More Misplaced Glam Exhuberance

They’re going to run into the same problems that Federated Media ran into, but on a larger scale. FM has some verticals where they aggregate their partners’ content, but nothing like what Glam has going on. Glam relies on its partners to feed content into its site and all it will take is another niche ad sales network to come up and compete directly with Glam (but at a 20-30% ad take instead of Glam’s 40%) and their investors will be sweating bullets. Perhaps that is why they’re trying to raise so much capital, because Glam’s trying to turn into an unstoppable goliath before other companies see all the chinks in their pink armor.

And 654k visitors to Glam.com proper is pathetic for a company that deep with cash with so much content to work with.

Cool Info misleading the public into perceptional marketing hypnosys is used by all successful companies of all genres. All radioso claim to be No. 1. All magazines claim to be number 1. IN India there are 5-6 Awards for Bollywood so every star gets a award. In a sense it is POsitive thinking and abundance thinking, but in reality its nothing more than total deception.

http://tekno-world.blogspot.com

Thanks Michael, it’s good to see you come around.You had a ton of critics to your last post when you were flamed by the web. Hearing you say say “So while I think Glam is great” in this post shows you read and listen to your audience.

Jeff has a pretty clear point of view as he states in his post:

“So in the end, Glam is really a platform. That’s the key. Glam is a rare example of that and I say other media companies would be wise to follow suit. So in addition to asking what would Google do, I say that media companies should be asking what Glam would do. WWGD, the sequel.”

Your opinion on competition- specially PopSugar is completely off. Matt has an interview with Brian who said he wants to build content and not compete with Glam. With 1.2 million in reach in August and 100% ad sales by iVillage- Sugar is a very small publisher not a platform.

On your comment about publishers- in the end why do publishers stay with Google for AdSense and not Yahoo or MSN? Google does it better- looks like for display ads- Glam does it better- and publishers will continue to love it.

Lastly- lots of opinions in your post but you missed covering the news- VB reported Lifetime and CBS are now part of Glam Network, in addition to opening out the Glam platform to let media companies build their own networks.
http://venturebeat.com/2007/11.....etime-cbs/

Worth a read.

On your comment about publishers- in the end why do publishers stay with Google for AdSense and not Yahoo or MSN? Google does it better- looks like for display ads- Glam does it better- and publishers will continue to love it.

I am sure Google isn’t taking 40% of the revenue.

It looks more women oriented site.

Ask any publisher- it’s not what Google takes that matters- in the end how much do you make. With AdSense most publishers make $0.30-$0.20 rpm’s with Google keeping some %- they do not tell you. Publishers stay with Google not based on what Google keeps- they stay because Google pays net more than Yahoo or MSN. Looks like Glam does the same for display.

Check with agencies- “As soon as it costs less to simply hire a salesperson instead of paying Glam 40% of revenue, they’ll leave.” is not how advertising works. IAB last week said over 90% of ALL internet revenue go to MediaMetrix Top 25 web properties. Hiring one sales person may help- but most Ad $’s go to companies like Google (#2) and Glam (#23) that have highest aggregate reach. They in turn make publishers rich, unlike Yahoo & MSN that build content to make themselves rich. WWGD?

As a fairly medium sized publisher within the Glam Network making a great monthly income and receiving excellent support why would I go out and try to sell ads on my own?. While I had tried it already, I decided it was not worth the effort. Staying at Glam allows me to concentrate on building my content and not worry about how much I will have to go out and earn every month. Being part of Glam has allowed me to concentrate on what’s important for my site and leave the hard work to them. If I went out and tried to get the advertisers that they do I would not be able to do it even at my current traffic levels. Besides, I like being part of their great community. What their community director has been able to achieve in terms of bringing a community together says a lot to me about Glam and quite frankly I do not think I would get the service I get anywhere. I benefit from Glam in ways other than revenue. They help me with my promotions, the optimization of my site and other ways. Maybe you should dig a little deeper into how they work and you will realize why we the members have such a sense of loyalty.

Finally, I love being part of a network with such range of sites as ET Online, Dogster, Tarot. I think it gives my sites more prestige being associated with them.

I am a frequent reader of your site and enjoy it I am starting to think that there’s a little obsession with Glam going on with you Michael.

Last time I did not comment but did read that you were an investor in Sugar Publishing. If that’s correct I think full disclosure is due.

Michael:

I think there is one other fundamental point that you have not made. How does Glam exit?

Some History: Gorilla Nation has lead the charge in signing highly advantageous, almost penal, contracts with publishers, but publishers have wised up and Glam will over time have to pay more per page view than its much better financed competition. Imagine if the very good sales organization at NBCU (owners of Ivillage) decided to compete with Glam.

