The first says that Digg now lets users vote on ads, just as they can vote on a normal user-submitted Digg story. What Digg wants to do is charge a higher rate per impression for ads that viewers like.
The second article is from Erwin Ephron. Erwin separates noticeability and engagment. According to Erwin, it’s the responsibility of the media to help an ad get “noticed.” This is very important, as “noticeability” is a necessary pre-condition for a viewer to engage with an ad.
Can’t argue with that. After all, it’s pretty hard to engage with an ad if you first don’t notice it.
But whether people like the ad or commercial, or how long they decide to engage with the ad or the commercial, is the complete responsibility of the creative message itself.
Not the media that delivered the message.
If Erwin is right (and I think he is) and likeability or engagement is the responsibility of the creative, then why should publishers, i.e. media, benefit by being able to charge more per impression based on something they have no influence over?
The ones who should benefit from an ad being liked by consumers is the creative agency that created the ad. Not the media that ran it.
Once publishers separate the responsibility of media from that of creative and hold each accountable for what they actually do, that's when they’ll finally be able to add an additional revenue stream outside of impressions.
Which, they will quickly discover, will bring them more money then charging more per impression.