Glam Media loves to tout its comScore numbers, and uses them to claim it is the largest collection of women’s sites in the world. And that’s true when you count all of the affiliate sites Glam does not own or operate that it sells advertising for. That’s Glam’s entire business model: sign up sites that appeal to women, and sell ads across the entire network. In June, that network reached 76.9 million people worldwide, which was flat with May (77.4 million), but much bigger than rival iVillage’s women’s network (27.6 million).
But apparently, reaching 77 million people a month is not enough. Glam is now trying to strong-arm its affiliates into placing the Glam logo on every page of their site, because that is how comScore counts traffic and visitor stats for the Glam Network. In its August newsletter to affiliates, Glam is claiming that affiliates agreed to place the Glam logo on their sites as part of contract they clicked on when they signed up. This is news to at least one affiliate, who forwarded the newsletter to us. It presents this claim almost innocuously as a “Question of the Month.” Here’s an excerpt (I’ve bolded parts for emphasis):
QUESTION OF THE MONTH
Q. Why do I need to place the Glam logo on my site/blog?
The Glam Publisher Network logo is very important for several reasons. One reason is ComScore, a company that provides a tool for ad agencies to make media buying decisions. It is an industry standard tool used by most of the advertising agencies in the United States.
If the Glam Publisher Network logo does not appear on your site or blog, it will be difficult to identify it as part of the Glam Network. That makes it difficult for Glam Media to include you in ad campaigns and categorize your site in ComScore. Additionally, having the Glam Network logo on your site is part of your contract.
In order to make it easier for you to implement, here are some of the rules about logo placement:
* The Glam Network logo has to be placed site-wide, meaning every page of your website.
* It can be placed at the top or the bottom of each webpage. However, the preferred location is at the top
* It can be placed in the sidebar on the top of each webpage.
* It cannot be placed in the side bar on the bottom or the middle of each webpage.
* You need to place the logo that corresponds to your category. For example, If yours is a fashion site, then use the logo that corresponds to the Fashion Channel, and so on. All logos are located in the Glam Insider under the Get Your Code, Glam Module Tab.
* Most important, please remember that all logos have to be up by Aug. 1, 2008.If you have any questions about your logo or your account in general, please contact your account manager.
Yet, if you look at the language of Glam’s “Affiliate Linkage and Advertising Agreement” (which can be found here and embedded in its entirety below), the only stipulations that are seemingly related are the following (again I’ve bolded for emphasis):
b. Affiliate agrees to:
i. Display Advertising on pages of the Affiliate Websites according to the terms of this Agreement;
ii. Post Glam’s contact information in the advertising section of the Affiliate Website.
iii. Make third-party advertising provided to Affiliate by Glam the most prominent advertising on the Affiliate Websites and appear on the Affiliate Websites’ first visible page (i.e., above the “fold”);
iv. Implement all tags, formatting and code necessary in order for Glam to exercise its rights under this Agreement;
v. Place Glam Network Branding and contact information on the Property, in a form and manner as reasonably determined by Affiliate and Glam;
vi. Provide Glam with a default ad tag or image for unsold inventory to place in Glam’s ad serving system;
vii. Obtain Glam’s final approval of the placements and targeting of the Advertising and all references to Glam in the Affiliate Websites; and
That bit about placing Glam Network Branding on the site might cover the logo, but it clearly states that any such placement will be mutually determined by both the affiliate and Glam (presumably at a future date, so it can’t be part of the existing contract)
Oh, and there is also this nice clause in the agreement, which is unrelated, but still surprising. If you sign up to allow Glam to serve ads on your site, you are also giving them the first right of refusal in case you ever decide to sell your site. Per the agreement:
10. Right of First Refusal
a. Notice. If at any time Affiliate proposes to sell, license, lease or otherwise transfer all or any portion of its interest in any of the Affiliate Websites, then Affiliate shall promptly give Glam written notice of Affiliate’s intention to sell (the “Notice”). The Notice shall include (i) a description of the website’s content, (ii) the name(s) and address(es) of the prospective purchaser(s), (iii) the proposed consideration and (iv) the material terms and conditions upon which the proposed sale is to be made. The Notice shall certify that Affiliate has received a firm offer from the prospective purchaser(s) and in good faith believes a binding agreement for the sale is obtainable on the terms set forth in the Notice. The Notice shall also include a copy of any written proposal, term sheet or letter of intent or other agreement relating to the proposed sale.