Meanwhile, Glam will try to go public (tricky for adnetworks or frankly for any company these days) or get bought. But who buys it? Ad Networks have been selling for 2 to 3x revenue (Tacoda, Tribal Fusion). Quigo sold for a better multiple . If Glam finances at 20x and doubles Revenue next year they would need to exit for approximately a $1bn. Will Yahoo, AOL, Newcorp, etc buy that collection of sites that are not signed up for the long-term?

History has showed that the companies that exit own their traffic or own killer, killer technology. There are YouTubes and Ad.coms but not much in between.

My website (http://fadedyouthblog.com) has been working with Glam every since its inception. They have been critical to the success of my website.

As I grow, so does Glam. As Glam grows, so does my site.

This article is filled with accusations and few facts, sorry.

Glam members are very happy.

I am a very small member of Glam that keeps growing since it started with the Glam Network. Glam has helped me with my traffic, has promoted my site and has always made me feel part of a big family. It may sound corny but I am speaking the truth.

In the future as my business becomes bigger and bigger I will not forget how well Glam has treated me and I will trust them to sell my site to the best advertisers. My loyalty is to them for all they have done and continue to do for me. Having been a professional in the business world for over 12 years before I quit to become a stay at home mom, I am far from naive. I understand their business model and I am sure that there’s room for improvement. However, based on the way they’ve treated my business relationship with them; with the utmost professionalism I cannot say enough about them.

They are always upfront and candid with me even if I do not like what I am hearing. Why would I go out and hire someone to sell my ads when I have Glam to do that for me and I can concentrate on creating great content for moms out there?.

With a background that includes 20 years in Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations… I’m far from naive.

Very interesting debate everyone but the bottom line is GLAM compensates its online publishers well and have provided top notch advertisers for us. GLAM is also willing to tailor the ads to the needs of each publisher, which is important to niche specific sites such as ours.

We were one of the first sites to sign up with GLAM two years ago and have never looked back. Our site is growing by leaps and bounds (as featured in Wall Street Journal last week and as seen on the new series on The Style Network “25 most stylish” airing on 11/24) and we will continue to rely on GLAM to provide advertisers such as Neiman Marcus so we can focus on the content of our site.

50% of the population are made up of the fairer side of our species… so far, I feel they have been under-served online wise, hopefully this signals a change.

Jon

Clearly the world is dividing into two types: people who network and people who don’t. Saul Hansell’s take today on Glam is winning
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/.....kes-a-cut/

As Alison said, it is nice to see you saying that “So while I think Glam is great”, because…I think they are too!

I’m a publisher as well - Allie is Wired.

However, my background also includes 20 years in sales management (print, radio and television). During that time I’ve worked with some of the largest advertising agencies around [ie Young & Rubicam]. I’ve also worked with many businesses, large and small, helping them put together marketing plans. What’s my point?

I believe your theory,

“Not only will competition hurt Glam, but their network partners will leave them once they grow to a certain size. As soon as it costs less to simply hire a salesperson instead of paying Glam 40% of revenue, they’ll leave.”

…is actually the opposite. When a business gets large enough, that’s when it usually hires an advertising agency to take care of the marketing for them. Not only does the agency have the manpower, but they also have the leverage and connections needed to get in the front door of the major advertisers’ offices.

I would NOT want the headache of hiring a salesperson (or doing it myself for that matter). Who would I hire? Would they fly around the country to meet with these advertisers? If they did, who would pay for those expenses? Would they work for straight commissions? If they did, would they pay for their own expenses (airfare etc)? Bah! I agree with #7 - My time is better spent on content and building traffic.

Competition? Well now, every business owner that I’ve ever worked for has taught me that competition is good thing. It keeps rates/costs under control. Without competition, you have a monopoly… the consumer is the one who suffers. Activity breeds activity.

Is it true Michael? Are you an investor in Sugar Publishing?

bettyconfidential.com is launching soon, somewhat in this space as well. (not affiliated - just found out about them from a friend)

“Whoever creates the content and the page views owns the real assets. Whoever sells their ads for them is little more than a service provider.”

Sort of like Google is just a service provider?

The astroturfing in this thread has reached impressive levels of creepiness. “Glam members are very happy.” Glam is your friend. Glam wants to help you. Glam can float off the floor like a soap bubble, if it so chooses.

“Whoever creates the content and the page views owns the real assets. Whoever sells their ads for them is little more than a service provider.”

Spoken like a guy who creates content and page views for a living, Mike.

So that means that my blog has all the power, and I can dictate terms to Google AdSense? I don’t think so. Monetization is the cornerstone, and the guy with the money (or the sold ad) has enormous bargaining power in any relationship with content. Even within media organizations (e.g. newspapers) who have integrated sales and content creation operations, the ad side dictates the content side, not vice versa.

