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’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!

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

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.

The Web 2.0 shakeout has begun in earnest. Anyone want some popcorn?

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?

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