So Business Week gets their hands on Digg’s financials and reports that the company had 2007 revenues of $4.8 million and losses of $2.8 million. The first three quarters of 2008 Digg had revenues of $6.4 million and losses of $4 million. That implies total 2008 revenue of $8.5 million, with $5.3 million in losses.
First of all, ouch. People close to Digg once suggested to me that the Microsoft search deal, which was announced in July 2007, would bring in well over $100 million in revenue to Digg over the three year agreement (something we’ve never reported). That suggestion seems to be completely false. The deal is bringing in less than $10 million/year.
Second, Digg shouldn’t be losing money. They have over 70 employees, the company recently confirmed, and plan to grow to 150 by the end of next year. That’s an awful lot of people for a company that outsources sales and content creation, and has little to do besides focus on keeping the servers humming.
Granted, Digg has a number of people on staff that moderate content and focus on the community. But even so, experts I polled this evening who’ve run large scale Internet sites tell me Digg should be able to keep the lights on with no more than 15 engineers, and as few as five or six. Comscore says Digg has 16 million worldwide unique monthly visitors and 58 million page views. Those numbers are likely significantly lower than reality, but still. Digg could turn itself profitable, even at these low revenues, by simply firing much of its staff. Instead they choose to lose $5 million or more this year.
Digg’s Product Plans
A Digg employee recently told me that “most” (I took it to mean more than half) of the 70 employees were development and operations engineers, so they are clearly up to something besides keeping the lights on.
One experiment Digg is working on, says one source close to the company, is a self service advertising product that will be somewhat similar to Google Adwords, but with a twist. The product would insert advertisements into the Digg news stream (presumably clearly marked). Where those ads end up, and how much an advertiser pays per click, would be based on user feedback.
So users would have the ability to vote on advertisements in the same way they vote on stories. The better ads, as determined by Digg users, will get more prominent placement and a lower cost-per-click.
Digg won’t comment on these rumors. And from what we heard, at best the product is still an internal experiment.
But clearly some significant portion of those 70 engineers must be working on new products, and if I were Digg I’d be thinking a lot about revenue. Given how successful the company has been at leveraging their users to sort through the news to determine what’s hot, perhaps they’ll be able to do the same with advertising.
totally agree – strange how all these companies handle their projections…
Seeing as half on Silicon Valley is funded by VC, why should they care?
If they make money, then its all good, if they don’t, who cares, its not their money.
Alice- Please, do you think the majority of or even a significant amount of companies that are funded by VC’s have people running them that could care less about the outcome because it’s not ‘there money’
If the venture fails and the reason is the person that ran the company, not the idea, they have ruined their chances of ever getting funded again and hence their chance of ever seeing an idea become a reality much less becoming Silicon Valley rich.
Thanks for information
__________________________
http://tinyurl.com/4rdhmc
They should care, because otherwise they be out of a job.
I don’t see how digg has such low revenue with so many users. Hope they come up with something, instead of being a one trick monkey. One hell of a trick. They have a awesome site.
I think they should charge diggers 5 cents for every new DIGG they post. Problem solved.
Like Google “adwords” but instead call it “clam digger”.
Feel free to contact me for more great business models.
i like it
no problem
I’m sure they’d love to be the first to test whether people are willing to pay for kudos.
You must be smoking some of that good green stuff…nobody will ever pay to digg a site…
I think you Digg something because you’re excited about what you just saw and have the need to share it. If it cost 5 cents to share it, I’d just share it on Twitter instead.
Avin – The way things are going with wireless operators, if you use your mobile phone for Twitter (most do) it might cost you 15 cents for each Twitter SMS post — or whatever it is your plan charges monthly for the text messaging feature.
$0.05 per Digg submission, right?
That makes sense, it would certainly create a decrease in submissions, but an increase in quality ones. Who wouldn’t pay $0.05 for something they believe could bring 100-1000s of visitors to their site?
The only problem is for the fans of digg who submit posts people will genuinely like, instead of shameless self promotion.
Tina- I’d say that if we’re talking about trends, the mobile trend is moving to post Twitters using the mobile web instead of sms – only consumer cost being the data plan that they have anyway.
But here I am arguing with a great idea which is worth so much more than why it shouldn’t work
.