In the end, these arguments often come down to “who has relative scale”. AdSense has power because it has scale on the selling side. New2.0AdNet.com has no power when it first goes to CNet or whoever with its clever algorithm, because it has no scale, and CNet (or content partner X) is much larger.

Since Glam is rapidly getting scale within a particular defined trade area, simultaneous with the fragmentation of the content creators within that same area (Vogue is turning into a hundred Perez Hiltons) Glam is well on its way to establishing negotiating leverage that will make it the AdSense of its category.

This is rapidly becoming a blog post. Check out Onotech and see if I bother to make it so.

Michael,

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!

I have a sneaking suspicion that all these gossip bloggers are not usual Techcrunch readers. The comments read as if they were asked to comment…

Bob,

I am not a gossip blogger but are you implying that Gossip Bloggers are not interested in what goes on in the industry?. I have a couple of friends with Gossip blogs and believe me they are very aware of what’s going on and very savvy business people. Do not understimate Gossip bloggers.

I was not asked to comment by the way. My support for Glam comes from my experience with them. I can think very well for myself.

Don’t be a hater, Bob.

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.

Astroturfers were present in the Vois post, but I believe the people posting here are giving genuine opinions. If they weren’t being treated well, they’d be asking for competitors. I must believe Glam has added significant value to an industry that I am very unfamiliar with, but they will have to evolve and improve like anyone in order to continue growth and move into the black.

Who is Jeff Jarvis?

Hey, to all the Glam bloggers out there who astroturf these posts with their limited insight:

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 agree with #7 Yael - is Glam bashing an obsession with you, or just the tech nerd version of “if it bleeds, it leads”? Honestly, you never bring out the fact that Glam has helped the blogosphere in general by making the waters feel safe for advertisers. Not that long ago, prestigious advertisers wouldn’t even consider running ads on blogs. And yes, Glam is good at promoting themselves….and? (after all, you’re writing about them & promoting them yet again)

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.

Gossip bloggers are probably one of the best examples of a blogging community reaching critical mass. They are one of the few niches that have rose up from a mass of independent blogs to become a super niche with significant advertiser dollars going their way. Though the Glam network isn’t as large as they claim to be that doesn’t mean you should disregard an entire niche that is very very profitable.

Bob, even if they are astroturfers, the quality of the comments is much higher than average around here. At least Fake Steve Ballmer hasn’t show up yet.

Ted,

>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)

Glam for Geeks

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.

?

no, Jeff, Google grew by providing an incredible service and then leveraging that to create an ad network. If google simply placed text ads on other sites, they wouldn’t be much. Glam offers nothing other then higher payout rates, their attempt at “advertorial” hasn’t been all that successful.

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.

Richard– this is precisely my point. Glam affiliates are not qualified to post on whether or not Glam is building a high-margin, sustainable business or just YAAN (yet another ad network).

Wow, the glam girls are out in full force to protect their baby.

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

I can *NOT* believe no one as of yet has taken to chastise you for your spelling error. The word is EXUBERANCE without the ‘H’.

I would like to retract my earlier comment. Glam is a THEY great company that will remain profitable and solvent HAVE for the next century. They will A continue their high standards GUN of service to bloggers and indeed TO may increase their share of revenue. When the secret to eternal life MY is discovered it will probably be discovered HEAD by Glam.

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

Wow. Michael, your bias towards pop sugar has really been “subtle” up until now. From what I can see, Glam never claimed to be the largest women’s site, they claim to be the largest women property in Comscore…which is true. iVillage used to claim the same thing, why didn’t you ever flay them for it? Just because you’re buddies (and I believe an investor in) the popsugar folks, doesn’t mean you should cut down the competition without disclaiming it. Most media outlets own up to a bias (i.e. “Newsweek is owned by the Washington Post Company…”) You’ve lost a lot of cred with me.

Adsense is better than Glam.

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!

Can someone tell me how Glam and its visual/video ads are supposed to get better CTR than text ads? Studies show text ad links, like the Adsense ads at the top of this page, do much better than photo/banner ads. That’s also my own experience with advertising online. So who cares if Glam makes its own ads when they don’t perform better than Adsense links.

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

Somebody mentioned competition for Glam could spell its demise.

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.

@ICURYYS4ME

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.

Agree w/ #41- Allison, display/brand and text/direct response advertising are different animals, and both will get their share of the online ad pie (even though display is being unfairly judged by direct response criteria, i.e. CTRs.) In fact, recent research has shown real synergies when display and direct response campaigns are executed in parallel.

See e.g., http://www.atlassolutions.com/.....ights.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.

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.

Who is Jeff Jarvis?