Subscribe: Comments on: Site or network? Own or join?
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/14/site-or-network-own-or-join/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
ads  blog  blogs affiliated  blogs  buying  fraudulent claims  glam  jarvis  jeff jarvis  jeff  media  network  networks  new  part 
Rate this Feed
Rating: 3.5 starRating: 3.5 starRating: 3.5 starRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Site or network? Own or join?

Comments on: Site or network? Own or join?



The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.



Last Build Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 12:54:00 +0000

 



By: Always tired

Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:52:42 +0000

Pfft. Sounds more like they're building a linkfarm network as opposed to creating anything of real value here. I'm curious if there has been any follow up? What ended up happening?



By: Allie

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:54:13 +0000

Sebastian, As I posted on TechCrunch, Google is full on aware of how Glam is conducting their business, I assure you. In fact, this particular adjustment includes a Google partnership with Glam. A simple visit to the Wall Street Journal online will show you this (here's a link): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118092265349123401-search.html?KEYWORDS=glam%20media&COLLECTION=wsji



By: Old Media Buying Model Insufficient to Spawn New Media Success » The Bivings Report

Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:34:25 +0000

[...] week The New York Time purchased [clarification: the paper is, as Jeff Jarvis notes, "hosting it, selling ads on it, promoting it, but not buying it or hiring its creators"] [...]



By: Make Them Accountable / Media

Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:21:49 +0000

[...] Site or network? Own or join? I think it’s wonderful that The New York Times did a deal to bring Freakonomics under its wing — hosting it, selling ads on it, promoting it, but not buying it or hiring its creators and not treating it like so much freelance fodder to go through the Times’ editing mill. That’s new… What I like about this is that we see big-media services starting to act like members of networks. They are beginning to realize that they can’t — and don’t want to — do everything themselves. They are also recognizing that creators want to keep ownership of their creations and so hiring or buying isn’t always the best option. [...]



By: Sebastian

Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:03:43 +0000

Tish beat me to my point: It's pretty well known in the SEO circles that Glam is one of those sites that could get thrashed by a well-placed Google adjustment, devauling all those in-network links.



By: discerning reader

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:25:05 +0000

The Ad networks strategy has worked in the past with many established media brands such as CNet, IGN. But it is TOO EARLY to tell that it will work for Glam. Glam has a leaky basket due to no strong brand for itself. Glam is doing nothing new, there is no new biz-model innovation, except having the balls and needs to blatantly, desperately pumping up fraudulent claims. Many successful Ad network has been contented on making money without snatching vanity feasts. Part of the reason this controversy won't die is that the media seems to be to so superficially covered Glam Media hype at the beginning and perpetuated a myth of "short-cut for traffic growth in light speed", wowed this new comer's self-promotion without any examination. It encouraged a "land-grabbing wild west" mentality. Finally, civic minded bloggers with tech background and discerning intellect like Arlington and others come to examine the whole thing and do some justice. It is still too early to tell if Glam's business will sustain in a long term perspective when all the name brand media companies start doing Ad networks. Glam can be a flash in a pan. It is especially unfair to see executives in Glam having such balls to make fraudulent claims without being questioned or checked by media. Media in general has not raised questions about how far you can go with fraudulent claims in advertising, executive accountability, and ethic of practice etc. But, maybe it is just a matter of time.



By: David Cohn

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:56:08 +0000

That's what is powering the new network of Wired's blogs. Take Jeff Howe's blog on crowdsourcing -- it's still a typepad blog -- Jeff has complete control over it, but Wired has worked it into the fold of their network. Seems like the smart thing to do. Reach out and grab a network.



By: Freakonomics gives trolling lessons » mathewingram.com/media

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:58:50 +0000

[...] which is part of what makes the blog so thought-provoking. Meanwhile, Jeff Jarvis uses the post as part of an argument for why he thinks blogs should be affiliated with newspapers rather than “owned.” [...]



By: Freakonomics gives trolling lessons » mathewingram.com/work

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:57:31 +0000

[...] which is part of what makes the blog so thought-provoking. Meanwhile, Jeff Jarvis uses the post as part of an argument for why he thinks blogs should be affiliated with newspapers rather than “owned.” [...]



By: Tish Grier

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:35:48 +0000

Glam's also done some rather hinky SEO stuff--buying up a lot of related domains and stoking them with links that go back to their site. Not to mention that many of their "blogs" are either not updated, or are anoymously authored. Now, I've got no qualm with anonymous bloggers, but anonymous bloggers writing stuff that reads like ad copy that then links back to an ad network? Well, that's like reading an ad masquerading as original content....and it sure ain't blogging... then again, the head of Glam was said to say that women *want* all those ads--why, that's part of why we read fashion mags in the first place! (oh, really???) So if there's some anonymous fluff sandwiched between ads, I guess it's okay because it's kind of like magazines ...which it kinda isn't... Still, I'd argue that it isn't the #1 destination because women want to be there--it might be #1 becasue women get lead there through bad search results. Kind a throws the whole idea of who/what's #1 into doubt for sure