CNN emails to tell us they brought in 27 million unique visitors to their site on election day yesterday, a record. Comscore says they averaged just 5 million unique daily visitors in September, so this is more than 5x normal traffic.
The site also generated an astounding 276 million page views. An average day on CNN is about 35 million page views, according to Comscore worldwide stats.
And all that without the Magic Wall and pseudo-holograms that kept people glued to CNN cable channel all day.
Did they say the country of origin for these people? Is it all from the US?
Isnt it generally obvious its about US elections, hence the most of the visitors would have been from there!
Not necessarily. If I am in the US, I can turn on the TV and watch the results on there (with all the cool holograms and such) whereas the rest of the world (which is very much interested in the outcome of US elections) is more likely to be checking the web site. I was just curious if Mike knows and could possibly share more detailed stats with us.
It’s not obvious it’s from U.S. I agree that if your in the U.S. you would rather turn your television on, go out in the streets, or watch together with your friends and family — after all people are not in the office. Half of the world are on a different timezone and working in the office. These are the people who are mostly watching the elections through the internet.
It is not that obvious ,
plenty of people all over the world probably did not have good TV coverage of the elections (just a 5min item in the 7 o clock news) and went looking for info on the net … thats my guess
The site also generated an astounding 276 million page views, which is about what Yahoo sees on a daily basis.
I think Yahoo! generates far more views (> 3 billion) daily (not to say this is small feat). Did you me refer to Yahoo! News alone?
ah, yeah. I was just plain wrong. corrected.
http://www.tech...ion-page-views/
Here in Germany, I was watching the election mostly on CNN on TV. Even had to find the cable outlet to plug it in, since I usually only watch TV twice a year or so. There are many Americans abroad as well as others who are just interested in who the “president of the world” is going to be.
do you have the states of Yahoo! News traffic yesterday.
I am from Brazil and the only American news channels I have here at home are CNN and FoxNews. I clearly considered CNN’s coverage on tv better than Fox’s, but online, I would say the NYTIMES brought the most accurate position!
This would explain the main CNN election web page crapping out this morning..
Three cheers for Turner power!
I am from India.I am surprised to get this news about CNN traffic.
Bigger news.CNN better traffic than Yahoo,Google.
These statistics are not surprising. With people literally celebrating in the streets here in New York I know that the election was captivating from about 3pm on. With the large commuter traffic here in the city many of us were glued to cnn.com or foxnews.com on smartphone for hours. I must say that CNN did an excellent job of refreshing the page and keeping it “up to date.” Fox tends to be far more conservative and a bit off-putting for most Americans so cnn was the obvious choice.
I like going to real clear politics for the polling info. I think MSNBC has a cleaner layout though and better videos of their shows.
I checked CNN (the page automatically refreshed itself so the number could be inflated as well) and only turned on the TV when the president was chosen to hear both McCain and Obama’s speeches. I look forward to a new United States of America!
I was glued to CNN the whole night. Not sure why, exactly. It made for a long night. I wonder how quite a few websites will handle the huge downfall in web traffic now that the election is over?
Jake
NoteScribe: Premier Note Taking Software
I firstly watched CNN on TV in 1991, or so… got on their site a few years ago, and I wonder if they have a (real) blog?
Those touch screen graphical presentations, while accomplished, were kind of a moot point in the end, weren’t they?! We went from gritty granular analysis of holdout counties in Indiana to a landslide of proportions so great that the winner/loser percentages ceased being relevant — in a matter of just a couple of hours.
Then as the anchors realized the futility of analysis and prognostication, and gave themselves over to the sheer collective relief everybody was clearly swept up in, coverage finally got real — and was truly moving.
If they were to postmortem their performance they’d realize quickly maps, charts, numbers, and zoomboxes are nothing compared to look on a face that is moved.
That’s where the pageviews came from.
They did well to leave the powerpoint behind and toggle over to live coverage of the streets and gatherings erupting in what can only be described as a national catharsis.
What a night.
CNN stay making that guap…lol
CNN’s coverage was great…like many people, I kept flipping between CNN and Fox. And decided immediately that CNN’s coverage was much better. Could be because they were happier!?
dhukt xbtfpcwz akgetimd zxqikm hpqwgyb tfsmple iuhyzb
Now that I can go visit my mother more than one time in three years, do something about the 20% tax on money by cuban government.
CNN stay making that guap…lol
CNN stay making that guapp
CNN stay making that guap…lol
I was glued to CNN the whole night.