b. Right of First Refusal. Glam shall have an option for a period of 15 days from receipt of the Notice to elect to purchase Affiliate’s interest in such website(s) at the same price and subject to the same material terms and conditions as described in the Notice. Glam may exercise such purchase option by notifying Affiliate in writing before expiration of the 15-day period. In this event, Affiliate agrees to enter into an agreement on terms substantially similar to the terms set forth in the Notice.
Best Friends Forever, indeed.
Someone has to reign these guys in. I am so surprised that their CEO still has a job. Their investors must be concerned.
While I agree that Glam’s approach and business tactics have been less then desirable to say the least I’m not sure why this is news to anyone. Gorilla Nation has been doing this for years.
As long as your messaging to publishers is a clear and concise and they understand what they are agreeing to then its alright. But the shady, after the fact demands are what irks me.
I also think it should be noted the ad agencies and companies like comScore are largely to blame for vertical nets acting like this. They’ve shaped the way the online ad model has evolved and it be frank it’s no friendly to publishers.
Glam – $115 million dollars of crap. Good work guys
test
interesting — sounds like they now want something that they previously didn’t get in writing.
One thing I found was when I advertised on celebrity blog sites years back is that our Comscore rating went through the roof disproportionately to the click through rates.
We figured that people who visit those sites are more likely to download the crap to their computers that report to Comscore. $115m is a lot, I imagine most from,, and going to, executives w/ powerful exisiting media relationships who don’t understand the interactive and social media space.
Not surprising tactic to strong arm, though sucks nonetheless, since the Glam ads are probably a substantial portion of the affiliates’ ad revenue. You see the same thing happen to affiliates when Google makes a change in Adsense
So, how many more threads do we have to have where Glam is made out to look like deceptive scumbags before something actually happens?
Their presentation last night at NewTech was laughable.
Erick,
Ad Rep firms and high end networks that focus on advertorials have always had deeper and strong worded contracts I think. I don’t think Glam is new or very different in this manner. See IGN for example they’ve always asked their network to place their branding. I suspect the reason is to ensure the focus for their reach with Comscore as you say, but I think that may just be a formality for the category.
Also, I am confused about how Glam ensuring its current publishers have attribution to their vertical with a Logo has anything to do with “Approach to Pushing Its Comscore Number higher” If the publishers are in the network, they are already in, so shouldn’t the post be more like “Network Logos now not optional?” as it has nothing to do with growing reach.
Lastly, the only reason I think any of this matters is that advertisers want to reach more and more women going to content sites. If adding a logo helps get more revenue, while preserving the name, blog or site identity and voice, what possible issue could their be in this? The ads already say Ads by Glam, like Google AdSense says Ads by Google. It amazes me that the people shocked and saying things like not friendly to publishers are clearly not in the Glam network- and are mostly men. Clearly, Glam makes people that are not part of it angry and upset, while their own publishers love them. All this is standard practice, see any Google or Yahoo direct publisher deal, they specify where, how, in what color and size their branding and logo has to go.
Right now, Glam can count all these sites as part of their roll-up without any branding at all (no logo or anything on the affiliate site). Comscore has threatened to force Glam, iVillage and others to not allow that kind of roll-up counting in the future. So my guess is they’re bracing for that day by forcing their roll-up sites to include branding.
The key takeaways here are 1) comScore has revised it’s roll-up policy which now requires Glam & Co. to include branding on every page to a) denote it resides in Glam Network b) state which vertical their sites content serves ads for. This is significant because it requires the cooperation of numerous sites to adhere to this new policy that Glam never had in their contract. Mr. Schonfeld makes an interesting point here. Refusing to host the Glam logo threatens ad revenue for the site (cut from Glam) as well as ad revenue for Glam (Glam loses traffic numbers).
