<?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: anyone impressed by that</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.deadpansincerity.com/2008/08/anyone-impressed-by-that/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.deadpansincerity.com/2008/08/anyone-impressed-by-that/</link>
	<description>a weblog by david miller</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:22:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Barney</title>
		<link>http://blog.deadpansincerity.com/2008/08/anyone-impressed-by-that/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>Barney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:46:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.deadpansincerity.com/?p=10#comment-3</guid>
		<description>Actually, the department store opposite would've been a brilliant target for mimicry.

Are people that discerning though? The old "Any publicity is good publicity" might just trump all your arguments.

Another important point is that a regular news outlet is worse than useless if you don't have regular news and an individual familiar with news+words+subejct matter ready to back it up. Arguably people have no taste, an inability to find fault with corporate entities, and no great reasoning power. Having a vacuum shoved under your nose with a neon label marked 'valuable content' is empirically bad news. I don't know if this was the case here, but it's a good one to crack out in similar situations (i.e. pseudo-marketing exec comes out with 7-year-old's English coursework as serious-brand-initiative).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, the department store opposite would&#8217;ve been a brilliant target for mimicry.</p>
<p>Are people that discerning though? The old &#8220;Any publicity is good publicity&#8221; might just trump all your arguments.</p>
<p>Another important point is that a regular news outlet is worse than useless if you don&#8217;t have regular news and an individual familiar with news+words+subejct matter ready to back it up. Arguably people have no taste, an inability to find fault with corporate entities, and no great reasoning power. Having a vacuum shoved under your nose with a neon label marked &#8216;valuable content&#8217; is empirically bad news. I don&#8217;t know if this was the case here, but it&#8217;s a good one to crack out in similar situations (i.e. pseudo-marketing exec comes out with 7-year-old&#8217;s English coursework as serious-brand-initiative).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Banovsky</title>
		<link>http://blog.deadpansincerity.com/2008/08/anyone-impressed-by-that/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Banovsky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:19:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.deadpansincerity.com/?p=10#comment-2</guid>
		<description>Brilliant post, and I may have to steal that saying of yours. It's not O.K. to settle for the status quo — we have department stores for that. Cheers, 

M!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brilliant post, and I may have to steal that saying of yours. It&#8217;s not O.K. to settle for the status quo — we have department stores for that. Cheers, </p>
<p>M!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