Thanks for information
__________________________
http://tinyurl.com/4rdhmc
This could work, but i feel there would be a backlash when it comes to users with high ratings, they took years to build thier “digg” stock, and getting them to pay could cause an exodus.
Yasser
http://www.jobstaxi.com
so how much time does digg have before they go belly up?
the only thing that can save them is innovation which can be like looking for a needle in a haystack. hopefully they will get wise and invest in a company that has greater strategic niche offerings than they currently offer. game changer innovation will not come from within this company. professional innovation outsourcing needed.
there gonna need to get off there laurels, bust a sweat and build something truly useful. dig in.
ProfessionalLocator – experience matters
If they’re planning to lose 5MM/year, then they have 3-4 years of cash left. They’d need to sell due to valuations issues before they had to sell due to cash issues. That is, of course, assuming they don’t do acquisitions – which they’ve already done and will continue to do
There have also been some interesting recent stories on Youtube, and Facebook’s financials and valuations. It seems like an adsensesque solution needs to be found to turn these companies around.
I don’t understand why Facebook doesn’t take a stab at Google’s territory by leveraging their massive user base to create a viable searchwiki.
I wonder the same about Facebook. Looks quite slow to understand even their own potentiality.
So, tell us how to exploit their potential! If it was that easy I’m sure Facebook would have exploited it already. I’m not that sure with Digg though.
That’s a big amount of loss for Digg.
Tsk tsk, if you only knew how little revenues all ad supported social networks are making. Michael, please clear the hype on this now and on the BS press releases like Microsoft’s 15 billion “valuation” of Facebook, Google’s $1 billion “guaranteed”advertising deal with Myspace and the BS revenue projections of digg. Hell, I would image even Techncrunch has almost the same level of revenue as digg, and its revenue per employee is probably at least 20 times higher.
I couldn`t agree more. Plus, even if they are working on something new, 70 engineers is just too much.
I agree. 70 engineers gets you something like The Sims.
or a spaceship.
Digg is Quantified thus measured results are available.
http://www.quan...st.com/digg.com
The demographic information is however wildly inaccurate, or the public perception of the age of the Digg audience is wrong.
Most likely Digg’s core audience, the “community” is actually a lot smaller than many realise, and the long tail is more mature and makes up the bulk of monthly vistis.
A single decently run gas station generates significantly more than that.
The average yearly McDonalds restaurant revenue is $1.9 million.
Doesn’t Facebook already has a sort of a “thumbs up” and “thumbs down” voting on its ads? that certainly didn’t help them beat Google’s advertisement network.
MA,
Look at this way Mahalo.com will surpass Digg’s uniques per month very shortly..ahem Mahalo.com has the same staff numbers do they not?
Its not rocket science a certain server side implementation requires a certain level of engineering staff.
Um, no. comScore USA shows Digg at 6.5MM US uniques, compared to 1.613MM for Mahalo (lower than my b5media’s, for example).
Mahalo has 5m uniques per month according to Google Analytics.
comscore is horrible for smaller sites (under 10m uniques).
we just started using Quantcast and their estimate after a couple of days shows 4.1m and a rank of 495.
Quantcast has digg at 22.6m global and rank of 69. 11.5m in US
comScore is meaningless… Quantcast is the only real way to tell–if the person is (quantified).
Alexa, Compete, and Comscore are all sample based and bogus/gamed to all hell.
Quantcast using a tracking pixel like google analytics so it’s probably reporting 90% of the traffic (i.e. 5-10% of folks don’t have javascript/cookies turned on or don’t load the javascript pixel for some reason).
http://www.quan....com/mahalo.com
Jason, come on. What exactly are you trying to defend here?
According to ANY metric, Digg is orders of magnitude larger than Mahalo. So all your “other” metrics still prove my core point that you aren’t the same size as Digg, which I know you’d never claim anyways Jason, but which Fred somehow was trying to assert.
Nothing wrong with being smaller than Digg, most folk are
I’m not comparing Mahalo to digg at all… pointing out how wrong comScore is.
you’re saying comscore reports 6.5m and Quantcast says 11.5. that’s five million off for comscore.
if comScore says 1.6 for Mahalo that’s 3.4m offer Google Analytics and 2.5m off quantcast.
Digg has occasionally provided me with something useful.
Mahalo never has.