Takeaway (#2) Glam’s comScore roll-up numbers are populated with such sites as Dogster, Catser, TheFind (search engine), Encyclopedia.com, MyYearBook, and the list goes on. Glam supposedly sells ad space on “Women’s Network”. While the data may justify that 18-54 women “might” be here, the content of the sites certainly doesn’t seem to indicate the same thing. At least, not the same thing as an advertiser would have in mind as a destination when pitched for their business.
Many of these ad networks do the same thing (iVillage, BlogHer and their Harry Potter and Celeb Gossip “blogs”), but Glam is by far the most notorious… but still comScore’s number one in category. They’re quantity over quality. The large reach is there, but media buyers beware that transparency is absolutely key (most won’t provide it…).
I m sorry but there is nothing wrong: Glam is making his affiliates fulfill the contract they sign.
You guys and you contact seems to forget that he is getting cash because Glam is able to sell the site to clients. And they are able to sell to clients because of the Comscore figures and common branding / guidelines.
If they dont want to fulfill the contract, just opt out and look for advertising money by yourself.
Well, read the contract. It doesn’t say anything about putting a Glam logo on every page of your site. A cutesy note in an e-mail newsletter is not a contractual agreement.
I as a publisher of Glam do not feel I am being strong armed to pu t anything up on my site. I AM GETTING PAID FOR IT.
I get paid for the ads on my site and I signed a contract that CLEARLY stated I will put the ads up and some type of branding on my site. I once almost joined another network and they asked me to do the same thing. I don’t get what the issue is really
Erick, you missed one important point to this story. This week, comScore told Glam that they can’t count sites in their network that aren’t really oriented towards women, like mayoclinic.com and several CBS entertainment sites.
Glam is apparently trying to figure out how to keep their comScore number from plummeting given this methodology improvement.
http://bits.blo...ant-only-women/
The real question here is what value Glam providing to their publishers? If the value is high — based on ad revenues, invitation to shows, links, and growth then a change is no different than a store owner placing “we take visa” out in public.
Though the changes make me wonder why, the changes themselves with logos aren’t really that important. Sounds like Comscore is adding some requirements to all publishers and Glam is no exception. I heard AOL, iVillage and Martha and any other Adify deals were scrambling last week as they too need branding and logos. All this will presumably lead to a cleaner environment.
What is intriguing is how much attention Glam gets over and over again. Is it because they are big and growing and have more power like ebay has with sellers — probably true. But shady and deceptive — no that I think not from reading this post.
Net net, IMHO Glam seems to have really deep relationships with publishers and continues to build a strong business in spite of the naysayers.
@ seamus. Thanks that answers the question of the change. If you are using Google for traffic and the free service required it to say so, or SiteMeter on your blog has its own branding, then you would make the change. Glam is passing what it needs.
I do seriously doubt reading Claire’s post that Glam is isolated in this. Sounds like categories are being re-defined. And logo or not, Glam’s numbers on Comscore will not change or plummet. Just which ones are in Women Style vs Health. Reading that post, iVillage seems to have several health properties too like Glam has MayoClinic, so the channel level change make no difference. I think media buyers will like this as they can target all women, or simply in style, health etc. Sounds like a good thing for all. It could also mean Glam is getting ready for new verticals???
It’s a pretty standard practive in most ad networks these days but the lack of transparency from the start can of course bother some. Agree with Mark, it’s eventually down to just how much value a site gets from being labeled as ‘Glam Media’ partner.
I find this particular bit of explanation to be errr… dodgy: “That makes it difficult for Glam Media to include you in ad campaigns and categorize your site in ComScore. ” – does it imply that all sites in the Glam Media network are categorized by comScore?
I think you’ve hit on another meta-point here. ComScore is built to measure sites, not ad networks. Glam has deliberately blurred the line between the two.
I am a publisher within the glam network and i do not feel that i am being forced to put up a logo or to do anything that i don’t want to do. i signed a contract and i agreed to the terms of that contract. period. what you guys at this blog don’t get is that we are glad to do what we have to do to continue getting high cpms and all the other benefits that glam provides to us. i am a small blog in this network and i make more money from glam than i ever did from other sources including google. i get money for the ads on my site plus now hopefully through glamtv and all the other stuff i do for them like sponsored posts. the bottom line is being part of glam is optional, we are not forced to do anything we don’t want to do.
