First and foremost, great counter-feedback to this over-hyped article in the comments section!

If I could add one thing to Drudge’s defense it would be that his circular linking “tactics” are not an effort to slam ad impressions but rather, to inform his dedicated readers that a story is breaking and in progress, therefore return to the Drudge Report soon.

The nature of his work (as mentioned in previous comments) is one of continual update. As he’s privy to insider tips and has built his notoriety on giving us as much information as he can before anyone else, it makes sense that he’s prone to posting snippets to stories before a destination link materializes.

Of course… controversy makes for good web traffic. Tom Crandall manipulates his traffic numbers by skewing the truth, and instead lays the blame on people like Drudge. What a jerk.

1. RegoPark has some very good points. In addition, it would seem obvious to anyone who follows the advertising on the Drudge Report to see that the site is running ads for all sorts of companies, big and small. And Drudge’s ad sales management firm has been with him for several years. So it would be impossible for Drudge to get away with criminal or unethical practices with regards to the advertisers for such a long time.

2. I wager that the links in the headlines that go right back to drudgereport.com are mostly mistakes. If you follow the site closely, those “circular” links are generally updated relatively quickly to an outside page.

3. Intermarkets has a very positive reputation in the advertising business. If you examine their rate card closely, it’s obvious that they’re charging a lower CPM fee for the Drudge Report than other major sites would charge, and that lower price makes up for the auto-refresh functionality. As far as whether Intermarkets “informs the advertisers”…that’s a pretty vicious implication. With their reputation–plus the fact that anyone can see that the site refreshes automatically when they visit it (no media buyer should be placing ads directly on sites without at least visiting them), it’s a safe assumption that the advertisers know.

4. It’s fun to prognisticate and pontificate about others’ values, but if the ads weren’t successful for the advertisers, then they wouldn’t keep coming back. It’s as simple as that. People who really do work in the ad business know this.

1. My article is only a logical fallacy to those who are unable to reach this conclusion based on knowledge. I will flex my expertise on the subject by sharing with you that the linking practice in question is nothing short of deceitful and unethical, and could be considered criminal in a court of law. The impropriety being exercised is quite simple and careless.

For years, the individual(s) responsible for publishing links to new stories on the Drudge Report has frequently and randomly programmed links to the home page, http://www.drudgereport.com. Ask anyone who has been a loyal visitor to the site and they can describe for you several instances where they kept clicking on a new story link and all they got was the home page. What visitors didn’t realize, was that the individual responsible for programming the link, was doing so intentionally, to “game the system” by eliciting the desired action of “slamming” new ad impressions. The visitor gets frustrated and repeatedly clicks on the link again… and again, and again, and again, and again, and so forth.

2. The third party, Intermarkets, doesn’t use client provided statistics. They have inserted ad-serving code onto Drudgereport.com pages that simultaneously provides them with site analytics, such as page views, which is the same as the number of ad impressions times the number of ads served.

3. In this instance the DR visitor is not spending the quality time to give advertisers any value, let alone ROI. To the contrary, ad impressions are cycled through as fast as the vistor can keep clicking on a link that he or she incorrectly believes will take them to “the story.”

4. The only way we could verify the traffic is through the site logs or an accurately reporting analytics program, which I am sure Intermarkets uses. I don’t doubt the traffic numbers. I am exposing how they are manipulated in part.

5. I agree with you here. A reader directed me to this page: http://andyswan.com/2007/04/03/estimating-drudgereportcom-revenues-holy-cow/. The link no longer shows the specific rates so I filled out the rate request form. I will update the comments section when I have more info.

6. Again, I don’t question the traffic numbers.

7. The experience of being a webmaster for a steadily trafficed site can teach one many things. For example, when we publish a new link and accidentally program it with the address to our own site, we notice something in the file logs/ analytics—like a visitor clicking on the same link over and over.

8. The linking practice has been utilized on both standard and siren-related links. Because of the infrequency with which siren alerts are published, the practice has been more commonly used on standard story links. When I took the “Hillary” screenshot it was the second day of monitoring that I caught them doing it with a siren alert, specifically.

9. I don’t really have a beef with the auto-refreshes, and Intermarkets may or may not inform the advertiser.

10. Because the action of programming new story links to the home page for a five to twenty minute period of time serves no other purpose than to manipulate traffic numbers/ad impressions. I served as a co-editor of a news/gossip site in 2003 called the Daily Dally and I am very familiar with what is happening.

11. This is an area of my expertise and the standard is simple. Don’t program new story links back to your home page to slam ad impressions. I can assure you Drudge is very aware of cause and effect in this matter.

You are absolutely correct that the offered site stats should not be taken at face value. Nor would I would unequivocally put it past Matt Drudge to fudge-stimate figures. That said, after researching and monitoring Drudge’s press and career for a few years, I haven’t really “caught” Drudge violating any moral absolutes…no matter how troubling or controversial some of his journalistic practices may be.

