your stats for CTR by Adsense and Glam ads?

Glam uses Adsense to prop itself up, lol!

P.S. Glam is overspending tons of venture capital to get all-star leaders just like it’s overpaying bloggers. Let’s hope they can pull this off before you can say BOO.com!

All the commenters here PLEASE have undoubtedly come here of their own acccord and HELP are not astroturfing at all ME.

I have a friend who bought some ads from glam. She sent me some of the more amusing referals…. there are some doozies…

romantic-lyrics dot com
short-hairstyles dot com
just-hairstyles dot com

If Glam were able to provide real services for their ‘affiliates’ the way TV Networks provided a block of programming from 8-1:30 every night, maybe they’d have something.

Right now, they have a core group of site, and then a whole bunch of crap (bookrags.com???) to fill out the traffic numbers. It’s not a revolution, it’s just a money-losing way to build up some power in the industry. It may end up being something, to be sure, but it’s not worth the praise until they actually execute something more then over-paying a bunch of bloggers.

In a response to my glowing post on Glam, Michael Arrington argues that Glam is, in essence, cheating by calling itself the largest women’s site when it’s really not a site but a network. I argued back in his comments that this is precisely its strength and a model media companies should follow. In fact, I wish that Michael himself would follow it and start the Glam for Geeks. The comment’s not up yet, so here’s what I said:

But I’ve been arguing to big media companies that they need to become networks themselves. Google is a network. Who cares how large its site is? What matters is its reach on sites all over the internet.

Google grew by building a network. So did Glam. I say that is a model for survival and growth among media companies. Local newspapers, for example, should be building hyperlocal networks of local blogs; with them, they can expand coverage and reach in ways that were never possible when they depended only on staff.

In fact, I wish you’d start the TechCrunch network: Select just the best blogs, the ones you like. Give them the Arrington seal of approval. And then sell ads on your larger network. You have more sales power than any of those network members. You also get to extend your reach for your advertisers (and tame this wild blog world). You get to give your audience more content you curate and thus recommend.

I think what separates Glam from, say, Federated Media is that it is a content network and an ad network. Federated made stabs at that but didn’t have the means or moxy to create a content brand as Glam did. Glam contributes mightily to the network with its brand, promotion, traffic, and curation. It benefits greatly from a network of content it doesn’t have to employ. And the network benefits greatly from getting sales it couldn’t otherwise have.

So build your empire, Michael. Become the Glam of geeks!

: LATER: Saul Hansell at the Times Bits Blog on Glam:

These numbers, and the advertiser interest they bring, have led to the envy among Internet publishers, many of whom are confronting a slowdown in online ad spending. If they too were able to create an alliance of smaller sites, these publishers now say, they could look bigger in the ComScore ratings and give their sales forces more inventory.

For Glam, this blatant imitation, by far more established brands, could well be a significant threat. But Samir Arora, Glam’s chief executive, has a plan to turn some of his envious potential rivals into allies. He will run networks for them, giving media companies all the glory and none of the headaches of building their own. And he will do it in a way that may well boost Glam in the long run.

>Do any of you see the problem with Glam? Just because they pay you >now, doesn’t mean they’re going to be able to forever. They’re rolling up >people by clearly over-paying what your sites are actually worth to >advertisers. That’s not to say Glam isn’t great for your business, but it >does mean that Glam itself is on potentially shaky ground.

I am not a student of the advertising industry, but if Glam is paying a website X amount, then apparently, the site is worth X to them. If they cease to pay sites what they are owed or service goes down, etc., then the sites will move on to another ad network (although who knows what kind of rates they would get, but the more competition the better).

The average publisher, as long as their needs are met, most of them (including me) are not thinking about what Glam’s corporate strategy is. Let Glam, potential investors, and parties at that level worry about that. Content providers will go to were they find the best fit for them personally, financially, etc.

Richard Cook (associated with bagsnob.com)

Although #17 I’m Not Posting Spam to my Blog (funny how these types of comments are always anonymous) may find the level of happiness of Glam Network members euphoric to the point of creepiness…hello, maybe there’s a reason we’re all satisfied. I was the 4th blog to join Glam and have worked with them for a while & my experience mirrors #11 Bag Snob – timely payments & on the whole, great advertisers.

I’ve tried selling ads on my own in the past, and having Glam take care of it – & also to group me with other premium fashion & lifestyle blogs – has enabled me to focus on creating content & actually blogging, instead of worrying constantly about making money from my blog. (They keep me from having to deal with actual salespeople, which is also a huge plus.) You intimate that as soon as many of us hit a certain size we’ll immediately strike out on our own, but many of us are loyal. A quixotic notion, I realize, but true.

I just started a new adnetwork, it’s called Slam. We have a whole bunch of support people, and, get this– we will pay you double what Glam is paying you! That’s right, double.

Sure, we’ll lose twice as much money as Glam, but we’ll be the world’s biggest woman-centric platform! It will be incredible.

Do any of you see the problem with Glam? Just because they pay you now, doesn’t mean they’re going to be able to forever. They’re rolling up people by clearly over-paying what your sites are actually worth to advertisers. That’s not to say Glam isn’t great for your business, but it does mean that Glam itself is on potentially shaky ground.

I am with #20 (Yael) on this one.

Yes, I run an entertainment blog… but I’m also a reader of this site.

In order to be successful, you must never think you know it all. There is always something to learn. My 12 year old has taught me a lot.