More pertinent question – why is GigaOm allowing content in the ad space…

I agree this could be huge. But I think ad buyers can potentially “roll their own” system. Just set up filters on Data Sift (http://datasift.com/) and other tools to figure out what is trending and than buy those stories..

I don’t. This is simply a real time tool to sell real time ads, some buying models require rapid and high volume of both reach and/or frequency and this would provide that (at a price). However, this could hurt those who buy based on equitable rotation.

If there is enough transparency within the buying process, such that a buyer could see what exact stories are trending and if creative could also be designed on the fly and run on a story by story basis, then this tool could be used to engage in news-jacking but the topic of the story would have to relate to the ad (e.g., a black out and then Oreo’s: you can dunk in the dark).

The implication of the story is that you are buying a bundle of what’s trending and there is no indication that you will be told which stories those are nor any promise of how much or little the bundle will change throughout the day/night.

If stories about ladies shoes, college tuition and grass fed beef are trending and you use Sparking Stories to buy those stories via a bundle and promote hot water heaters, that is not news-jacking IMHO.

My primary area of academic research was in the area of future of advertising and new media infrastructure (circa 1993).This is exactly the type of real time ad market that was envisioned, which will allow marketing and other professional communicators bid for higher valued “eye balls” and allow media properties to escape from the lock-in of an annual rate card.

PS
Conversely you could use other tools to guess at what is trending and then craft creative to news-jack that topic(s) then bid on/buy ads through Sparkling Stories and hope/pray that you guessed right.

PPS
I can see the NYT selling this in a variety of ways, A) Way one is you lock in to a bundle of stories that is fixed for the buy.B) A second way would be to buy a bundle that changes over time to maintain a specific level of “trend” (e.g., engaged viewership). C) Finally, they could sell ads on a story by story basis. Given A, B, & C, A would be the most affordable and C the most expensive.

PPPS.
I assume they are not also selling ads on a equitable distribution model which would assume that every ad that is running within a section or in the totality of the paper get’s an equitable share of the trending and non trending stories. That is the real issue here. If you are running for two weeks in NYT online, in a political section (because it’s close to the election) — basically you buy an equitable rotation of section at a time you hope will be busy and trending, Etc. and your “best” stories could be sold away via Sparkling Stories.

The challenge is how much of this would impact buying behavior. That is where Pinterest scores. But the numbers for Pinterest are rather sad.

http://statspotting.com/pinterest-statistics-a-pinterest-post-only-generates-75-cents-an-order/

Which is why, like many things, this remains a tough puzzle.