Patterico's Pontifications

12/2/2008

HotAir.com Had Almost 1/3 the Traffic of the L.A. Times’s Entire Web Site in October

Filed under: Blogging Matters,Crime,Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 11:16 pm

This is stunning:


L.A. Times October 2008 Page Views
(Via L.A. Observed)

Hot Air October 2008 Page Views
(Source: SiteMeter)

As you can see, Hot Air had 23,713,333 page views in October, as measured by SiteMeter. By contrast, latimes.com had 75,088,000 page views.

This means Hot Air had 31.58% of the traffic that all of latimes.com had in October 2008. That’s almost 1/3 the traffic of the entire web site of a major American newspaper.

And that’s two guys blogging away — meaning either one of the Hot Air bloggers is almost certainly getting more Internet eyeballs than any one writer on latimes.com.

A few caveats to keep the nitpickers quiet: these measurements were made by two different metrics — SiteMeter and Nielsen. They’re measuring the same thing, but they may not be measuring it in exactly the same way. Also, everybody’s traffic fell off after October. Finally, these numbers ignore the newspaper’s very significant (though declining) print circulation.

Still, as L.A. Observed notes, these numbers are “[e]ven after all the photo galleries, reader pets, Oscar speculation blogs, editing to emphasize sex and celebrities and assorted other tricks to puff up page views” at latimes.com. If HotAir.com did all that crap, Lord knows what the differential would be!

These numbers can’t be reassuring to the L.A. Times. They’re facing real competition from the blogosphere.

Calls for regulation of blogs can’t be too far off.

39 Responses to “HotAir.com Had Almost 1/3 the Traffic of the L.A. Times’s Entire Web Site in October”

  1. that’s just a damn shame…..

    (i’m off to hit every Hot Air page i can find. %-)

    redc1c4 (27fd3e)

  2. Just wait till Allah and Ed start running a horoscope.

    Official Internet Data Office (85f70b)

  3. “Calls for regulation of blogs can’t be too far off.”

    I would imagine that at some point the media outlets will start charging to visit their sites. At the same time, I’ll bet they start pushing Congress to pass laws requiring blogs that link to their sites to pay for the privilege, and to expand the copyright laws and then really start hammering on people who are using their stories and photos without paying (and fair use be damned).

    The organized media has had a cartel on information for ages, and they make fat bank on it, and they ain’t going to give it up without a fight.

    Most everything on the internet relating to news and opinion is free for now. Doubt if it will last, though.

    Dave Surls (f231d2)

  4. I have one point to add to your interesting post. The LA Times site includes the following HTML code:

    meta http-equiv=”refresh” content=”600″

    This means that every 600 seconds (every 10 minutes) the L.A. Times page refreshes itself.

    In the day of tabbed browsers, people keep sites open for hours at a time. Each open tab set to any L.A. Times page translates into six “page views” per hour even if the visitor actaully sees the site only once.

    This technique boosts the LA Times’ page views significantly, probably by at least 30 percent.

    Hot Air, by contrast, does not use auto-refresh.

    p.s. you have a minor typo in your post. Hot Air had 23,713,333 page views in October, not 21,713,333 page views.

    JDM (080851)

  5. Surls: I don’t think you are even close with your prediction. If you start charging internet users for using your site, they will simply stop using your site.

    truthnjustice (3d65f9)

  6. HotAir is the best conservative blog on the net… Michelle needs to scrap MM and start utilizing her investigative talents at/on HotAir.

    Dump the left panel (archives, already read stuff) and make that Michelle’s column of posts.
    The right side is Allah and Ed.

    It’d be a true powerhouse.

    kevin kristy (bc2d68)

  7. Oh, I view the comic strips at the Houston Chronicle. Are those separate page views? If so, should viewing the comics, reading Ann Landers, catching the weather forecast, or checking out the obituaries be counted in a comparison of newspaper sites to blogs? I think not.

    PCD (7fe637)

  8. I read Hot Air very regularly, because it is really a content aggregator, not a content provider. I use it as a gateway to what else is out there. There is a lot of content on the L.A. Times that will garner very, very few views– local school board type of stuff– but that nevertheless is important.