Fair enough. However we both know that comScore isnt’ about accurate #s but accurate rankings, and for that it’s actually quite good. And I say that as the CEO of a company that’s built entirely on sub-5MM unique properties (and that’s still nearly top 10 in the blogging industry on comScore).
It sucks, because VCs and others get fixated on the number, but the rank within industries has been and continues to be reasonably accurate and reflective.
Difficult statistics for Digg. I hope it soon recovers from the loss.
digg very good ,I love it
Just something I noticed, Comscore’s traffic approximation was 16m / month, whereas that old MS press release about their ad deal claimed 17m / month a year and a half ago. I wonder what their traffic really is these days – plateaued ~20m /mo?
Can anyone help?, what does the author mean by
“outsources sales and content creation”
Thanks In advance.
What this means is that the content creation is outsourced to the users of Digg. They go out and find the stories and they then create a page on Digg.com. Digg does not currently create any in-house content.
The only sales that Digg makes are through the provision of advertising placements. If I understand the current agreement with Microsoft correctly, this is handled exclusively by them and therefore may be described as outsourced.
Thanks G. Saunders.
The same way I suggested that TC add a paid press release section to the site, I say the same for digg.
digg should launch “digg Pro” where they charge a fee ranging from $50 to $350 (visability) and give the same controls to uses to digg up or down an official news release.
I don’t know how you guys don’t see this:
Places like TechCrunch and Digg are news sources, your revenue strength is not by just displaying these small ads..
Your revenue strength is to use press releases from the many companies that kill e-mail inboxes and self post to digg.
Why TechCrunch and digg do not have their own prweb.com style system is just revenue waiting to be seized by this popular genre of News Based Social Networking.
Yes but how much revenue? Probably not eneough to justify the VC money behind them. They have to think bigger, is my guess.
(I usually get paid for this advice lol)
At level activity just based on a $100 fee:
500 PR daily at $100 = $50,000
5 business day average revenue = $$250,000
52 weeks (year) tally total = $13,000,000
Return on investment like a hotdog at a ballgame.
Both digg and TechCrunch have the juice to double this projection easily.
so you get paid for this kind of advice…
really!! there’s no way you’d ever get the numbers you’re talking about. your assumptions/numbers are way off base.
but i guess you get what you pay for ehh!
-peace
Well put Sam. Well put.
^@ Sam
I invented and own the most powerful digital data distribution system in the world, and you?
@William: You invented the internet? And here I’ve been thinking it was Al Gore.
I agree with the press release idea. I get stuck using the wire services and end up with a bunch of junk. If TC, Digg and other social news sites allow me to officially post my news releases in a special section, I’m happy to pay. You know the average wire release is over $1k? If I could add it to TC – as only one outlet -, and get the accociated SEO benefit, site search results plus at least reasonable exposure to your readers, I’d pay. Blog exposure I’d pay $25/per blog.
Maybe the Crunchies circle of Social News Blog Networks should all partner together and create a joint “Open Social” style platform where each could have a branded version of the PR site embedded but on the back-end they are all connected to the same aggregation system.
This system would shut down every other PR wire on the web and easily be a $100 million collective operation (split with 5 blogs, $20 milli each).
Ad product? Target group? For dumbass nerds digging and d/ling pr0n in the basement of their parents?
Michael – your assumption on Digg revenue and operating income for the year is that Q4 is flat. What if it looked like this. Which is more likely.
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 total
1.8 2.2 2.4 3 9.4
3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
-1.7 -1.3 -1.1 -0.5 -4.6
I would say with their recent round, making sizable investments in their infrastructure and re-factoring their code that it is actually impressive where they are.
There is also no better time for them to be making investments in the future if they can afford it.
Imagine if they had hired their own sales force and ad revenue dried up – like it is. What would they be doing know. They would have burned through millions more and we be cutting it.
By keeping their costs low, continually investing in innovation, and raising cash at the right time I would say Jay and Kevin know what they are doing.
Yeah, I was surprised to see these numbers too, they seem really low for a site as big as digg is..?
Ads on social networks just DON’T WORK. If you don’t believe me – try to advertise any product or service yourself. AdWords results (clicks per impression) are at least 100 times better (typically 1000 times better). This is a FACT.
Who cares what kind of a BS these ’social’ guys are feeding to their investors? I don’t mind of course. If people are entitled to lose money – nothing can stop them from doing that.