1. This article’s title is based on a logical fallacy: the false dilemma that either Matt Drudge is breaking the law or he’s unethical. Let’s first determine how much control an Intermedia client (Drudge) has, how much he’s exercising, and what he COULD do if he wanted to eliminate all appearance of impropriety.

2. When I’ve been contacted by the press for insight on Matt Drudge, I’ve encouraged them to scrutinize Intermarket’s role in the Drudge Report logistics. Are we to suppose that a new media third party operates its business on the honor system, taking client-provided statistics without independently gauging them? As someone who has worked for years in advertising and PR (including media buying), I doubt that Intermarkets or professionals in any communications-related industry are victims of Drudge chicanery. That doesn’t mean I think Intermarkets is guilty of anything. They are responsible to their advertising clients, so they communicate to their publics with information that those publics find relevant. There are different players in this game with different business aims. They are not responsible for one another. We need to shake the paradigm that the public face behind the Drudge Report manages, is directly responsible for, and aware of, the ad presentation we see and his vendors’ promotional attempts.

3. From the standpoint of DR advertisers, the currently stats are reliable where it counts the most: we have at least a sense of the volume of visitors who are spending time on the site, exposed to the advertisers’ messages. Even if a DR reader is following or even held up by a link or a refresh-in-progress, that visitor is spending the “quality time” that gives DR ad slots or interstitials much of their value. When Intermarkets promotes the Drudge Report in the referenced press release, they are really targeting their own audience…with information relevant to their specific goals. Let’s face it: media is an evolving, and sometimes muddy, science. You can’t learn fixed formulas in a college advertising class and assume you’ve got all the skills you’ll ever need to accurately assess website traffic.

4. The Daily Reckoning/Economic Policy Monitor link cites Alexa as its source. I don’t accept Alexa as a reliable measure of web traffic, whether it benefits Drudge or not. Are there other stats available or a more accurate way of gauging web traffic? Is there a standard we can all agree on?

5. What is the uncited source about the Drudge Report billing advertisers by the number of ad impressions? If we’re going to call Matt Drudge on ethics, we need to be more concrete and scrupulous than he is. Don’t just say “a source informs me…” Just because he plays those games doesn’t mean it behooves his critics to.

6. Let’s assign responsibility to the right person. Intermarkets issued the latest press release regarding DR’s traffic numbers. Intermarkets markets itself; Matt Drudge is seldom proactive about self-promotion at this stage in his career. He is certainly not responsible for writing Intermarket’s press copy and probably didn’t formally approve those press materials… nor would he have control over that site’s web copy. Drudge mostly limits “reports’ on his traffic stats when there is a historical traffic high, in the same way he occasionally posts squibs on the site’s anniversary and other milestones.

7. The “Drudge Report team” is one individual, Matt Drudge, who, at different times in his career, has worked 8 to 14 hours a day. He has had only one peripherally involved assistant, who has put in roughly 26 hours a week and who now has his own site (breitbart.com). Then there are the vendors he outsources to keep his site running and his business going. Drudge is sloppy; he is impatient: he doesn’t mess with anything he doesn’t have time for. He told the Miami Herald in 2003, “I’m probably the worst marketer out there…I just don’t care. I put my energy into the site.” From all the tangible press contacts I’ve found in the three years I’ve researched Matt Drudge and monitored his coverage, this is the attitude he uniformly projects. He doesn’t micromanage. He wants his business to be as simple as possible so he can go after his next news fix.

8. Drudge’s linking practices and siren alerts existed long before he began to carry advertising in 1999. They are the entire raison d’etre of his website, which by my calculation operated for at least four years without ad revenue. (I haven’t pinpointed the exact date when the 1994-launched e-mail subscription transitioned into an independent web presence). The siren alerts are only occasional, and one of the cheap effects on a very rudimentary web format (he utilized an old version of Netscape). Were he truly motivated by marketing, he would “alarm” us with greater frequency.

9. I do want to address the “refresh” controversy here. The nature of his site dictates that it be constantly updated. Drudge may not need “new” stats, but he does need constantly new headlines and information to remain current. Setting anything but the most aggressive refresh mode available seems counterintuitive.

10. Think a bit about your word choice: Drudge “already command(s) an overwhelming audience size, generating a massive amount of page views naturally!” Why, then, are you quick to infer that he wants to inflate them even further? We don’t really know what each player’s intentions are and whether the left hand knows what the right hand is doing.

11. Finally, the most important question of all: if you were a basically honest webmaster in Matt Drudge’s position, what would you do? What COULD you do? What SHOULD you do in terms of quantifying web visit statistics, and what are the minimal moral expectations should Drudge readers and advertisers have, knowing all the facts? I would rather that marketing and media specialists present facts within the area of your expertise and not jump to conclusions about intentions they cannot know or measure. I think that there is more to this picture than meets the eye.