An interesting article for two reasonsÂ on Digg about the viral nature of content and why audio doesn’t have the same viral velocity as an animated GIF or a flashy YouTube video:
â€œAudio never goes viral,â€ writes radio and podcast producer Nate DiMeo. â€œIf you posted the most incredible storyâ€Šâ€”â€Šliterally, the most incredible story that has ever been told since people have had the ability to tell stories, it will never, ever get as many hits as a video of a cat with a moustache.â€
Itâ€™s hardly a fair fight, audio vs. cat video, but itâ€™s the one thatâ€™s fought on Facebook every day. DiMeoâ€™s glum conclusion is an exaggeration of what Giaever reads as the moral of her own story: â€œPeople will watch a bad video more than [they will listen to] good audio,â€ she says.
Definitely worth a read if you have any connection to radio or podcasting. The other interesting reason is that this article is not Digg linking to an article, but a Digg ‘original’ article commissioned by the new owners, as TechCrunch points out:
The new Digg is more about marrying the concept of a trending post with the human touch that only comes from an editorial eye about what deserves consideration. That puts Digg.com into a category where it could compete with other viral aggregators like BuzzFeed or Reddit, news aggregators like Techmeme, and also with services like Medium, which offers a sort of collaborative blogging platform where top stories and recommended content is also presented to end users.