We run a network of sites with almost identical traffic. We have two of us, and we spend at least 50% of our time on development of new growth areas/products. It seems to me that Digg either needs a management overhaul or their destiny is assured.
@Austin care to share what site/s?
We run a hyper-local classifieds network.
that of course you can’t tell us the name of your site for verification purposes…
what’s the term for this kind of action…
oh.. yeah.. “troll”!!!
peace
With Pownce deadpooled, Rev3 cutting shows and staff and Digg burning money, is thery any company that Kevin Rose (co-) founded a success financially?
Kevin is a poster child of Web 2.0 and it makes me a little sad that even he does not manage to run any of his companies successfully…
Hmm – I never understood why he was the Web 2.0 poster child. What did he do to earn that title? Appear on a now defunct cable TV show – if that’s all then its hardly a deserving moniker.
While I have nothing against the guy I have often been dismayed to see the likes of DiggNation getting so much attention. After all, it’s just 2 self obsessed kids sitting on a couch jerking off while drinking beer – nothing special here either.
Surely there is some other, young, brilliant, deserving nerd that can be labeled with web 2.0 poster kid ( other than the FaceBook kid)?
Considering, as mentioned, that all content generation is outsourced (for free) perhaps it would be nice if Digg implemented some form of revenue sharing.
After all, sites like iStockPhoto that work on a similar user generated content system allow users to make money if they’re good at what they do.
It’s startling that the company makes no money when it’s main USP is provided for absolutely nothing.
DIGG is a momentum play. The momentum will soon end and DIGG will be broken. Never liked the site anyway. Their revenue is a JOKE!
WHY would a VC would invest $40m into Digg… only to lose money in the short and long-run. Digg is old now in Internet terms… wouldn’t we expect something new from another kid now?
Aside from a handful of blogs and Icanhascheeseburger, does anyone know of any web 2.0 companies are actually making money..today, yesterday, ever? Is there a published list out there, or is that kind of a silly question?
$10 million in revs? That’s a small consulting shop with 20 guys billing.
dig is a dream, distroy news model ,but adversement system is bad
Reddit is where it’s at anyways
I’m a one-man-band so to speak and run a web app that gets 5x more pageviews than that per month while still having time to implement new features and be a full-time student.
70 employees is entirely too many.
care to share your app. im curious.
No, sorry. I don’t usually share my traffic or revenue stats.
No reason to encourage a bunch of unnecessary copycats.
Needless to say the revenue isn’t on par with theirs but that doesn’t change things from an engineering standpoint.
Porn?
I think you’re full of BS. You run a site with tons of traffic that somehow has to be kept secret? Sure.
Indeed – you must be a pornographer.
No, it’s not porn. And “has too” is not true… but I’m sure as hell not going to give up an easy-money-niche for nothing. Really don’t care if you believe me or not.
The old digg system was a bunch of spaghetti code, there was a post about how they entirely moved to MVC and run unit tests that send an email to an administrator when a test comes back wrong. They had been working on it for months.
They are definitely trying to get the software more stable so they need less engineers, or the engineers can spend more time on WoW.
Fact is there was recently a huge expediture to bring the code up to speed, surprised they didn’t make the entire thing run on asp.net since i am sure MSFT would have possibly paid for that kind of exposure and did all the work for them.
Guess time will tell.
They have venture capital money. They aren’t looking to turn a profit but are hoping for Google, Microsoft, News Corp. or Yahoo to acquire them.
Over the last 6 months models have change from being all about burning cash in order to build a brand/userbase to conserving capital. My point is simply that, I think we have to wait a year or so to see how Digg adapts to the new environment.
Digg should purchase http://subvertandprofit.com.
Your poster child for replacing the NYT is getting beat with an ugly stick. Maybe they just need to work harder and try a little homegrown fascism.
Facebook, Digg, Bebo – All are companies that will lose money forever unless they change their revenue models all together.
Bebo was smat to let AOL pay them moey, and now AOL is stuck with financing Bebo’s loses. Facebook and Digg needs plenty of cash to continue financing those loses – and hope some big companies will save them or going pulic (not happening…)
Much smaller companies are also facing same problem: Seesmic, Mint, etc – “FREE” does not work for them…
Work only for smart quality media publishers, or for Google…
It doesn’t sound like it was built to make a lot of money to begin with, and that’s what its doing. 70 employees for a company like that sounds like about 40-50 too many, IMHO.
nice Tina
Two words: paid inclusion.