I love you how the GLAM faithful comes crawling out of the woodwork everytime there is a post about GLAM. I went to your site and I have to say, your site has more ads on it than your avg NASCAR.
I just dont get it.
“pretty standard practice” doesn’t mean it’s right, it’s retarded. I really don’t understand why ad networks feel the need to force their branding on publisher sites… having ads on a site that converts has nothing to do with the branding of the ad network. Isn’t that what they should care about? Getting placements for their advertisers that convert?
Anyway…
Seems like semantics to me. If they sell ads across that many sites then ComScore should count them. They are the ones who are making the rule, not Glam.
By that measure, Doubleclick is the #1 site on the Internet.
Agreed sillyman. Comscore shoul only count those sites that companies OWN, not represent.
They are running a 1999 style business model. I was on eFront Media, they tried basically the same thing, and then switched to just wanting to change everyones layouts.
I used to run a gaming site in this era and it was a similar thing with gaming networks like ugo.com, ign.com, fgn.com. (I guess 3 letter network domains were pretty popular back then too) I remember the scandals involving eFront as well.
I don’t get what the issue is here. When I joined Glam I was told from the beginning that I needed to have the ads and the logo up. The contract clearly states “branding” and I was told by no less than 2 people handling my account that this meant a logo. What are these other publishers griping about? you whiners get paid premium cpms for the ads. Putting up the logo BENEFITS all of us not just glam. And the right of first refusal is not forced upon us either. It is open to discussion.
@Goldie Ask yourself why we are faithful and about my site: thanks for the pageview
In anticipation of Friday, we need some humor here –
Ms Betty C makes and bakes cookies (Blogger), in come Whole Foods and sells her cookies (Glam) Life is going great. Stands up FDA and asks Whole Foods to change labels on Diet Cookies vs Regular Cookies (Comscore). Whole Food tells Ms Betty, if you want to be in the diet section, add a small tiny 9 point size logo saying so, or not if you don’t want to, sell as a regular but cheaper cookies (CPM) Ms Betty is smart shrewed business woman (Yes that does exist) and makes up her own mind.
I secretly think that TechCrunch and Glam are like Brad and Angelina in Mr. & Mrs Smith. Each doing what they do in separate worlds, and once in a while Brad acts like he really wants to go after Angelina, but really wants them both to be in business. Get married and get it on.
Peace & Love
It’s really about time that much of the sh** that passes as metrics hits the fan, not to mention metrics “tricks” like this.
Guys – glam is just running a smart business – they are businessmen and they are making publishers more money than any other source in ‘their vertical’
How google has ‘tricked’ all of you…download google toolbar, use gmail, display ad sense… their logo and trademarks are everywhere.
@ Ray: The issue is sleazy biz practices.
I’ve noticed through the years that Silicon Valley really, really burns hot against some of the “standard” practices of Madison Avenue and Hollywood. Why? They’re underhanded and completely one-sided. They screw the little guy. Hard. Repeatedly. And then they smile about it.
Silicon Valley is where the little guy is king – think 2 person startups becoming billion dollar operations. Even if we’re small, we expect to be treated with equality and respect.
What advertiser would like to advertise at all these blogs, out of the 450 there are very very few good blogs and they are managed by Glam, its all a fiction.
Urkle -
good pt. But i think Demand Media, Name media and even Internet Brands have similarities w/ Glam or vice versa.
The underdog story is a good one, but the valley is moving beyond the valley and its a money game like most other industries.
I just think people paint Glam to be the bad guy when in reality they are making alot of people more money
When I was at one of large media buying agencies in NY, we tested Glam with initially mixed results. However, over time we spent more and more money with them because each time they delivered more audience, more integrated opportunities, more optimization, and more value. There is only so much money you can throw at the portals and traditional media properties. The value of those inside the box audiences keeps diminishing. Glam gives advertisers access to emerging niche audiences and new innovative environments that would be impossible to reach otherwise.
