<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Social Media Maketing Vs Web 2.0 Marketing, BusinessWeek&#8217;s Big Mistake</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jmorganmarketing.com/social-media-maketing-vs-web-20-marketing-businessweeks-big-mistake/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jmorganmarketing.com/social-media-maketing-vs-web-20-marketing-businessweeks-big-mistake/</link>
	<description>Social Business Strategy and Enterprise 2.0</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:32:45 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Teaching English in Taiwan</title>
		<link>http://www.jmorganmarketing.com/social-media-maketing-vs-web-20-marketing-businessweeks-big-mistake/comment-page-1/#comment-2794</link>
		<dc:creator>Teaching English in Taiwan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:14:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmorganmarketing.com/?p=976#comment-2794</guid>
		<description>Interesting post. I have stumbled and twittered this for my friends. Hope others find it as interesting as I did.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting post. I have stumbled and twittered this for my friends. Hope others find it as interesting as I did.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jacobmorgan</title>
		<link>http://www.jmorganmarketing.com/social-media-maketing-vs-web-20-marketing-businessweeks-big-mistake/comment-page-1/#comment-1281</link>
		<dc:creator>jacobmorgan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:52:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmorganmarketing.com/?p=976#comment-1281</guid>
		<description>hi heather thanks for the comment. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;i included names so that the people i interacted with received credit for what they did.  the article was shared internally and i wanted members of the team to know exactly who was involved.  she is more then welcome to voice her position, that&#039;s the beauty of a blog, twitter, comments, etc.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;i&#039;m also glad things have since been smoothed out, they made a smart decision.  thanks for reading and commenting heather.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hi heather thanks for the comment. </p>
<p>i included names so that the people i interacted with received credit for what they did.  the article was shared internally and i wanted members of the team to know exactly who was involved.  she is more then welcome to voice her position, that&#39;s the beauty of a blog, twitter, comments, etc.  </p>
<p>i&#39;m also glad things have since been smoothed out, they made a smart decision.  thanks for reading and commenting heather.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: heatherrast</title>
		<link>http://www.jmorganmarketing.com/social-media-maketing-vs-web-20-marketing-businessweeks-big-mistake/comment-page-1/#comment-1270</link>
		<dc:creator>heatherrast</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:31:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmorganmarketing.com/?p=976#comment-1270</guid>
		<description>I sense your frustration in this post--frustration borne not only out of your work product suddenly arbitrarily going &quot;poof!&quot; but also your personal passion for logical categorization of content vs. illogical (and likely less usable) content.  You, simply put, could not figure out why BW didn&#039;t &quot;get it.&quot; How authentic are their endeavors if they didn&#039;t appreciate the direction of a significant contributor? Weren&#039;t they looking for your expertise?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I&#039;ve also read your follow-up post, the one where you graciously share BW&#039;s corrective reaching-out words.  I think it&#039;s good of you to give them their moment to reconcile (redeem?) themselves with your readers.  I hope things work out famously.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;If I could offer one observation, it would be that maybe the inclusion of the Senior User Participation Manager&#039;s name wasn&#039;t necessary--it didn&#039;t lend anything to the story (john doe would have been a fine substitute). We don&#039;t know the circumstances with which she made her determinations.  And she doesn&#039;t really get an opportunity to voice her position; to do so could be counter to how things have since been smoothed out.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Just a thought.  Thanks for telling your story.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I sense your frustration in this post&#8211;frustration borne not only out of your work product suddenly arbitrarily going &#8220;poof!&#8221; but also your personal passion for logical categorization of content vs. illogical (and likely less usable) content.  You, simply put, could not figure out why BW didn&#39;t &#8220;get it.&#8221; How authentic are their endeavors if they didn&#39;t appreciate the direction of a significant contributor? Weren&#39;t they looking for your expertise?</p>
<p>I&#39;ve also read your follow-up post, the one where you graciously share BW&#39;s corrective reaching-out words.  I think it&#39;s good of you to give them their moment to reconcile (redeem?) themselves with your readers.  I hope things work out famously.</p>
<p>If I could offer one observation, it would be that maybe the inclusion of the Senior User Participation Manager&#39;s name wasn&#39;t necessary&#8211;it didn&#39;t lend anything to the story (john doe would have been a fine substitute). We don&#39;t know the circumstances with which she made her determinations.  And she doesn&#39;t really get an opportunity to voice her position; to do so could be counter to how things have since been smoothed out.</p>
<p>Just a thought.  Thanks for telling your story.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Power of Tribes: A Lesson From Businessweek and Social Media Marketing</title>
		<link>http://www.jmorganmarketing.com/social-media-maketing-vs-web-20-marketing-businessweeks-big-mistake/comment-page-1/#comment-1266</link>
		<dc:creator>The Power of Tribes: A Lesson From Businessweek and Social Media Marketing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:34:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmorganmarketing.com/?p=976#comment-1266</guid>
		<description>[...] (and a few other related groups) already existed.  I wrote a post about why I thought businessweek made a big mistake.  I tweeted out the article and it spread, the next day I received an apology from the editor in [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] (and a few other related groups) already existed.  I wrote a post about why I thought businessweek made a big mistake.  I tweeted out the article and it spread, the next day I received an apology from the editor in [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jacobmorgan</title>
		<link>http://www.jmorganmarketing.com/social-media-maketing-vs-web-20-marketing-businessweeks-big-mistake/comment-page-1/#comment-1265</link>
		<dc:creator>jacobmorgan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 07:31:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmorganmarketing.com/?p=976#comment-1265</guid>
		<description>hey ari, that was also the point i was trying to make.  a lot of the users are not familiar with terms like SEO, web 2.0, etc.  so trying to create a categories that are too niche may not be the best idea...yet.   &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;users are likely to search for &quot;social media marketing&quot; then web 2.0 marketing so it seemed silly that they wanted to exclude it.  read today&#039;s post though, they agreed to let the group exist :)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;thanks for reading and commenting!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hey ari, that was also the point i was trying to make.  a lot of the users are not familiar with terms like SEO, web 2.0, etc.  so trying to create a categories that are too niche may not be the best idea&#8230;yet.   </p>
<p>users are likely to search for &#8220;social media marketing&#8221; then web 2.0 marketing so it seemed silly that they wanted to exclude it.  read today&#39;s post though, they agreed to let the group exist <img src='http://www.jmorganmarketing.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>thanks for reading and commenting!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