    I don’t know if it’s a fair comparison. Using an analogy, it’s like comparing the traffic patterns at O’Hare Airport and, say, L.A. itself. Their function is different enough that it’s hard to know what you’re comparing with what.

    That said, congratulations to Hot Air.

    SK (c5eaf8)

  9. If HotAir.com did all that crap, Lord knows what the differential difference would be!

    I’m a big HA fan. But I had to fix that for you. Leave differential to the mathematicians and the sports broadcasters.

    SAM (d8da01)

  10. Just wait till Allah and Ed start running a horoscope.

    Heh.

    Jaibones (12c3d5)

  11. …This is also not to mention the fact that Hot Air’s top ‘o the page link-o-rama had often linked to the LA Times- whereas I’m betting such a courtesy was seldom if ever returned.

    Without having to get too particular about the details buried within the numbers- I’m digging the trend.

    FRED!

    ChipDWood (8f5afb)

  12. Funny, there was a thread on Hotair that turned into a discussion of whether newspapers proved that Capitalism worked. One argument was that even though people complain about papers, their audience is HUGE.

    But it looks like good content (HotAir) can bring in a huge audience with a lot less manpower. That’s DEFINITELY the free market at work.

    hawksrule (2a75aa)

  13. p.s. you have a minor typo in your post. Hot Air had 23,713,333 page views in October, not 21,713,333 page views.

    Thanks. I fixed it. The percentage in the post was calculated according to the correct number.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  14. [...] On a semi-related note, check out Patterico’s post: HotAir.com Had Almost 1/3 the Traffic of the L.A. Times’s Entire Web Site in October. [...]

    Michelle Malkin » New moochers in town: Newspapers (41113f)

  15. What use ,is a newspaper nowadays!? The news is a day old.It is biased to the left so far, it is like reading Demonrat talking points.The only good use of newspapers seems to be the Help wanted and items for sale sections.You can easily guess what liberals ALL want, more control, more government,more taxes, more waste, more useless programs duplicating old programs that don’t work,even the stupid Russians found out that SOCAILISNM doesn’t work.Something, Dimbulborats, have yet to LEARN !! SAd as anything in the world !!

    mike e. cooney (dd664d)

  16. [...] Hot Air had 31.58% of the traffic that all of latimes.com had in October 2008. That’s almost 1/3 t… [...]

    safe, clean, effecient « RockStarKevin (72ca9f)

  17. Ha ha. This is not news to me. When given a choice, people will always migrate to sites where there is meaningful information, like Drudge, MM, & HotAir.
    Oftentimes, I don’t go anywhere else to find my news.
    I sure as heck don’t find it on TV. And I never buy a newspaper, it’s junk.

    joecool (639500)

  18. The LA Times still has a great sports section. 90% of their hits are for sports; the rest of the paper is terrible.

    Sean (ada1f3)

  19. Congratulations to MM for a great site. I have been a Newswatch.com guy for a number of years but find HotAir.com to be much more informative and timely. In fact, today is my first dof no South Florida Sun Sentinel. I cancelled my 20+ subscription yesterday after having enough of their liberal, anti-family, anti-God, “peace, love and happiness” agenda. As far as I’m concerned all of those rags should go out of business.

    RHinLauderdale (8bfeeb)

  20. [...] Pontifications has some traffic numbers that show where the future of the net is, hint its not with newspapers: As you can see, Hot Air had 23,713,333 page views in October, as measured by SiteMeter. By [...]

    The future is 33% here (well 31.58%) « DaTechguy’s Blog (8dac4f)

  21. The only mass market pub that’s been able to charge for it’s contents is the WSJ – and that’s primarily because the internet edition sub. provides a multitude of information sources that are not available in the dead tree edition. You saw what happened to the NYT when they attempted to put up a subscriber wall for their Hall of Fame Idiotarians – epic fail.

    Dmac (e30284)

  22. What Dave Surls and the link at #33 said. Regulations will go into effect to cut down on the freedom of the web. Like JFK and FDR, Obama will have the news filtered for him, much like the media did on its own during Barack-elect.

    Obama will, along with his Google pal, make way for a heavily regulated web. The resurgence of print and pre-produced news will benefit slow media and keep His Shiftiness looking good. Instant news is not a friend of Obama’s.

