I advertise on APUG, I've run a stretch in B&W magazine, had my mug full page in View Camera courtesy of a Jim Galli portrait, and my you tube videos have a cumulative hit count of over fifty thousand. I have well over a hundred subscribers. I sell prints fairly regularly, when I actually have them available. I'd like to say I was so busy counting my money I didn't have time to post this, but the fact is when you figure time, expense etc. for shooting processing, printing, promoting, packaging, posting, etc. you aren't exactly printing money.
There is no way I could make a living from my present art print sales. I doubt I would ever be able to live on art print sales alone. I don't know of many who do... even the BIG names also publish books, do workshops, endorsements, and other things.
People like Leibovitz aren't making most of their money from "art print" sales, but rather for their time as a "commercial" or "fashion" photographer. Indeed, Leibovitz "print sales" didn't really start until she was already very established as a commercial photographer, and that fame and the fame of who she shoots is a huge part of her machine. If you are interested in selling art prints, you must first construct a machine to do so. It doesn't have to be like hers, but it's gotta be something. This is far more complicated than simply advertising your web site.
Photography is truly a labor of love. Print sales for most are a way to feed the habit. There are far easier ways to make a lot more money. You can make a living, even a very good living, but it won't come from art print sales alone, until you are already succesfull at something.
Oh, and fact: Traditional prints sell better than ink. Those who don't know or care, don't. The ones who do care are the rest. That means traditional prints work for everybody, and believe me, you need every bit you can get.