digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at techcrunch.com

Digg Applying The User Voting Model To Advertising

techcrunch.com — New Digg ads will appear directly in the news stream and will be clearly marked as sponsored. The more people click on the ads, the lower the price the advertiser will pay. Ads that are buried too often will be priced “out of the system.”

Who dugg this? Made popular Jun 5, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

63 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • enevitable, on 06/04/2009, -2/+48damn it, this is their way around most of us having adblock+
  • jarrod10, on 06/05/2009, -3/+29That sucks, they shouldn't mix the ads with the content.
  • fuxxx, on 06/05/2009, -1/+23What the *****? I'm sure everybody on digg has already seen, and commented on, http://digg.com/tech_news/Digg_Announces_Digg_Ads
  • ralphthemagi, on 06/05/2009, -1/+19It doesn't work. It's fundamentally flawed.

    If you allow people to pay to get to the front page, then it defeats the purpose of Digg. That much is obvious. The thing is, things that are popular will already make it to the FP. If you are a company like Apple or Blizzard, why would you want to advertise on Digg? Everything you do makes it to the front page anyway. And if you have a ***** product, which the Digg Collective™ hates, they will bury you and your add will: (1) cost you a fortune; and (2) disappear off the FP quickly. So... you should have just went with normal CPM/CPC advertising in the 300x250 on the side in the first place.

    The only way this really works is if Digg makes it such that paid placements can NOT actually be buried. Users can click bury, but the ad never actually disappears, it just charges the advertiser more—but that completely ***** up the ideology behind Digg. Unfortunately, that's the only way you can actually make this model work.

    I think it will be interesting to see who actually does this though. Brands that the Digg Collective™ already likes would be pretty stupid to put paid media advertisements in the stream since their brands/products are already represented there, and brands that the Digg Collective™ hates are pretty much DDoS'ing their own sites while pissing of a bunch of geeks and /b/tards.
  • betrayed, on 06/05/2009, -5/+22Digg has ads?

    Firefox, what else have you been hiding from me?!
  • MargotCross, on 06/04/2009, -5/+21thats pretty interesting actually. wonder how it will pan out.
  • quomen, on 06/05/2009, -1/+16This is a sponsored ad: Buy the Shamwow!. It's made in Germany, and you know Germans always make good stuff.
  • Alphabet, on 06/05/2009, -1/+14I hate ads, but honestly, that's a very clever way of implementing them. I don't mind good ads (e.g. superbowl ads) because they're entertaining to watch.
  • m4xn00b, on 06/05/2009, -0/+10I would imagine that this would be pretty easy to abuse.
  • HopeForTomorrow, on 06/05/2009, -0/+10So, if we all were to block, Digg would make loads of money over increased ad prices?
  • pyrates, on 06/05/2009, -0/+10Hmm I wonder how many people will just bury all sponsored content now no matter what it is.
  • Wiwoz, on 06/04/2009, -3/+13I can't say I'm all that enthusiastic about more obtrusive ads, well-targeted to my tastes or no.
  • ketchup176, on 06/05/2009, -0/+9Interesting idea, but I've got the feeling that at least the first few ads will be buried like crazy.
  • jemka, on 06/04/2009, -9/+18Finally the bury brigade will actually have a use.
  • PlusTheBear, on 06/04/2009, -6/+14No thanks
  • Zomgondo, on 06/05/2009, -2/+10I dunno... this sounds like a good chance to bury all those "I'm a PC, and OMG I'M A STUPID SMUG HIPSTER MAC!" ads into oblivion where they belong. It's like a virtual punch in the face.
  • reddevild, on 06/05/2009, -2/+9Bury Brigade! GO! GO! GO!
  • covertbadger, on 06/05/2009, -0/+7Yeah, it'd be much, much better. Most of my favourite sites don't rely on ads anyway - Wikipedia, BBC, Betfair, Kiva, Zopa, craigslist, etc. You know, the people who BUY ads, rather than whoring themselves out to others.

    It's only half-assed entertainment sites that I wouldn't miss if they died overnight (e.g. digg) that are on my daily list and are ad-supported.
  • mogglas, on 06/05/2009, -1/+8so all we do is bury all the sponsored stories and digg will make a fortune!
  • ranon78, on 06/05/2009, -0/+7I am going to bury all ad's just on principle
  • bitcloud, on 06/05/2009, -0/+7what's their way around most of us having greasemonkey though?
  • uberduger, on 06/05/2009, -0/+6Ding, ding, ding!
    If they're clearly marked as 'sponsored', then they'll be easily blockable, I guess :)
    (Which is awesome, because I perma-blocked Digg's ads last week for having a Microsoft ad that expanded out of its box and over a link I was trying to click. And on principle, I give no second chances. Sorry, Digg. Never again will I view your ads.)
  • antdude, on 06/05/2009, -2/+7Adblock Plus!
  • covertbadger, on 06/05/2009, -0/+4You assume we care whether or not digg runs on pixie dust & organic beet seeds. That's digg's problem, not mine.
  • inactive, on 06/05/2009, -0/+4Anyone notice how long it takes Digg to load already?! If you look at your browser's status bar, you will see it is all Ads loading in the background.