    Vermont Neighbor (5ea336)

  23. correction: the pingback @ 8:20 am.

    Vermont Neighbor (5ea336)

  24. The truth sells and the LAT is dying. What’s that tell you?

    btw, when is the LAT going to release the Obama-Rashidi tape? I mean, NOW can we see it? The election is over LAT.

    exDemocrat (a7d182)

  25. Hot Air is the first site I visit every morning. Followed by Michelle Malkin’s own site, Free Republic and an occasional glance at Drudge.

    These have been my preferred and only source of news. Haven’t watched what passes for news on television since Reagan and will only open WaPo to steal and work its crossword puzzles.

    Jack.

    Jack Deth (aa4aed)

  26. A couple of times I’ve sent e-mails to LA Times writers about stories. A couple have used their page views as evidence that readership is still high, just shifting on-line. And they pointed out that I had read the story I was (usually) complaining about. I didn’t have the heart to tell them that any topic, aside from sports, that I had clicked on was the result of a blog lead, often from here.

    They still don’t get it.

    I think it was Slate that pioneered the concept of charging for internet content and it didn’t work out well.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  27. Maybe those four layers of LAT editors are not an asset, but a liability.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  28. Why am I not surprised by this. Since I discovered MM it’s one of the few places I go for the REAL story on things. The only time my wife and I look at the MSM is for the local weather. We haven’t read an unbiased report of anything in the “News”papers in years. Love the books and appearances on Fox too. Our very best wishes to you M. Terry and Pam Smith

    Terry Smith (f70d7c)

  29. Since journalism is dead, why not let all the rags with their left leaning lies die with it; then we can have REAL journalism and news outlets be born out of the ashes, kind of like the Phoenix….

    DL13 (56c5cc)

  30. …and to expand the copyright laws

    There’s no need, congress keeps expanding copyright terms to ever more ridiculous extremes all by themselves.

    Taltos (4dc0e8)

  31. [...] Patterico’s – HotAir.com Had Almost 1/3 the Traffic of the L.A. Times’s Entire Web Site in October. What I call “the news” is actually blogs. I don’t even have cable TV anymore. I [...]

    Everything but the kitchen sink : Pursuing Holiness (e6211d)

  32. I wonder how many, like me, no longer even use their local newspaper’s site for things like ‘Sports on Local TV’ or Entertainment? If it takes longer to get the information so be it. I denied them the subscription, now I deny them my eyeballs. If I want propaganda I’ll move to Cuba.

    East Bay Jim (2fd7f7)

  33. That’s good news for hotair :)

    Calls for regulation of blogs can’t be too far off.

    Hopefully Not

    But this post does beg the question: When does hotair get included in your definition of MSM (Main Stream Media)?

    Tired old debate I know ;)

    Oiram (983921)

  34. mariO pretends obliviousness to the fact that it is not we who define MSM, it is the MSM themselves who define same.

    Direct your question to the usual subjects:
    NYT, WaPo, ABC, NBC, CBS, AP, etc.

    Another Drew (240de7)

  35. #34 Another, you crack me up. “mariO” (must mean I’m getting to you)

    So, maybe hotair could start defining themselves as MSM right?

    I mean they are streaming to more people than the L.A. times apparently.

    Sorry Another, not going to let it go.

    Oiram (983921)

  36. Hot Air will be mainstream soon — the new mainstream.

    The old mainstream has failed and will hopefully fade away.

    Evil Pundit (843b74)

  37. i’ll take a bit of credit…i use hotair to get a rise out of the libs on the history channel current events board.

    i must post something from hotair there 3-4 times a day…

    swordsman (973058)

  38. Mario is intentionally obtuse on what constitutes the MSM. Volume and payroll do not define the MSM, Mario.

    JD (059bab)

  39. “mariO”
    Comment by Oiram — 12/3/2008 @ 4:26 pm

    You get to me in the same manner as a piece of lint on the sleeve of a blue-suit:
    I pick it off, and discard it.

    The salutation above is a substitute for what I wish to use,
    but my respect for our host prevents me from going there.

    Another Drew (46c816)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2555 secs.