We Have Arrived.

girlsonthesidebar.pngLook to the right, my friends … over there on the sidebar … it would appear that we’ve taken one more vital step toward becoming an A-List community blog.

Like BoingBoing and MetaFilter before us, it appears that Metblog is shilling for the Girls.

For my part, I’ve no real issue with the content and purpose of SG. And I know full well that any web entity, personal or shared, has to be funded somehow. With growing popularity comes higher bandwidth comes rising costs. So it goes. But when I saw the ad this morning, I had to tilt my head and ponder, if only for a second. Is this a good thing for the Metblog? Ostensibly, we’re here to talk about the goings on of Atlanta, both positive and negative. Self-censorship is rarely a concern and it shouldn’t become one. Ever. We’re all adults here.

But it can’t be denied that the Metblog serves as a kind of ever-growing guide to our town. While most of the folks that steer our way are hip, groovy and perfectly okay with a website like Suicide Girls, does the Metblog Community (Atlanta in particular) run the risk of alienating that small percentage of people that might come here to plan a weekend with the kids, family vacation to the Aquarium, things to do when grandma comes to visit?


22 Comments so far

  1. sui (unregistered) on March 7th, 2006 @ 10:08 am

    “Shup up, you fucking baby”
    -David Cross

  2. Thomas (unregistered) on March 7th, 2006 @ 10:14 am

    Fair enough.


  3. Daniel (unregistered) on March 7th, 2006 @ 10:31 am

    I’m ‘curious what readers think. We talked about the ad on the captain’s email list a little while ago (it’s been up there for a couple of weeks, so I guess that not hearing about it means that people are okay with it). Apparently, Suicide Girls was the very first company ever to buy an ad on a Metroblog.

  4. k1ng (unregistered) on March 7th, 2006 @ 11:02 am

    I’m not saying this is the reason, but it should be noted that Sean Bonner (co-founder of Metroblogs) used to be the Culture & Technology Editor of Suicide Girls. (source)

  5. Lori (unregistered) on March 7th, 2006 @ 11:16 am

    SG used to be cool, but since the whole mass defection of original girls and site changes, it’s all porn-y now.

  6. Natasha Robinson (unregistered) on March 7th, 2006 @ 11:21 am


    You take the good/ You take the bad / You take them both… and there’s ya Google Ad

    Ahhh… that’s the great thing about Google Ads especially with the addition of google’s new(ish) “advertise on this site”. Really until publishers, such as MetBlogs, decide to manage their own ads and sell their own adspace this will continue to happen. This is just a cost of doing business when you don’e manage your own adspace.
    So don’t complain to the readers, take it up with Google or find another Ad Network.

    However I think a better place for this discussion would be the: Build Your Own Ad Network (http://performancing.com/node/1318) discussion on Performancing this morning.

    Natasha “That Girl From Marketing” Robinson

  7. Thomas (unregistered) on March 7th, 2006 @ 11:50 am

    Good point, Natasha … but the SG ads aren’t Google Ads. Unless someone can tell me otherwise for certain, I’m pretty sure that the Metblog network is selling that adspace directly.

  8. Natasha Robinson (unregistered) on March 7th, 2006 @ 12:15 pm


    Oh – so then the issue you have is with who MetBlogs decides to sell ads to that they control? Well that’s a much bigger question and one that the owners have to decide on (and I guess most publishers who manage their own ads)…. especially when the only revenue stream that you have is via ads. Hmm… maybe it’s time to consider other revenue streams… but that’s a really bigger question: how do we come up with revenue streams other than advertising especially on a blog network? And that’s a question that I would love to see some answers to – lol

    Have a good one,
    Natasha “That Girl From Marketing” Robinson

  9. shelbinator (unregistered) on March 7th, 2006 @ 5:21 pm

    I wouldn’t say I have a problem with it – I like pr0n as much as the next guy. But it does seem rather out of place. What is it about a Metblog audience they think lends itself to peddling smut? So I guess I find it contextually annoying, but not annoying in principle.

    I have no idea what I’m talking about.

  10. Maigh (unregistered) on March 7th, 2006 @ 6:24 pm

    Oddly enough I got an email last week from a reader asking me how I felt about it and noting that most of the authors (on account of they don’t have half nekkid pics of themselves on their sites) seemed too “prudish” (if that’s not the word that was used, it was close) to condone an ad like that.

    I too, tilted my head. I hadn’t considered it yet.

    Kudos for starting the dialog.

  11. plumdrank (unregistered) on March 7th, 2006 @ 6:26 pm

    The most troubling thing of the ex-models’ accusations to my mind is how they didn’t get paid a fair wage for their work. I think they get like a one-time fee of $300, which is pathetic. A stripper can make more in a slow shift. All the blather about empowerment is utterly meaningless if they aren’t making money. “Power” is an empty word without money to back it up. By this measure, the women who pose for Playboy or Penthouse have a lot more power, because they can use that as leverage to command big fees as strippers and make some real money.