    R.I.P. Digg
  • covertbadger, on 06/05/2009, -0/+4I already DO choose which advertisements will stay. None of them.
  • ralphthemagi, on 06/05/2009, -1/+5I should also add one other key piece. If the ads are, in fact, not capable of being buried, then it makes all the sense in the world to bury *every ad you see*. After all, Digg will make more money, and that's a good thing, right?

    It will rarely make sense to Digg an ad for a brand/product that wouldn't have made it onto the FP by itself.
  • stutimandal, on 06/05/2009, -0/+4A pedobear selling toy company would be the most appropriate sponsor of Digg Ads based on the number of Diggs.
  • zaffe, on 06/05/2009, -0/+4I really don't get it, why would they get charged more the more an ad gets buried? Surely that means less people are visiting their website and thus they are generating less from the ad? I would have expected it the other way to be honest, the more an ad gets dug the more the advertiser is charged, similar to a pay per click system.

    Of course if someone can explain to me the reasoning behind it, I'm interested.
  • Swivelstick, on 06/05/2009, -0/+4Digg is already full of ads, difference is digg doesn't make money from them just the SEO "experts"....
  • uberduger, on 06/05/2009, -0/+4You have my sword!
  • noutoo, on 06/05/2009, -0/+3Ads with ***** and Bacon = More diggs
  • keviniskool, on 06/05/2009, -0/+3I would digg that. We always need more Vince Offer articles.
  • uberduger, on 06/05/2009, -0/+3WTF is Propeller?
  • Trollemite, on 06/05/2009, -0/+2reddit has already been doing it for a while. I've never seen them outside the little upcoming box at the top of the page though.
  • Helois, on 06/05/2009, -0/+2And my axe!
  • philodygmn, on 06/05/2009, -1/+3They need to make advertisers of users and let us roll our own ad hoc, de facto affiliate networks by choosing which sponsers we'll allow to show up on our sites in the first place, and grant us power to reward good ads we see elsewhere.

    My initial reaction to mixing ads and content is horror, but actually it could force ads to have merit to users instead of just the media brokers and host site -- be it Digg or anybody else (say, Google). Burying crappy, soulless ads could even be kind of vindicating, in a cathartic kind of way? They'll have to compete for users' attention just as much as stories, make their ad _a story_ and pay for the privelege of trying to prove relevant to users.
  • andy78, on 06/05/2009, -3/+5how will it pan out? Let me guess...

    A nerd revolution that will set off the chain of events that will lead to computers becoming self aware and turning against their creators. Christian Bale will be our only hope...

    Stop this kevin, before its too late.
  • covertbadger, on 06/05/2009, -0/+2@ralphthemagi

    Excellent analysis, I think you're right. This is targeted at advertisers who don't need to buy, whilst penalising advertisers who do need to buy. I wonder what genius product manager thought this one up?
  • felman87, on 06/05/2009, -1/+3***** ads!
  • ralphthemagi, on 06/05/2009, -1/+2Can't wait for this to hit FP!
  • Geheg3D, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1I think they want it to be like this so the advertiser has a financial incentive to come up with ads that digg readers might actually want to look at or be interested in. I think of it like, they can spend $100 more dollars (imaginary figures) on producing a good/interesting ad and then pay $110 less because people dugg it up a bit. Everybody wins - the advertisers get their product out there, diggers get more interesting ads, digg gets $$.
  • fuxxx, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1I'm not going to click it. Can someone do this and report back?
  • nyxerebos, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1Yep, I'd bury everything except that.
  • sjbdallas, on 06/04/2009, -7/+8The line for porn ads forms to the right.
  • JigoroKano, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1You must be so young that you don't remember the web before advertisements encroached into every corner.
  • ralphthemagi, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1@imikedaman

    Like I said, this will rarely happen. If the ad is truly entertaining or interesting, such as the recent ad Goodby did for Adobe CS 4, it makes it to the front page without paid media. In the rare case that someone presents an ad to Digg that wouldn't have made it there otherwise, it makes all the sense in the world to bury it into oblivion so that Digg makes as much money as possible. You can always just resubmit it anyway.
  • covertbadger, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1@imikedaman

    No, I can't think of such a product. Can you?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.