John Battelle: Glam Media, et al, "Flavor of Month"*
The CEO of Glam Media competitor Federated Media, John Battelle, isn't falling for any of Samir Arora's Glam Media hype. The problem? According to John in his recent interview with CNET's Stefanie Olsen, "horizontal" ad networks like Glam just aren't that compelling:
CNET: Vertical ad networks like Glam Media are really popular right now. Investors love them. Why do you think that is?
Battelle: Because people don't understand them and they hope things that they don't understand will pan out.
CNET: That's not very smart.
Battelle: Well, I just think they are the kind of flavor of the month, but you have to get down to where do you add value to the marketer and where do you add value to the publisher.
I think that there is definitely more value in a vertical ad network than in a horizontal ad network. So you can say look, I've got these 400 sites and they are all women's interest. Advertisers are going to probably pay a little bit more for that. I just don't think at the end of the day you can get the brand awareness and brand engagement using algorithms, putting (Interactive Advertising Bureau) banners next to content. You can get part of the way there. To get all the way there you have to have the kind of ecosystem that was the magazine business at the height of its expression, where you can really get into that and do some cool things working with the publisher, like (the equivalent of) a two-page advertising spread online.
The industry is really good at direct response advertising online. The problem with vertical ad networks is that until you have engagement, integration, and proof of that consumer awareness, you are just going to keep devolving down to direct response pricing, which is sub $5 cost per thousand (CPM) for an ad.
John then goes on to describe how his vertical ad network, Federated Media, is different:
We want it at the kinds of CPMs that supported the magazine and the cable industry, which is above $20, $30, $40, $50 cost per thousand. Advertisers will pay that once they feel like they're getting that value for it, and once the media is created that proves that value, and it's not just the publisher's job to create that media, it's the publishers working in partnership with the marketers and that what we try to do it with them.
*UPDATE: John Battelle quickly weighed in to say that he was speaking more of the ad-network frenzy as being the "flavor of the month," not Glam in particular. We have thus softened our headline summary of his remarks. We, personally, would love to see a debate between John and Samir on the ad-network topic and we'd be happy to host and moderate it. But in the meantime, here's a link to John's excellent post on the subject on Searchblog.
See Also: Much-Hyped Glam Raises $85 Million on a $500 Million Valuation
Disclosure: SAI is a client of Federated Media.




http://battellemedia.com/archives/004330.php
I'm not looking to pick a fight with anyone, Henry.
But in meantime, I'll change hed to the words you actually were quoted as using: "flavor of the month." I do think even that's pretty strong, though.
(Will also add link to your excellent piece directly to post).
when mr battelle talks about the glorious CPMs of the magazine and cable glory days, he is comparing apples to oranges
magazine and cable CPMs were (and still are) cost-per-thousand HUMAN BEINGS. viewers. readers. (or as close as nielsen and ABC could measure them.)
internet CPMs are cost-per-thousand IMPRESSIONS. not readers or viewers or unique visitors. ad impressions.
if web publishers would be willing to go to a CPM based on unique visitors, they would no problem, no problem at all, getting advertisers to pay $20, $30, $40, $50 CPMs.
of course, that would also require web publishers to talk about how tiny their audiences are. remember measures of monthly unique visitors are cumulative or aggregated counts across long time frames, and such metrics NEVER tell how many people saw any particular ad campaign -- only some miniscule subset of the monthly cumulative number could possibly ever see any particuylar campaign unless the advertiser bought so many impressions that they basiclly owned the site for the whole month.
which is why web CPMs are so low compared to othee media CPMs. duh!
my gosh, nothing has changed since bubble 1.0
I have been uncovering fast growing companies primarily in Silicon Valley and Manhattan with Maverick Innovators. I must say that I am impressed with your model. I also have an exceptional job referal candidate. Julea is a standout, was a software engineer and should/likely will have her own Television show. She wants to be in your industry and would be a good fit. Sample rapport clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieTEE59U37Y
If anything, Glam would be MORE able to monetize their sites (since they own so many properties)
So is John calling his own business a 'flavor of the month'?
At first you denounce the horizontal netorks, which I can understnad a bit. But is not Glam a large vertical network focusing on females? Hotizontal would be the traditional 24/7 Real medias or Advertising.com
Then you ding vertical networks since they cannot do unique things like magazine like engagement executions - brand integration etc. is that not a bit presumptuous. I'm Sure Martha Stewarts Circle network is looking to do these things..
Then, you make an effort in trying to distinguish your company, Federated Media, as a different vertical network since your company does, or at least tries, to craft brand elements into your publisher sites instead of just banners. Well, I think many networks still try to do that but not the traditional networks. Premium networks, genre specific networks of mid-tail publishers, are capable of this branding.
Federated to me is not a vertical network since they sell inventory across all different categories from family to sports to tech. over 400 sites right? Seems like an emerging horizontal model to me.
Vertical would be just a more focused content network, ie. business.
Fesderated wants to be both - vertical and horizontal - if you take a closer look! Can't have it both ways.
magazine, i just skip the page, tv, i don't watch, but online, where my entire focus is on the content, if you interrupt me i will hate you
the very motivation of advertising is too gross for the intimacy of online, and i feel violated when i encounter them
As for JB's statements - he is so off. I wonder if he has ever seen a buy that Glam has assembled or looked deep into their partner sites and see the level of integration that separates them from the rest. Federated is a great blog network for tech and graphic design. The whole Babycenter partnership, proves that Glam has a good model, as it was a copy-kat to a tee.
These two need to chill. Samir needs to keep his angle and maintain his concentrate on Glam Media, making Federated insignificant to his target budgets and JB needs to start taking notes from Samir and pipe down.
As for a one on one - I dont think JB is at that level yet. I would give him another year to prep
i don't either like or dislike any models, and iu don't have any "problems" with models -- only with reality distortion field spewing companies and the lazy media outlets that don't call them on it
in my comment, i am simply pointing out that mr batelle is peeing in the wind when he tells the world he is looking for "CPMs" comparable to cable and magazines.
he knows perfectly well that's ridiculous. but i guess he knows perfectly well gullible media outlets (and investors, i guess) will swallow it
also, how does the fact that nielsen and ABC are far from perfect measurement systems further your point in any way?
are you saying comscore and quantcast and compete and the like are better? Please. other than comscore, they are actually far worse - because they do not use a universal panel method. at least with nielsen TV ratings everyone gets stiffed more or less the same. on the web, you can never compare apples to apples, and everyone seems like it that way -- except the advertisers of course
finally, peter - your reply to my comment seems to call into question your journalistic credentials -- SAI should be a neutral observer of the tech and media scenes, not a cheerleader for "new media' versus "old". what's the difference and who cares anyway? today's new media is tomorrow's old. and yesterday's tired old ideas are tomorrows hot new trends. yawn.
that money is being sunk into a black hole of superficial garbage.
Do not worry your videos that can not playback on Mac now! wmv converter for mac is really the best solution for you . and we got swf converter.
nokia temaları
nokia programları
nokia temaları
anycool
cep programları
cep temaları
porno izle
oyun indir
Nokia Duvar Kağıtları
samsung oyunları
samsung programları
İphone uygulamalar
Mp3 ve Wav Uzantılı Melodiler
İphone tema ve wallpaper
cep forum