-
Website
http://venturebeat.com/ -
Original page
http://venturebeat.com/2007/08/12/glam-to-sign-1-billion-ad-deal-and-draws-critics/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
You did a nice job digging into lots information... not sure intentionally or unintentionally, you prefer to state it vaguely or make it remain vague at some critical information points. You quote "In most cases, Arora says, Glam has exclusive agreements in place to sell 100 percent of advertising on the sites in its network."
Checking with employees of Glam who sign contracts with Bloggers, they can tell you that most of their contracts with bloggers ARE NOT exclusive to Glam. Clicking on Glam network blogger's websites you can also see many Non-Glam blog network's widgets on there. Arora as a sale's guy, known to have a compulsive self-aggrandizement syndrome? I would double check the truth by asking for the details of how many contracts are mutually exclusive and how many are not.
In comparison with iVillage, the devil is in the detail of content owning percentage. iVillage might have some properties they don't own exclusively, but iVillage's core competence is content owner and hence majority of the ad sell is 100% revenue to iVillage. On the other hand, Glam is the other extreme of "land grabbing" biz model, majority of Glam's revenue is NOT 100% to Glam. The percentage dictates the earning potential of each company
Second issue, if Glam claims to be the technology provider for ad targeting, what is the underpinning behavioral science behind Glam's "technology", does Glam possess any patent? How long has their technology been used and what are the results from advertisers? How does it compared to Behavioral Target Ad Networks such as Revenue Science, Double Click, and Microsoft's new ad targeting technology?
You manage to be cleverly bias without being obvious.
:D
The fact is:
- Glam has never claimed to be a destination but have always maintained they are a network of blogs, sites & online publishers
- their 20 M reach is valid according to ComScore
- all the Glam Network publishers have 100% of their traffic assigned to Glam
- they sell ads across the Network (such as Google AdSense)
- they offer services & technical help whenever it's requested, adding a personal touch other networks don't offer
Because they've always been upfront about their operations and paid when they're supposed to etc., they've earned my trust in these areas.
Something does not add up here- Investment Banks such as Allen and Bank of America have a solid reputation- these are not run of the mill banks. I looked on the web for more info and found posts on VentureBeat which says that PopSugar- one of TechCrunch’s investments is trying to launch a competitive service to Glam along with iVillage. Should this not have been mentioned in any financial reporting?
If this is such a sham, why is iVillage/NBC reportedly - see NYT today scrambling to copy Glam’s model? I suspect it has to do with the revenue- the one thing that stood out in your post- real revenue growth that only the eBay or Google have experienced- and neither of them have any content or products - they power the little guy. This is what makes them much bigger than the likes of AOL, Yahoo or MSN. Sounds like Glam has discovered the same model for display advertising.
Sure. I would suggest Michael take a look at it as well and add more than a link saying an alternative point of view to his post.
Here is where I think he is stumbling - “They boast of faster growth than MySpace, and claim to be the no. 1 womens website on the Internet with 19.1 million unique monthly users” Michael main point about all this is the traffic nonsense with Glam seems to be claiming to be the “no. 1 women website” - after reading the quote the document actually says “#1 ranking web property”
The confusion may be that comScore reports 3 types of media: single web sites domain names, web properties (with exclusive traffic assignments/ownership), and pure ad networks. Matt’s post explains that there is a difference between them. iVllage Network was no. 1 web Property- I did not realize that it is a network of many sites including ones it does not own, and Glam is now no. 1 - it is also a network but of more web sites. NYT today says that Glam is stealing away their advertisers. And this by powering the little guys & gals - I would think this is a good thing and kind of grassroots web like Doc Searle said would start to happen. @Srup- sounds like your information is not correct looking at the publisher posts on TC - Glam does sell their display advertising and makes them $'s
Web Properties & Ad Networks seem hot- looking at the recent deals valued at 2B to 6B - much more than pure content or e-com plays like TheKnot or iVillage. Must imply that the scale that content companies get to 100M in revenue after 10 years like iVillage vs a new company like Google does in 4 years and Glam in 2 years. Nothing wrong with all this - Michael started this- now needs to follow through with some fact finding and additions to the story like Matt has.
For day 1, GLAM has taken us to another level, offering premium advertisers on our little sites, in term pulling the eyes of other premium advertisers. Payment is always on time and the company has been so kind & transparent with us that we feel at home with their team. Publishers need to do what is right for them, and GLAM is right for our current flock of sites and any future site we launch. With GLAM, we are now able to bring in better talent - in turn offering better content for our readers. And I think that's what is about offering better content .
I am GLAM happy.
