Also: most ad networks don’t use your full traffic to serve you ads. They serve you ads and fill the rest with non-paying ads. That’s why you use several ad networks that work in tiers. This is different from the PA model because they manage their own sponsors, but still, they will know.

In fact if anyone innocently gets linked on Penny Arcade the first sign is that the full force of the traffic will knock out their servers in no time. You can’t fake that.

As for people that doesn’t want to pay for content on the internet: Welcome to 2003.

Webcartoonists have known this for years, and NOW they’re making a survey? LOL.

The internet has the free model. So what? It’s an indirect model. People who are only realizing it are hopelessly behind already.

While they are complaining the rest have to keep moving along at the same pace of the internet, which is neck-breaking speed.

I would argue that the internet has actually empowered advertisers. This may partially be why ads are commanding lower rates.

It’s one of two big reasons why rates are low. The first reason is that there is a virtually unlimited supply of adspaces to run ads in, so the supply/demand curve is pushed to near-zero at the intersection.

Internet analytics allows advertisers to target their ads. Canon, for example, will pay more for an ad on a photography site than on a general interest site because the visitors to a photography site are more likely to be potential buyers.

What is a visitor to a cartoon site likely to buy? I get targeted here at Daily Cartoonist with ads for Adobe graphics software in the leaderboard adspace. Makes sense I suppose, but I bet they pay a higher rate for the same ad at a site more targeted at commercial graphics artists.

But besides, this issue is just a red herring. You can always download software that will give you accurate results. Services, like getclicky.com, give you real time data for your site. You can even follow individual users as they visit your site, look around, and then leave. Advertisers have their own stat information, so they know whether they’re getting what they paid for. It’s just not possible to deceive people in the way you’re implying.

I would argue that the internet has actually empowered advertisers. This may partially be why ads are commanding lower rates.

Similarly, Google Analytics tracks browser results. What about people who bookmark you directly and check out your site?

The numbers are precise. But not accurate.” But they are not accurate in the opposite way from which you are suggesting. You are saying advertisers should be scared because the software tracking is weak and liable to give to liberal results, but then when presented with actual software used, you say it is not accurate because it is to conservative.

Similarly, Google Analytics tracks browser results. What about people who bookmark you directly and check out your site?

The numbers are precise. But not accurate.

It’s ridiculous to claim that there’s no real traffic data when engineers built all of these systems. It’s not like this is empirically derived, like a model of the atom. When an asset on a website is requested by a browser, it is logged. It’s as simple as that.

Let me throw this out there though — even if they were estimates within certain tolerances, what difference does it make that it’s not perfectly exact? What exact numbers of eyeballs can an ad agency with a billboard claim? There’s harder data online than there is for traditional advertising. All I know is I get paid.

Ted, believe it or not, that is as little traffic as you’re doing.

Hell, Ted even uses project wonderful. I personally now know his exact numbers and I didn’t even have to buy anything.

Guys, guys, guys….the fundamental problem you’re both having is that you’re arguing from some theoretical universe where people read comics online, advertisers pay cartoonists to reach those people online, and the readers themselves buy stuff from the cartoonists. You guys make it seem like there’s a living to be made out of all that.

Let’s try to stick to the read world, here.