The saddest funniest thing you’ll read today.

[UPDATE] S.Logan is keeping her own list.  She’s also volunteered to work and live on-site with inner-city kids this summer, so keep that in mind as well.

Add my name to the list of bloggers laughing sourly on this nonsense from the WSJ:

“It takes about 100,000 unique visitors a month to generate an income of $75,000 a year.”

To quote a physicist friend of mine: that’s not even wrong.

Look, I hit 70K hits last month. I have some reasonable hope of hitting 50K this month, which is probably a bit closer to what I should expect at this stage in the game anyway.  I am not making five figures at this blog.  I am not making four figures at this blog.  I am carefully keeping myself from expecting to make more than three figures at this blog.  That doesn’t bother me overmuch: I’m at home doing this because somebody has to stay at home with the kids, and this is a form of income revenue that I can do and not neglect them.  But if I was trying to live on this, I couldn’t.

Moe Lane

PS: So what if I did it once today already: it’s apropos. Click the button below: I need the laptop replaced so that I can keep doing for free what the VRWC should be paying me to do.

OK, so maybe that is a little irksome. But still.


  • HMTKSteve says:

    That is very interesting.

    I run a fan site for the Pokemon series of video games and I pull well over 100K unique visitors every month yet I don’t come anywhere close to making that kind of money!

    Perhaps it was a typo and they meant to say 100K per day?

  • Moe_Lane says:

    I’m going with the “they’re smoking crack” answer, myself. 🙂

  • […] Moe weighs in (that would be boy-Moe; we have a girl-Moe, too, who also has a great post up, about how youngsters nowadays are not universally spoiled). Logan also weighs in on poverty in the blogosphere / the fact that this is not a “real” job for most of us. And Stacy McCain, linked above, has a pretty good roundup. […]

  • […] Welcome, Instapundit readers.  Recommendations, for a change: you might find this amusing, or this (sourly […]

  • looking closely says:

    Let’s “hit” the calculator for a second.

    100,000 unique hits/month X 12 months = 1.2 million hits.

    Divide by the WSJ’s alleged annual revenues of $75,000 and you are left with alleged gross revenues of 6.25 cents per hit.

    That seems WAY off.

    My understanding is that advertisers are paying on average only 3.6 cents per THOUSAND electronic ad displays. (The exact figure can vary depending on advertiser, site, etc).

    So even if your website were larded up with ten paying ads per page, 1.2 million hits would still only generate $4000-$5000 per year with traditional advertising.

    In short, unless my math is wrong, the WSJ is off by at least two full orders of magnitude here.

  • […] the entire fiscal aspect of the site today, and […]

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com