Local blogger Mr. Anonymous counts his numbers and draws some comparisons:

Lately we’re averaging around 120 page views per day. The all-time high is 260 page views per day. The most popular individual postings generate between 150 and 100 page views.

As a point of comparison, a small-circulation local publication will distribute 2,000 to 6,000 copies per issue. Not all pages will be equally read, but that’s nevertheless a much larger readership base.

How can you compare the total numbers of distributed copies with total numbers of actual page views.

That does not make sense in anyway . How can you compare actual page views, which is a minimum of people that have gotten associated with your publication, with the absolute maximum reach a paper has?

With this thinking, no wonder online advertising rates are still a fraction and online writers receive a much smaller paycheck compared to ‘real journalists’ having their words printed in ink on dead trees.

 

Update:

Here is my comment on his blog:

If’ve been selling online advertising and making the case for the effectiveness of online media for years. Comparing actual page views to maximum printed! not even distributed physical copies is a false connection.
What’s the percentage of copies printed that are actually distributed?
What’s the percentage of distributed copies that are actually picked up and opened up, what’s the percentage of those that actually read the articles? And most important, of those people, what’s the percentage that look at the ads.
No media outlet that’s selling ads has been honest about those numbers for years. Nielsen ratings anyone.