I have been part of glam.com now for well over 3 years .. I just went solo on a blog with them (was previously part of a larger blog network that partnered with Glam) and Glam has been nothing but helpful in getting my blog to grow, offering marketing advice, helping me with ads and also getting me into some events where the connections were iffy on my own.. in other words, add GLAM into the equation and my entrance was guaranteed.
Glam may have originally started out as a destination -- and I KNOW that because I was with them for a short time as a content provider-- however they realized that the web was changing and made a pro-active move to create a more blog-centric destination where you can see HUNDREDS of blogs and websites all in one location on a variety of topics.
I have met bloggers in LA who are well known in their field and we all felt that Glam was the right move for us-- (and that includes celebrity, fashion, vintage, beauty, lifestyle, and lots of other topics).. and these aren't tiny blogs but ones that really are well known. I know that my traffic is assigned to Glam. It's right there in the fine print-- and it's not really tiny either. It's VERY CLEAR and someone discussed it with me on the phone at length.
The agreement offered by Glam was a heck of a lot more generous than others offered to me who wanted to own my content, lock stock and email and I was to be paid a pittance for something that would generate the other companies a TON of revenue. I had people promising in writing to pay me 2K a month or 500 hundred a month but never came up with anything for me participating on their blog group. They are more transparent about what they do.. and they aren't using me as much as I am using them to promote me.
I know that Glam.com recently co-promoted an event with Fashiontribes.com and Papierdoll.net for their second birthday party. If they are helping those two sites get noticed and get more attention in the media and the blogosphere, how is that bad?
I know that the Glam ad network works because I know people who are able to live off the revenues driven by Glam ads and participation in events and promotions. Now tell me -- what is the point of capitalism if not to survive.
As a person who has just gone solo with my blogs-- and I am a well-known quantity on the web-- I wouldn't go with just ANYONE. I get pitched all kinds of deals all the time. I look at each one carefully and evaluate what they are offering me. One fo the ones I have chosen to participate in for my blogs is GLAM.com-- because I trust them. They have helped me when I needed help -- when they didn't have to, because they knew that I would be a good addition to their network and they know the extent to what I cover in terms of topics can make a HUGE difference in traffic for them and for me.
They PROMOTE me in a big way-- where the other blog network I used to be part of didn't.
If I have a problem with my blog or with an ad or need some advice or guidance or suggestions, I know exactly who to call at Glam and they get back to me within a 24 hours -- sometimes less. I know that I wouldn't be part of Glam it is was all the BS that you say it is.
Granted my solo blog isn't getting as much traffic as the previous blog location which had me buried-- (and that blog -- though closed-- is still generating 8-10k hits per month) . Glam's staff has been working with me on a marketing plan to make me more visibile and I am happy and appreciative to have that help -- and guess what, it's FREE.
That's right boys and girls-- FREE.
When was the last time you got free professional marketing strategy?
So let's just say maybe there is a difference of opinion here--you have yours and I have mine and we can agree to disagree. But if you doubt me, I challenge you to go through the blogroll at Glam.com and contact them directly and ask them -- ask Papierdoll, Fashiontribes, Hollyscoop, Popbites, Debutante Clothing, California Style and so many more. There is a network of Glam Blogs that I participate with for a "blog carnivale"/group.
Bottom line is what you want it to be-- you can criticize it all you want.. but until you actually talk to those IN GLAM.. you are merely using circumstantial facts (and not all of them) to support your case without doing all the digging necessary.
FOR PURPOSES OF DISCLOSURE-- I posted this on techcrunch too.. just an fyi -- with a few minor tweaks to it.
Publishers praised Glam for the right and obvious reasons. But the discussions were not on Glam/publisher’s relationships, but on Glam’s aggressive financial projections and its business valuation.
The only thing of issue here is how Glam.com has marketed themselves within the VC and media worlds. They claim to be a destination– they aren’t. They routinely say they’re #1 with women, but with MyYearBook.com being their largest source of traffic, that is questionable.
“The only thing of issue here is how Glam.com has marketed themselves within the VC and media worlds. They claim to be a destination– they aren’t.”
Michael made a grave mistake in his original post - after reading Matt’s article and the disclosure document, it is 100% clear that Glam - like iVillage - says it is a web property and not a destination!!! Repeating things over and over again don’t make them become the truth.
iVillage has 50 web sites in their network- less than half owned based on Matt’s report - Glam has 360 sites. Apple to Apples both have good deep content sites, and some fun or games based on the audience of women or teens - that probably why comScore’s report says Glam is now no.1 ahead of iVillage.
Looks like the publishers love Glam, and revenue seems to indicate advertisers too as they want this highly desriable reach to women from these reports. Whether TechCrunch is a friend or an investor doesn’t really matter- did Michael do his homework before writing what appears to be a flame blog post. Decide for yourself- read the VentureBeat article and others.
