Just read an interesting article on the PC Pro site about Digg’s new advertising strategy. My first impression is that it’s a very clever system. There is a little more information on Digg’s blog, I will be interested to see where the technology goes.

I’m sure there will be many people who think there will be a small but powerful group of users who will vote down every advert they see, just to stick it to the man (and charge him for the privilege). But I think that’s a slightly simplistic view of the situation.

That scenario may well come true, but that doesn’t mean it’s a negative outcome. I assume adverts can only be voted up or down after they have been explicitly viewed by a user. Meaning, if I was an advertiser and I knew that my advert was definitely going to be viewed and interacted with by a particular demographic then it becomes a very valuable opportunity and one I wouldn’t mind paying a little extra for.

Those worried that all advertisers would be hideously over charged and thus discouraged from supporting such a major ad-driven site like Digg needn’t be in my view.

I’m sure Digg have considered the possibility of a few users trying to sabotage the system (and annoy the advertisers) and will factor in the ratio of all adverts being ‘dugg down’ into how much each advertiser pays, i.e. if everyone is being voted down then the penalty is less severe. Only those adverts which are genuinely voted down should cost more.

Over time I see this system having several benefits:

• Higher quality adverts.
• Better targeted campaigns.
• Improved interaction and feedback between users & advertisers
• Greater return of investment for advertisers.
• Potentially more Ad revenue (for Digg & other websites who might adopt this strategy).

All of which is great for everyone.