Its been working for Yahoo et al for years..
Also – i think many may be vastly underestimating the complexity of operational issues that arise once you start broadly accepting advertiser credit cards and paying people out on a rev share basis. I’m not justifying 70 employees nor am I questioning it without knowing what they are actually up to. Simple startup math is 10K/head per month for burn rate so that’s 8.4M a year. Maybe a little more in the Valley. If they want to go profitable (or need to) they can do it quite quickly per MA’s numbers. I am sure they are not worried about that right now. I’d declare their position a success in general given most impression based businesses are hard to be profitable at scale (at scale being the critical distinction here – generating 150K to cover two reporters is a different animal). There are obviously exceptions in both directions.
I think without being in the drivers seat its a lot easier to talk about hitting the gas pedal or the brake than it is to actually do it.
I don’t use Digg but i appreciate that they have revolutionized one form of content filtering. That’s all good for us all.
My 2 cents,
Niel
Kevin Rose – way to speak up for your company and just sit back rubbing your buzz cut…
Mike, you make good points but I don’t agree with your central thesis: “digg shouldn’t be losing money”.
If those financials are indeed the right amount (don’t take for granted they are), then I agree it does seem like too much cash is going out the door. And I doubly agree that more of their staff should be directly focused on revenue generating activity (both devs and bz folks).
Digg could have been profitable before they raised the latest round, and they could have sold the company. Presumably they didn’t because the founders and investors agreed their was a larger market or M&A opportunity down the line.
Taking VC money means you’re going for a really big win, the more money the bigger the exit needed. Their investors did NOT give them this latest round so they could become cash flow positive right away but stall on growth or miss an opportunity to create a better scalable revenue model.
As long long as this money going out the door is being spent on new technology/people/capital expenditures that have the potential to 10x their EBITDA, then it makes a lot of sense. (i guess first they have to have some EBITDA, ok revenue….)
It’s still hard for me to defend this position, because it’s a totally screwy fucking way to run a business. But one thing you learn once you take venture capital is that there are a different set of expectations and rules placed upon you. Jay and Kevin are likely positioning the company for a 500M+ exit, and in the short term with cash in the bank, it may make sense to be loosing money to get there.
the VC’s were hoping that someone would buy DIGG. They didn’t invest because they thought DIGG would be a good business. They are expecting Yahoo, Google or Microsoft to buy them. Not sure that this will happen.
>>little to do besides focus on keeping the servers humming.
…oh, and outsmarting everyone in the world who would like a little traffic. Come on. Digg is a giant target, and I can personally testify that a fair amount of “what they do” is fighting digg-bombing. It’s like Google’s search algorithm. The hard part isn’t crawling web pages and finding out which ones link to each other. The HARD part is staying ahead of an entire Internet full of opportunists. Digg’s front page formula is gold to the elect, and everyone wants some. It is no small feat keeping the site from being overwhelmed by spam, and instances to the contrary notwithstanding, they’ve done an impressive job innovating through that problem overall. Smart people there.
Their front page formula is manual selection.
I spoke to some VC’s about 2 years ago and they let me in on Digg’s little secret – i.e. that it wasn’t making any money. During a boom – no problem. During a recession – hmmm
Here’s the crunch – there is a lack of talent in the web monetization world – too many people talking about CPM / CPC / Adsense / Affiliate marketing etc and not enough who are able to get under the hood of a site and work out where its real strengths are.
Making real money on the web is all about supplying an online service and getting users (not advertisers) to pay in micro increments – either by Premium SMS or CC or PayPal or whatever. 20 cents a month from each user of Digg is not bad money right?
Tina has the right approach.
BTW – totally the same argument applies to Twitter.
yep 70 engineers are way too much . kevin and jay are perfect example of what happens when you dont take a good offered when it is given. digg if sold today wont get as good of offered why the novelty effect is offer and too many competitors . companies likes google likes to buy whats new and hot at the moment. digg luster is gone.