I asked my stock buddy - here is what I found out - Yahoo is mostly content and supposed to generate 7B of revenue next year - with a market cap of 32B or 5 times revenue, Google with a network model will do 20B with a market cap of 160B or 8 times revenue. That would imply Glam at 150M in revenue would have a market cap of 600M - 1.2B today. WebMD at a mid cap is 6-7 times revenue and a similar model to Glam - network of sites has a 3B market cap 6-8 times revenue YouTube was 1.7B and non of the content was created by them or pretty - but has defined video on the web. I guess reach and revenue is what matters - I like this time the little guy wins unlike facebook where the suers build the content and the company keeps all the ad money. This is a good thing for the web and corporate america to face.
I would have to say that this story is entirely off base. Glam took my little blog on Blogger to a legitimate site.
I have about 5 different ad networks on my website and the reveunue that I make from Glam is more than the other ad networks COMBINED!
Furthermore, Glam is always expanding and offering members of its network more opportunities to grow and make more money.
I really suggest the author of this article to do better research. You may sway a webmater’s decision when it comes to ad networks and affiliations.
Anyway, to anyone reading this, Glam is the best thing that has happened to my site. The money is great. The ads are awesome. Makes everything look far more professional.
Thanks!
Arasto
Faded Youth Blog
http://fadedyouthblog.com
(Bookmark my site -- you'll love it!)
In my opinion, if a company doesn't own the sites, they should not be allowed to list them.
UGO is probably another good example of an ad network that acts like they "own" the sites in their network when in reality it's just smoke and mirrors.
I could be wrong, but don't be suprised if I am right.
The exposure our sites receive in their ad network is a great feature.. which means more traffic and readers. Glam makes sure that checks are sent out on time each month.
As for displaying their ads on all three of my sites... I think it is a great thing and keeps my readers on top of what is available in beauty, fashion and even tv entertainment.
I am a proud member of Glam blog network and I think they ROCK!
There are many Blog Ad Network innovated on business models way before Glam. This URL shows it all.
http://blognetworklist.com/networksbyvalue.php
Some of those blog networks created solid businesses without going to the town conducting fraudulent advertising on their traffic number and ranking.
Talking about pulling a PR stunt, Glam seems to have needs for desperate PR stunt. It makes me think about O.J. Simpson wanting to publish his book and making PR stunt, and Fox channel even granted it a green light. But eventually it backfired.
Glam’s overpaid "blog publishers" are defending Glam very hard, but Glam had stirred up a cocktail of bad emotions from very diverse groups of professionals. The aggregated 156 comments at TechCrunch show that Glam did not win the minds and hearts of neutral parties that outside of Glam Network bloggers. If it is a good practice, sometimes competitors even respect it, but this is not the case here.
Part of the reason this controversy won’t die is that all along media seemed to be to so superficially covered Glam hype at its beginning stage and perpetuated a myth of “short-cut to traffic growth in light speed”, encouraged this new comer’s self-promotion without any examination. It seems like we are living in a time of “wild west and eyeballs-grabbing”.
But it seems that in the court of opinions, justice is starting to do its job even though justice comes late.
Be a network more than a site, that’s my advice.
This is what Glam has done, creating an ad network across independent sites and growing hugely, bragging that it is the no. 1 women’s site (service, network?) with 19.1 monthly uniques, growing faster than MySpace and larger than iVillage, AOL Living, and all of Conde Nast combined.
At TechCrunch, Mike Arrington ridicules Glam’s claims, saying: “A minimal amount of research into their business shows that the company is an ad network, not a content site.” With respect, I disagree
I say that’s what makes Glam so smart. As the web becomes more and more distributed — more widgetized with tchotzkes of content and functionality spread everywhere — the idea of measuring size by just measuring a site becomes obsolete. And here’s the fringe benefit: it’s better and cheaper to take your content to the people rather than marketing to bring them to you. This is the essence of CBS’ audience network strategy.
This is, dare I say it, the essence of 3.0: join and enable a network instead of trying to buy content and eyeballs on a site.
WWGD. What would Google do? Google would network.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/14/site-or-n...
First let me say I’m a huge fan of VentureBeat and a daily (sometimes hourly!) reader. Thanks for always delivering such timely, thought-provoking articles :)
I would also like to point out and correct an error in the iVillage stats you included in the chart above.
Not sure where the data came from (comScore?), but as an employee of iWin I can assure you that our casual games website is definitely *not* owned by iVillage -- the only relationship we have with them is that they supply and serve the ads to our www.iwin.com site.
Thanks!