<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Advertises</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.markevanstech.com/2005/12/14/google-advertises/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2005/12/14/google-advertises/</link>
	<description>Insight and Analysis from North of the Border</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:50:18 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Stuart MacDonald</title>
		<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2005/12/14/google-advertises/#comment-826</link>
		<dc:creator>Stuart MacDonald</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2005 05:16:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://markevanstech.com/?p=1158#comment-826</guid>
		<description>It&#39;s not about spending cash, Mark. C&#39;mon. It&#39;s about building brand meaning and attempting to influence what could easily become a negative and business reducing conversation, and I say good for them. Sure, to date, the product has said a lot about who they are, most of it very positive, and call it 90%+ of their PR has been ultra-positive.  But, they clearly see that the bar is now so high and soooo much is expected of them that *not* attempting to build some brand meaning of their own choosing would be almost reckless. If they don&#39;t, when the tide turns (yep, that&#39;s "when") they are swinging in the breeze. They *have* to build a positive image now, to have some degree of support to fall back on when things change. And yes, sometimes (in most of the world, almost always) that means paid advertising. 
Lots of money has been spent on worse things than molding a reputation. Good on them for realizing that, I say.
- Stuart</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#39;s not about spending cash, Mark. C&#39;mon. It&#39;s about building brand meaning and attempting to influence what could easily become a negative and business reducing conversation, and I say good for them. Sure, to date, the product has said a lot about who they are, most of it very positive, and call it 90%+ of their PR has been ultra-positive.  But, they clearly see that the bar is now so high and soooo much is expected of them that *not* attempting to build some brand meaning of their own choosing would be almost reckless. If they don&#39;t, when the tide turns (yep, that&#39;s &#8220;when&#8221;) they are swinging in the breeze. They *have* to build a positive image now, to have some degree of support to fall back on when things change. And yes, sometimes (in most of the world, almost always) that means paid advertising.<br />
Lots of money has been spent on worse things than molding a reputation. Good on them for realizing that, I say.<br />
- Stuart</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Courtney</title>
		<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2005/12/14/google-advertises/#comment-825</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Courtney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:31:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://markevanstech.com/?p=1158#comment-825</guid>
		<description>A little known fact is that the only advertising my former employer, Quarterdeck did, outside the traditional trade press, was to sponsor a weekly classical music program (Symphony something) on PBS.  (The only time I heard it was once on a drive from Vancouver to Seattle.) And the President did it purely because she wanted to further the understanding and appreciation of classical music. (I don&#39;t think she was even a musician.)  It was largely a public service gig; in fact the Quarterdeck product did not lend itself to consumer advertising (unless we said something like "Bill Gates once said you would never need more than 640K memory!)"
Can I take a more idealistic approach and suggest Google really is "supporting the search for knowledge"?  Keep in mind there is no government owned CBC equivalent in the U.S. and PBS needs corporate support to keep its (hihg quality) programs coming...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A little known fact is that the only advertising my former employer, Quarterdeck did, outside the traditional trade press, was to sponsor a weekly classical music program (Symphony something) on PBS.  (The only time I heard it was once on a drive from Vancouver to Seattle.) And the President did it purely because she wanted to further the understanding and appreciation of classical music. (I don&#39;t think she was even a musician.)  It was largely a public service gig; in fact the Quarterdeck product did not lend itself to consumer advertising (unless we said something like &#8220;Bill Gates once said you would never need more than 640K memory!)&#8221;<br />
Can I take a more idealistic approach and suggest Google really is &#8220;supporting the search for knowledge&#8221;?  Keep in mind there is no government owned CBC equivalent in the U.S. and PBS needs corporate support to keep its (hihg quality) programs coming&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