I am glad to see that Tech Crunch is starting to report revenues of companies that were high on hype and low on revenues. How many web 2.0 private companies have revenues above $100M (Facebook& LinkedIn?). How many companies that are private, actually make a profit? (even a small one). It would be great to have such a list published – probably more useful that the one published several months ago regarding how much money each company raised.
..it will be interesting to see what happens over the next few months, and possible year. We’ve seen Google start opening the doors of revenue stream, so I am excited to see what Kevin and the guys have in store.
I’m trying to do the math on this, and here is my rough estimate based on the limited info we have:
2008 Rev $8.5 (est)
2008 Operating Loss $5.3 (est)
Ok, so if cost of sales (servers, etc.) runs at about.. $7m/yr (full disclosure – I have no idea what it costs to run a site with that level of traffic, but I will get to my point here in a minute)? That means operating costs are $6.8 million. I’m assuming that they ramped up their employee base over the course of the year, so maybe the average number of employees (for costing purposes) was…. 50? That implies a fully burdened salary of over $100k/employee.
My point is, I get the impression, not just from this story, but several others, that startups may be paying way too much base salary to their employees. I’ve heard of startups that pay co-founders in excess of 300k/yr in base salary. Shouldn’t VCs be cracking down on this? Aren’t startups supposed to be about sacrifice in the near term for the $500m exit in the long run?
I wonder if VCs are going to start putting caps on base salaries – banks are already starting to cap bonus levels – that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Startups need to be properly incentivized to generate rev as quickly as possible.
Good point, but bear in mind that most times a founder has already spent a year or maybe two researching his ideas to prepare for that first VC meeting.
Oftentimes the most important thing needed is a check for living expenses. $300k isn’t a lot of money when you have to live in the West Coast and do the meet and greet champagne circuit to meet all the right people at all the right parties. Vicious cycle.
Point well taken Johnny. It’s one of those things where I feel like 300k/yr salary isn’t really an accurate reflection of supply and demand of Web 2.0 talent in the bay. I mean, how many Urban Outfitters-wearing, Red Bull-drinking, Broken Social Scene-listening 20-somethings with amazing non-revenue generating ideas are there in the bay? Once you cash that first VC check, I feel like the mentality defaults to, “we now have three years of runway… phew.” Instead, people should feel like they have to fight for every dollar that they have – if they fought this long, they can take it a bit further. If you pay a bunch of insanely smart people to sit in a room and figure out how to solve a problem, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll solve the problem.
Why not just $70,000 yearly salary and leave the rest for the business expense account for the proper business tax write-off accounting?
Here is what digg should be doing to make money:
1. Become a syndicate for major news outlets and prioritize breaking coverage from secondary sources and blogs. This would effectively be no different than Operah syndicating her show via the harpo network to say the arab satellite stations like MBC, meanwhile establishing Digg as a news brand.
2. CNN Ireporters are basically diggers. Why hasn’t digg realized the vast potential in leveraging this phenomenon by creating a rewards program for people who break news. This could effectively be driving revenue for part 1 as mentioned above.
3. Go to a CPC advertising model. In today’s economy with shrinking marketing budgets and the increasing need for performance driven marketing initiatives fewer people want to spend money on CPM based advertisements.
4. Sponsorded diggs. Why not? Offer companies who already game your system to buy a sponsored digg! I would gaurantee you 5 companies I know very well would be spending 5k a month on this if not more.
These are only suggestiosn, I don’t claim to know any better than the next guy. I wish you the best Digg I feel you have a valuable platform just start thinking in terms of business now instead of only engineering.
I like your suggestions Greg. And these are not all new services requiring hoards of additional programers to pull off. These are more tweaks that leverage the content. I like incentivizing posters who bring breaking news to the channel. They need a competitive advantage for the people who post the news over reddit, buzzit, et alia.
Adds on Digg?
Rubbish idea!
Not anything like that.
When hearing loss, will know whether it was a good deal.
I’m a little unclear why they need 70 employees. Isn’t craigslist ran by 25?…. Isn’t plentyoffish.com ran by 2? There are plenty of sites with a lot more traffic making a lot more money with a lot less employees.
Wyatt
The more I see high-profile (aka celebrity) companies like these posting this kind of revenue & profit the more I think 37signals is the company to watch as an internet entrepreneur.
Not knocking Digg’s amazing success, but I’d be interested to see how 37signals revenue (with 10 employees – cruchbase) matches up with Digg’s.