This guy is a joke. His investors need to sit him down and teach him how to control himself. He has credibility issues.

Come on. This clown is an ad network claiming to be something more interesting - his margins are gong to continue to be irrelevant. His roadshow is a joke the claue of his company is the same as the traffic that is resident to glam.com the site which is nada.

Samir and Glam are no joke.  The attraction of advertisers/marketers seeking innovative ways to reach women 18-49 is no joke. They know.  The portal and static fashion/lifestyle magazine model is dated. Glam is pioneering a new way to bring together an entertaining and eclectic mix of content compelling to modern women, on-the-go. His network model is uniquely suitable to pulling together a broader and more compelling/entertaining mix than traditional, stand-alone portal contexts. iVillage, etc. had become static extensions of traditional media agenda(s). Glam has filled a void with a modern, fluid entertainment/info network hub commensurate with the fast-paced way modern women engage the Internet/wireless.  Samir is focused on providing women with a fun and entertaining experience—with a broader variety of content offerings. Quirky to high-end fashion visuals can co-exist w/in the Glam network in a way they would not and could not elsewhere. Fashion and beauty trends women embrace often rise from alternative sources—just like music. Combining high-end and quirky—is FUN. Glam is ALIVE!  iVillage forgot its audience a long time ago and not much has changed since the acquisition.  Glam—and Samir --have captured the zeitgist of the lives of modern women and its network model will scale as he expands to other categories.  The flexible, creative, innovative, SCALABLE network model represents the future of successful Internet businesses, which is why AOL and many others are studying this content distribution/ecosystem model VERY CAREFULLY.  Good luck, Samir!  Keep having FUN and market/promoting Glam—and, glad you are expanding into health/wellness—in a savvy, non-toxic and modern way.

for those of us that have seen their revenue projections, samir *is* a joke and does have credibility issues. Look, I know someone that used to work there and I know their projections cannot be real, so get a life and stop polluting this message board with your pro-company BS.

If you have half a brain you’ll explain how they intend to add “hundreds of millions” in revenue over the next two years. I’m waiting...tick tock tick tock.

The pollution on the Internet at-large is a resistence to ideas that are not one’s own—and make assertions that those who do somehow have promotional intentions. I am one of the millions of women who enjoy Glam every day—and, it is unfortunate a woman who happens to not share the perspective of the previous post—are insulted. Typical. For the record, everyone who happens to believe in the model Glam is pioneering, does not have to have a promotional agenda, as the previous post asserts. For the record, I do not have a relationship with Glam or its founder.  It is the previous post who writes they “know someone who used to work there”—and, it seems there is bias at work here...and by extension, an attempt to challenge or shut down those of us who do not happen to share the same perspectives.  Too bad. The Internet permits contrarian voices to be heard.  I am a personal admirer of Glam, its new model and content diversity—and reserve that right.  Time will tell whether the model is correct—or not. Till then, pls. allow women who enjoy Glam to do so and say so—with respect for a different point of view.

ok, touche, but what about his “impossible to believe” claims about increasing revenues by hundreds of millions per year? And, just out of curiosity, specifically which Glam content do you enjoy? Can you send us a URL?

Thanks, no offense meant. Just asking....

Business is awash of claims by all kinds of businesse. Enron anyone? Holding Internet/new media companies to a different set of standards is passe and the angst from traditional media companies and their financiers should be better used to try new, innovative things to excite/attract and grow their audiences --as Glam has successfully done.  Glam’s success is undeniable. Its attractions to me personally I am not prepared to submit to your review.  The foundation is there for a constant evolution/integration (scalable?) of fresh, new ideas/concepts as multigenerational, worldwide, multicultural women find their own personal aesthete through the prism of fashion/lifestyle/wellness/fine living.  It is a worthy endeavor and clearly attractive to women. That is the standard—and—after two years, speaks for itself. Women are an important audience—and, they are LOYAL to what they like.  A good beginning.

I didn’t think I’d get a URL. Ok. Your write-up about Glam is intriguing but numbers/projections do matter, especially when Glam is raising a huge amount of capital. Their problem is their credibility. It has nothing to do with your interest in their company/business model. No one is criticizing their business model. Everyone that comes in contact with their CEO seems to need a shower afterwards. That’s a fact.

hi friiends! who can define for the word “the good luck and bad luck”?