In a previous article, I was explaining why we all should have stopped using the concept of "page views" long ago. And why we now need to find something else.

The resistance to this change is due to the consequences that matter a lot more than simply renaming softwares and commercial speeches. A whole business model must adapt.
Page views are the base on which the whole online advertising model is built. Banner exposures are bought through Pages with Ads, and media sites must know how many pages with ad they serve if they want to attract advertisers.
Pay per click advertising (key words, affiliations, etc.) does not rely on this definition. Is the success of the pay per click surprising? My opinion is that the old exposure model leaves space for such a new kind of model.

A few years ago, some web sites were receiving critics by competitors because they were using frames. Frames were multiplying by three the number of page views of a site such as France #1, Wanadoo… So, some web site have started to artificially, I mean technically, increase the number of page views, thanks to frames. Is this for the benefit of the end user?

Today, how many web sites refuse to improve their ergonomics because these improvements would decrease their page views? Are we going to witness an ergonomical split between banner-based we sites (who will keep an old fashion way to navigate within their contents), and the others, who will provide better ergonomics to their visitors (thanks to Ajax)?

Advertising agencies will be forced to adapt. This may be achieved thanks to the pressure of their clients, advertisers, who will more and more be pressured by their own visitors, fed up to be obliged to constantly load new pages.
Adapt, yes, but adapt to what?

Let me make a bet here. The online model will differentiate from the print press model, but will not exactly match the TV model. The common metrics will be the rare resource: time spent by the visitor.
Would you bet the same?