In the publishing industry, magazines and newspapers use this thing called “pass on readership” to identify the perceived number of times a single copy of their publication is ready by different eyes. This is usually determined by random phone interviews, survey questions and household demographics such as looking at the average size of a Filipino family and multiplying the circulation data by that number. In reality of course, a publication doesn’t meet that requirement as it is common practice (doesn’t mean its good practice) for sales teams to pad circulation data based on their own fixations with their perceived audiences.
Do the two concepts co-relate from an infrastructure point of view (“perceived” or really … “biased” versus “actual” views). Actually if you think about it, I could also say that pass on readership could loosely co-relate to the number of comments I get per post as this is a way of measuring a conversation. But then again, do you actually count comments that say “yeah i agree with what you say” as a quality comment? What about subscribers?
I think that in totality, companies are embracing Internet publishing because they are recommended by trusted companies that are into this thing as well. For instance, I was talking to Jonas over at the Happy Slip event at mag:net and he was telling me how some companies want to embrace these “new forms” of media through Yehey!. It’s companies like Yehey! and INQUIRER.net (at this moment I can’t name more) that act as bridges to new media advertising as they’ve been around and are seen as trusted entities in mainstream Internet marketing.
So yeah, maybe it really isn’t just about the pageviews – perceived or real. It’s about including new media as part of the total marketing strategy. As for the stats, we’ll get there. 🙂