We should have seen the windup for the obvious pitch when it wasn't Salon's editor David Talbot on the slate to represent the written word. The seminar could more accurately have been titled, "Commonotizing Content: How to Get a Big Head in Advertising," after Michael O'Donnell, Salon's CEO and "evangelist of growth," as journalist Helen Thorpe so accurately entitled him in The New York Times Magazine, took the stage.

Nevertheless, the room was packed for the stated topic -- "Content: the Once and Future King," the audience rapt in anticipation of a soothing story of how important content really is after all. Sorry people, we've got a mission here O'Donnell seemed to be saying. The audience spent the first 20 minutes watching video clips from national TV coverage of Salon, and the next 20 minutes listening to O'Donnell describe how he plans to take over the world by partnering up with wireless companies and monetizing the site's content since cell phones are it for communication and Internet access...

There's confusion in the room -- what is all this leading to? It becomes clear when O'Donnell descends into pure PR: "Our strategy is to become a more ubiquitous brand," by being one of the "new players and new brands in the industry, which includes AOL, Yahoo, C/Net, and Salon.com." Salon is, in fact, already moving toward that desired ubiquity by syndicating their content to gobs of companies -- AOL, Lycos, Go Network, WebMD, Reuters, Screaming Media, I-Syndicate, Babycenter.com, among others -- and by partnering with CBS News, and Cablevision Rainbow for $12 million in advertising promotion. Plus, Salon is planning a new weekly TV show on Bravo. O'Donnell finally states the ultimate goal: "We want to create a holding company that is Salon and add other brands to our network." The audience members are checking their schedule books to see if they're in the right room - wasn't the panel on branding strategies down the hall?

So where does content fit in? The marketing department has apparently signed off on O'Donnell's sound bite, because I've already heard it three times: "We don't want to be the magazine for the literati, but a smart tabloid." In tabloid style, Salon has already made some obvious changes in their content, concentrating on gossip and provocation, sexual and otherwise. Just head to their site at Salon.com and see for yourself.

O'Donnell predicts stock analysts will ultimately value such content for the stickiness factor. Salon is an extremely efficient stickiness provider, he points out, since "e-commerce sites have higher customer acquisition costs of $30-90 per customer, whereas at Salon.com, that cost is less than $5." A freelance writer lying on the floor in the aisle gets up to ask the question why: If Salon is doing so well (according to the previous slide presentation), why aren't they treating their writers like the kings and queens of content that they are? After all, Salon is all about good writing, and those articles certainly don't write themselves. (Apparently, if you're well-liked at Salon, you get paid the higher "Web standard" of 50 cents per word, but not everyone is so "well-liked" or treated so well anymore, and sometimes rates can go down to barely the alternative weekly rate.)

Although it's his first chance to broach the content subject, O'Donnell stumbles. "Our approach is, we wind up paying the freelancers fairly and on time, and on-time is important," he explains. (On-time is important, but not quite as important as the pay rate.) And there are other compensations, he continues. "Once you become a star writer, you get stock options just like staff" (i.e., Susie Bright, Camille Paglia). "But really," O'Donnell concedes, "it's more newspaper rates than magazine rates." He then defends Salon as a "writer-friendly" environ-ment where they offer much more than just pay rates; they offer writers "an honest forum" and the opportunity to expand their careers by virtue of their connection with Salon. "The Nancy Chan series, for example, is going into a book and TV movie rights. Other writers are getting more book deals."

After this rather pompous response to the question about the actual content providers -- the writers -- another question lies dead in the aisle: What is this guy doing here? It's a classic bait and switch, and you'll understand why O'Donnell was sent on this PR mission once you know more about Salon's current finances. The CEO's presentation accurately indicated that Salon.com has plenty of cash to spend right now -- traffic is up, revenues are subsequently up by $3 million last quarter, and there's over $40 million in IPO and privately funded cash. But Salon is spending that $40 million faster than the speed with which they burn through their 400-plus freelancers. According to Thorpe's article, and confirmed by Salon sources, they only have the next year and a half to become the AOL of their dreams before the money runs out. O'Donnell's ambitions are showing, and he's using every public opportunity to push Salon's media mogul mission. Ironically, he brings up Wired, which sold their popular print magazine to Conde Naste, and their soul to Lycos: "They were the premiere Web brand a few years ago ... not anymore." O'Donnell relates this as a cautionary tale of how a good company squandered its good name.

Can he not see the literal comparison he has drawn? If so, he certainly is optimistic that Salon will not be exhausted by ubiquity and the inevitable pandering to the masses that regularly occurs with their new bed-partners, AOL, CBS, Lycos, and Cablevision. Predictions? Salon will also squander its own good name over the next five years by actually achieving its goals, and another rising "magazine for the literati" will take its place. Dear Word.com, I have a column I'd like to write.