<?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: 10 points: social media reality check</title>
	<atom:link href="http://paulseaman.eu/2009/01/10-points-social-media-reality-check/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://paulseaman.eu/2009/01/10-points-social-media-reality-check/</link>
	<description>I am a PR and love my trade. Nevertheless PR requires a reality check. We&#039;re about helping clients speak honestly, even robustly. People who run things have a lot of explaining to do in the next few years, so PR is crucial. I want a lively debate and I hope you’ll make it so.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:32:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Heather Yaxley</title>
		<link>http://paulseaman.eu/2009/01/10-points-social-media-reality-check/comment-page-1/#comment-29</link>
		<dc:creator>Heather Yaxley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:30:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulseaman.eu/?p=1569#comment-29</guid>
		<description>You are spot on with these thoughts.  I am interested also in what will constitute &quot;content&quot; - particularly in respect of what will have value.  Where media used to sell both content and access to it, much online is now open and indeed, created by those who don&#039;t value their time in creating it.

Another aspect I find interesting is in relation to the participation (social side if you like) as still the majority do not feel a need to enter the space, but to &quot;lurk&quot; as witnesses.  Are their needs catered for as they are more passive than active?  Do we need to be careful of the limited voices that we hear, or will these publics move from being latent to more active as their familiarity and confidence grows?  Or is it a generational thing that will emerge naturally?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are spot on with these thoughts.  I am interested also in what will constitute &#8220;content&#8221; &#8211; particularly in respect of what will have value.  Where media used to sell both content and access to it, much online is now open and indeed, created by those who don&#8217;t value their time in creating it.</p>
<p>Another aspect I find interesting is in relation to the participation (social side if you like) as still the majority do not feel a need to enter the space, but to &#8220;lurk&#8221; as witnesses.  Are their needs catered for as they are more passive than active?  Do we need to be careful of the limited voices that we hear, or will these publics move from being latent to more active as their familiarity and confidence grows?  Or is it a generational thing that will emerge naturally?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Conversation Is Good &#124; danny brown</title>
		<link>http://paulseaman.eu/2009/01/10-points-social-media-reality-check/comment-page-1/#comment-21</link>
		<dc:creator>Conversation Is Good &#124; danny brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:28:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulseaman.eu/?p=1569#comment-21</guid>
		<description>[...] I found a blog post from Paul Seaman, a  PR professional from Zurich, Switzerland. In it, Paul makes predictions about the future of social media and how it will fit in with traditional media and PR. At the time, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I found a blog post from Paul Seaman, a  PR professional from Zurich, Switzerland. In it, Paul makes predictions about the future of social media and how it will fit in with traditional media and PR. At the time, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

