Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Early Addition
Finally, the game we've all been waiting for: "Are You a Porn-Star or a Society Princess?" The Post looks at how a lot of society girls are looking more Playboy-Penthouse than Park Avenue. Party scenester Tiffany Durbin tells the Post, "You're not a slut anymore if you dress [like a porn star]. There used to very defined rules that gave away your identity. Now, it's hard to tell. But I do think showing the midriff has been done too much. And there are too many nipple moments. That's one thing we should stay away from. There should be a certain amount a restraint." Then the Post adds that porn stars like Jenna Jameson are looking more polished in couture clothing. We'd say the next step is for society girls to work in porn, but then that would be work, so walking around naked is next, which is derivative as well.
Pictured, porn star Stephanie Swift at left and Casey Johnson (of Johnson & Johnson) at right.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Did gothamist always have ads? I don't remember them before... Is this a money making thing now???
Maybe it's just a bad angle, but Casey Johnson's belly button looks really really wrong.
Damn, that porn star girl looks really cute. Casey Johnson looks really really bad. I don't even think she looks like a pron star. Maybe the fluffer.
Damn, that porn star girl looks really cute. Casey Johnson looks really really bad. I don't even think she looks like a porn star. Maybe the fluffer.
yeah, gothamist is pimping itself
Well I guess the Hilton sisters make a lot more sense now. They look like porn stars because they're suppoused to.
If Gothamist had to go all corporate, I'm glad the ads aren't ugly.
I don't know that it's so much money making as less money losing. Refer to this post.
why did Gawker pull your link off their page . I say pull their link .
yea, the ads suck. i honestly thought you guys were better than that. now it looks just like every other news site. major disappointment folks.
1. i'm not sure why they pulled the links off of gawker- but they appear to have removed all of their external links. i'll look into it.
2. the site costs $200/month in server costs- we'd just like to make that much back, so we're not losing so much money on it.
3. if i worked for johnson and johnson, i'd be really upset knowing that all the excess value i generated was being returned to such a ho'.
That's like having kids and sending them out to sell matchsticks because they cost so damn much to feed. What happened to labour of love?
i'd rather pimp the kids out than have them starve to death if you know what i mean. and look at it this way- if we run some small, fairly subtle ads, we don't have to put out the collection jar or shut down the site. you can just ignore them if you want, but we'd appreciate if you click each ad- since we only get paid per click.
"Labor of love"? It's already a labor of love, considering how much time and energy Jake and I have put into it. I get up early to blog, I go to bed late so I can blog. I harrass Jake incessantly about various things on the site, he bugs me all the time about my typos and messed up links. And for the past, hmm, 8-10 months, we've been footing the bill for it ourselves (we moved to a new server because, happily, people were visiting the site and we kept going over our traffic numbers). So while I'm sorry that people are disappointed we had advertising, it's a necessity for us to stay afloat.
Oh, and as far as I can tell, our link from Gawker is still there, it's just at the bottom of the page (with all the other external links).
I completely understand the need for you guys to make some money back for the $ and time you put into this groovy site. But just to throw out my usual 2 cents: why not do something like the weather site wunderground.com, where you ask us to pay 5 bucks or some sum if we want to see an ad-less site? I don't see that as a collection jar; I like the choice, esp. cuz I just miss the cleanliness of your site w/ no ads. I can ignore them, but ya know, they're blinkety-blink-blinking...
Pictured right: Casey Johnson of Johnson & Johnson. Pictured left: Stephanie Swift of johnson, johnson, johnson and a couple more johnsons. Heh, heh.
I don't mind the ads. They aren't obtrusive and don't take away from the Gothamist experience. Would I want an ad free site? Of course, but It takes money to keep up a high traffic website running. But even if it didn't, I wouldn't mind seeing the Gothamist getting some scratch for booze and BBQ.
I'm glad to see the advertising! Stop being so anti-capitalistic folks. What's more attractive, store signs or boarded-up windows? The fact that advertisers like the audience (you!) that Gothamist attracts should be a compliment. Keep the ads coming and a make it a going concern. J & J - don't be ashamed to make money (or lose less).
don't like the ads either. why does it costing so much to host anyway? sounds like you got a bad deal...
Has anyone even looked into the ads? The Blue Sky Footage link is interesting. There are stills of city skylines at night, snowy Manhattan street corners and Los Angeles canyons. Probably a good place for out-of-work photographers to sell their photos and a good place for filmmakers to buy decent looking stock footage. Nothing heinous about it., really...just a small business owner trying to make a living with a little help from the Web.
Back on topic, the Johnson chick must be fourth-or-fifth generation or something. They run out of personal life experiences, and start going for stuff like the porn-star look. Maybe the next fad will be take convenience store jobs. (I think those people called this "slumming" at one time.)
The original Johnson, a Civil War General who advanced what was then a breakthrough idea of antiseptic medical supplies, is probably spinning like mad in his resting place.
I notice that the true porn star shows more flirty conservative fashion taste, and yet is "the real thing". Now THAT looks like style!
It seems to me that the society pages are dedicated to humiliating those that have money which gives people all the more reason to dislike the rich... But, then again even those fortunate enough to be born with money have their own set of problems. Everyone hates people they are jealous of, and comparing the Hilton sisters to porn stars is one thing but if Casey Johnson from above was a model this would be of no issue.
Yeah, but you better not judge, thats the only utterly wrong violation. Women lost the sexual revolution. What a trampy, group of objectified disposibles.