Should Digg Take Microsoft's Money?

Written by Allen Stern - June 6, 2008

Digg Earlier this week Digg held a concert live Diggnation taping in NYC. When Revision3 CEO Jim Louderback took to the stage, he asked that the crowd make some noise for sponsor Microsoft and Zune. The crowd instantly began to boo louder and louder. Louderback then asked if the crowd wanted some t-shirts which required that they didn't boo for the Zune but instead cheered it. The crowd took the shirts and then began to boo again.

Later on in the evening when Kevin Rose and sidekick came out to begin the Diggnation show, Kevin also attempted to get the crowd excited about the Zune. Again the crowd boo'ed over and over. Kevin said he had three Zune devices to give away and that if the crowd didn't get excited about the Zune, they wouldn't give away the Zunes. The crowd seemed to mellow down after that.

As I stood there and watched the sheep, I started to wonder why Digg would take money from Microsoft when their most loyal users clearly don't care about the Zune or Microsoft. I've seen similar behavior on tech blogs that accept ads that are far beyond what would be considered "in scope."

Does Digg have a responsibility to work with advertisers that match what their loyal users are looking for? I am guessing that Microsoft wants to hit the 16-29 male demographic and when Revision3/Digg pitches their campaigns, that's how they do it. "Hey Microsoft, we have users that are in the demographic you are trying to hit with the Zune, c'mon sign up today!" Do they explain to Microsoft that clearly the overwhelming majority of Digg users don't give a crap about the Zune and wouldn't buy one if a gun was pointed to their head?

I do understand that Digg may not have been aware that Microsoft and the Zune are "hated" within the Digg community of users but now that they know, do they have a responsibility to no longer accept ads from the group?

Should publishers (video, audio, text, etc.) take money from advertisers when they know that the campaigns won't benefit the advertiser? Or is it the advertiser's responsibility to do the homework on which publishers will work best? Do publishers have a responsibility to clearly explain to advertisers that x or y program might not be well suited for the publisher?

E-mail

Related Content

Email this page

COMMENTS - Add New Comment

Submitted by antje wilsch on June 6, 2008 - 12:58pm.

You know what though? Many Digg users are very, um, LOUD. There is a core group that's very active, very pro-Linux, pro-Apple (thus anti-MSFT), and they let it be known.

So while it's cool to diss MSFt and *heart* Apple, I doubt that a majority of their readers OUTSide this core really care that much. I think the question begs further focus on the 'core users'. Are those users earning Digg money? Do these core users turn off other users (the answer is a resounding YES on that one). Are they spending their own $ on Digg? If not, are they worth supporting to the point of alienating revenue streams?

Good questions Allen. And not easy answers.
(PS why am I always selected for a random capcha?) :)

Submitted by Jeff Jarvis on June 6, 2008 - 4:11pm.

Well, I was there, and I wouldn't exactly portray it as an anti-Microsoft riot. The crowd had a bit more of a sense of humor and irony than you're displaying here.

And don't forget that when Kevin and Alex came out waving their machines to stir up the Apple v. Wintel rivalry, the response was equal. They determined that half the crowd was on Wintel's side.

Now far be it from me to defend Microsoft -- it doesn't need it -- I don't think the characterization of utter contempt is quite fair. And there were a helluva lot of hands up reaching for the schwag.

Now to your question about what's right and wrong in taking advertising. I think the line starts here: If you do truly object to an advertiser, then that's up to you; I would not say that taking advertising is tantamount to an endorsement, but you're still free to take what you want and reject what you want. If you think you'd be ripping off the advertiser by taking his money -- which I think is your point -- then yes, you're right to say it'd be only fair to turn it down. When I was having a kerfuffle with Dell in my blog (now over), Feedburner made sure to stop ads from Dell, more out of fairness to Dell, I think. But at the end of the day, I'd say it's a case of caveat emptor and the buyer in this case is the advertiser. It's up to them to decide.

You see, I think there's another dangerous line here: If I as a publisher say I'll turn down any ad from a company I don't like or my readers don't like, then that becomes a tacit endorsement of the advertisers I do take. That's not arms-length enough for my taste. So as a rule, I take all ads on my blog unless I really don't approve (I had a case a few weeks ago of a conspiracy-nut author and turned that down). Otherwise, why not let an advertiser talk to my readers or Digg's audience to try on their own to convince them? That's what marketing is, no?

I think you ask a good question; that's where I come down.

Post new comment
note: comments may take up to 5 minutes to appear due to cache