<?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: BzzAgents and Ethics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communityguy.com/397/bzzagents-and-ethics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.communityguy.com/397/bzzagents-and-ethics/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 08:26:22 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Johnnie Moore</title>
		<link>http://www.communityguy.com/397/bzzagents-and-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-300</link>
		<dc:creator>Johnnie Moore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2005 05:36:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://antseyeview.com/communityguy.com/?p=397#comment-300</guid>
		<description>I feel less censorious of BzzAgent. They seem to be quite transparent in the way they operate. If you look at their blog their critics are in full voice.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I think this is one way in which they are hosting a conversation.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;It&#039;s easy to condemn something for not being new, but a lot of useful innovation is incremental; Kuhnian shifts are not ten a penny.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I question the idea that the presence of BzzAgent&#039;s CEO on the WOMMA board means its should be distrusted.  I think our trust in it should be based on what is says, does, and stands up for - rather than relying on guesses about the motivations of its participants.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;My hunch about BzzAgent is that most of its agents will create buzz for stuff they actually like, and not for stuff they don&#039;t.  There may be a few nutters involved but on the whole I&#039;d prefer marketing dollars to go into methods relying on the quality of the product more than the sizzle of the admen.
		
			

			
		
		
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I feel less censorious of BzzAgent. They seem to be quite transparent in the way they operate. If you look at their blog their critics are in full voice.  </p>
<p>I think this is one way in which they are hosting a conversation.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s easy to condemn something for not being new, but a lot of useful innovation is incremental; Kuhnian shifts are not ten a penny.</p>
<p>I question the idea that the presence of BzzAgent&#8217;s CEO on the WOMMA board means its should be distrusted.  I think our trust in it should be based on what is says, does, and stands up for &#8211; rather than relying on guesses about the motivations of its participants.</p>
<p>My hunch about BzzAgent is that most of its agents will create buzz for stuff they actually like, and not for stuff they don&#8217;t.  There may be a few nutters involved but on the whole I&#8217;d prefer marketing dollars to go into methods relying on the quality of the product more than the sizzle of the admen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Johnnie Moore</title>
		<link>http://www.communityguy.com/397/bzzagents-and-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-36299</link>
		<dc:creator>Johnnie Moore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2005 03:36:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://antseyeview.com/communityguy.com/?p=397#comment-36299</guid>
		<description>I feel less censorious of BzzAgent. They seem to be quite transparent in the way they operate. If you look at their blog their critics are in full voice.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I think this is one way in which they are hosting a conversation.&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;It&#039;s easy to condemn something for not being new, but a lot of useful innovation is incremental; Kuhnian shifts are not ten a penny.&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I question the idea that the presence of BzzAgent&#039;s CEO on the WOMMA board means its should be distrusted.  I think our trust in it should be based on what is says, does, and stands up for - rather than relying on guesses about the motivations of its participants.&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;My hunch about BzzAgent is that most of its agents will create buzz for stuff they actually like, and not for stuff they don&#039;t.  There may be a few nutters involved but on the whole I&#039;d prefer marketing dollars to go into methods relying on the quality of the product more than the sizzle of the admen.&lt;br&gt;		&lt;br&gt;			&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;			&lt;br&gt;		&lt;br&gt;		&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I feel less censorious of BzzAgent. They seem to be quite transparent in the way they operate. If you look at their blog their critics are in full voice.  </p>
<p>I think this is one way in which they are hosting a conversation.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s easy to condemn something for not being new, but a lot of useful innovation is incremental; Kuhnian shifts are not ten a penny.</p>
<p>I question the idea that the presence of BzzAgent&#8217;s CEO on the WOMMA board means its should be distrusted.  I think our trust in it should be based on what is says, does, and stands up for &#8211; rather than relying on guesses about the motivations of its participants.</p>
<p>My hunch about BzzAgent is that most of its agents will create buzz for stuff they actually like, and not for stuff they don&#8217;t.  There may be a few nutters involved but on the whole I&#8217;d prefer marketing dollars to go into methods relying on the quality of the product more than the sizzle of the admen.</p>
<p></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