With all of the growth it becomes difficult to track all 600 plus sites, so the branding is helpful to media buyers. It sounds like this rule change from ComScore (which is the real story on real news sites) will at the end of the day be beneficial to all parties involved.
Isn’t FM branding on this tabloid?
Have you actually seen the quality of sites in their network??? I mean please… Even the dogs with flees are affiliates. I think this is a symptom of the desperation that these ad networks are suffering through. In case TechCrunch wasn’t aware… The collapse of blog networks (ad confederation style) is underway. Witness the dissolution of Know More Media and the tribulations of b5 Media.
The Web 2.0 shakeout has begun in earnest. Anyone want some popcorn?
You’d think their publishers would band together for a week and close down their glam network ads… glam isn’t anything without their affiliate network – maybe they need to be reminded?
Michael — why dont you just sell your site(s) to Glam, join the party and relax.
Glam (and the 100’s of companies that have copied their model) is here to stay.
And this is to the benefit of advertisers and marketers — filling a gaping hole left by the “portals” and way-too-small content sites like Style.com to reach this valuable female demographic.
Wow, you are just clueless. Please tell me you are kidding.
this model is old yet proven. the old tv network model.
vertical media works. look at print, tv. this model works. Glam has a nevative reputation, but that shouldnt be held against all ad nets…thats not right.
i agree the sites they claim, arent always relevant. thats not right. however the bottom line is they provide value to advertisers and to publishers
The point that i think everyone is missing is that Comscore doesn’t track sites by Media Badges at all. It is either based on Traffic Allocation letters from the publishers alerting Comscore that they are rep’d by Glam, which i’m sure they’re all contractually obligated to do, or tracked directly by their ad server logs. By using the ComScore guise to get they’re publishers to put media badges on every page is a little underhanded, but I bet there is a lot more to it. My guess from left field is that the badges have a tracking pixel included in them for internal vetting of inventory (good to know with right of first refusal) or they’re collecting cookie data for BT. Either way, I think the maliciousness of Glam isn’t so much how they run their business, but really on how they deceive they’re partners and the online advertising community.
@ DtoTheP. Any engineer would tell you that they don’t need a badge to track ads, as they already have 1-2 ads on every page of the publisher. Amazes me how people use fear to instigate herd thinking out here. There is nothing that a Logo will do that is not already on the page — in fact doesn’t it already say “Ads by Glam” like Ads by Google on these pages and not to foret they like everyone else actually are placing the ad itself — something anyone in an agency will tell you HAS to be audit able anyway. Else how would you know how many ran, when and where? The ones collecting this data are the ad services- DoubleClick (now Google) is what I would look at. Most of these comments are utter nonsense by people who don”t know the H of HTML.
I’ve never seen such emotion over a something. Deceiving? Are you kidding me? Take the time and go read what is said, they sell ads on web sites. They show how many women they reach by using Comscore who reports their reach no different from iVillage/NBC that also has 100 publishers, but call themselves a “destination” even though iVillage sells many many other publishers like Sugar etc. Reach is how agencies buy. They want to know total network reach and channel reach and site specific reach. Glam provides this data, and is also available publicly.
As someone said earlier, the model is old, from TV and works when there are many sources of content and publishers. Advertisers get reach through sites of high quality like Lifetime, Fashion Finds, MayoClinic, and Dr. Phil. No different then buying Primetime or a show or a channel from CBS on TV today. The aggregate reach is essential as the top brands want large large reach. All this is open and transparent and the publishers seem VERY happy, and the advertisers are paying more and more. Adsense 2.0 I say. Under Google and Yahoo’s noses. I think TechCrunch should not stop looking at this as it is one of the best discussion going on out here!
Sounds like Matt S works at Glam.
Hello,
First of all I just wanted to let you know I love your website, and we need more sites online like yours. With that said I have a couple of questions for you:
1) Is it OK if I link to your website from my site bayareabags.com?
2) Is my fashion website bayareabags.com worthy enough to be linked to from your website?
Please let me know when you have some time. Talk to you soon.
CP