    To make this entire situation worse, the models keep up “diaries” on the site, which is sold as another empowerment tool, but let’s be honest. The diaries are for the customers and are their to bolster the fantasies that men have about the models, the sort of “girlfriend” thing. Which is to be expected-the whole point of Suicide Girls is that these are the actual “girls next door” for hipster types. The problem with the diaries is that the models aren’t getting paid, even though those diaries keep men on the site and resubscribing and making money for the owners.

    And it gets even worse-Suicide Girls is packaged as a female-driven enterprise, but it’s owned by a man. (The co-founder is also a model who uses a fake name, which makes her agency in this a little suspicious, though that doesn’t necessarily mean she’s just a cover.) The models who’ve quit haven’t had their photos taken down, which lends even less credibility to the enterprise. And, as a cherry on the sundae, the owner has been partnering with Playboy, from what I understand.


  12. Thomas (unregistered) on March 7th, 2006 @ 10:27 pm

    Happy to get the ball rolling, always.

    My other concern about Suicide Girls in general was one that I couldn’t really fit into the initial post. An acquaintance of mine was approached by SG a few years ago and considered their offer. On her LiveJournal, she shared some of the particulars of their contract. It seemed like there were far too many instances of phrases like “in perpetuity” to make anyone comfortable. As in, any and all photos become the property of SG for use in any way seen fit from now until the end of the Internets.

    So yeah, I’m not concerned about the ads on a “Goodness me, my sensibilities!” level, but more of a “Is this the kind of company we want to keep?” level.

  13. Daniel (unregistered) on March 7th, 2006 @ 10:46 pm

    Maigh – someone thought we were too prudish here? Hmmm… I’m not so sure I’d agree. Maybe we need to do some more risque posts – Metblogs does Atlanta or something… Actually, I’m not sure I can think of something that would legitimately make us seen less prudish…

  14. plumdrank (unregistered) on March 8th, 2006 @ 12:45 am

    the idea that atlanta or metblogs readers are too “prudish” for suicide girls is idiotic

  15. CM (unregistered) on March 8th, 2006 @ 10:05 am

    This goes with the Thomas Frank’s commodification of dissent theory. Of course we’re now in a world where there are no longer any kinds of dissent that haven’t been commodified.

  16. Maigh (unregistered) on March 8th, 2006 @ 11:39 am

    Calling someone you’ve never met “idiotic” demonstrates a lack of insight and intellect as well as a mean streak the universe doesn’t need. Karma.

    That said, here’s an excerpt from the email:

    ~ so maigh, I noticed the suicide girls link on the atmetblog site, and was like “oh, what is this?” not even thinking what it could be. So I clicked on it, and got a nice pay site for meeting women that “dont have big hair or boob jobs”. Now I’m not saying I’m a prude at all. I love looking at good looking women, ie:
    my wife. youre picture on your site. but I was kind of caught off guard by this link on the site? They just kind of letting anyone put up advertisement? like I said, doesn’t bother me, just curious, because it seems alot of times with the postings that people are a little more “frigid” on metblogs. ~

    My bad, the word was “frigid”. Just reporting a perception, not passing judgement. I’m sure folks have plenty of perceptions about me I’d rather not hear as well. ;)

    Kissy boo!

  17. plumdrank (unregistered) on March 8th, 2006 @ 3:50 pm

    the “IDEA” is idiotic

    learn to read

  18. Maigh (unregistered) on March 8th, 2006 @ 3:57 pm

    Good one.

  19. Lori (unregistered) on March 8th, 2006 @ 5:58 pm

    Haha! We’re frigid. Awesome.

  20. Kent (Atl Metblogs) (unregistered) on March 8th, 2006 @ 10:18 pm

    I always read through a feedreader, so I had no idea.

    Personally, I hate the Suicide Girls ad.

    My feelings have nothing to do with p0rn or how porn models are treated.

    I don’t like the fact that the ad makes atlanta.metblogs.com a site that I would feel uncomforatble to navigate to at work.

    My vote is to remove them.

  21. Nikki (unregistered) on March 8th, 2006 @ 11:31 pm

    Yeah, it’s the making metblogs NSFW that is a problem, really. Personally, I think that SG is suspect and probably disingenuous about the whole enterprise, but I have no actual objection to porn. My employer does, though. That, and it’s not like SG has any trouble getting adspace, and I see enough naked/seminaked women in most advirtising anyway, which basically means the SG ad just induces eye-rolling on my part.

  22. Alex (unregistered) on March 9th, 2006 @ 9:01 am

    Firefox and Adblock FTW!

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.