<?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: Why verify?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://smartblogs.com/social-media/2008/11/19/why-verify/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://smartblogs.com/social-media/2008/11/19/why-verify/</link>
	<description>Engage. Innovate. Discuss.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 01:11:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Williammee</title>
		<link>http://smartblogs.com/social-media/2008/11/19/why-verify/#comment-33564</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Williammee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:34:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smartblogs.com/socialmedia/?p=19#comment-33564</guid>
		<description>It always seems like hubris to me when I see statements like &quot;Facebook is more interested right now in member acquisition than in advertising revenue.&quot;  Obviously the argument goes that the member acquisition is supposed to eventually lead to revenue, but this smacks of 1999&#039;s prevailing attitudes - build the site, get the users, and we&#039;ll figure out the money later.  We know how well that turned out for most.  (Don&#039;t get me wrong, Facebook has already gotten a lot further than &lt;a href=&quot;http://pets.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pets.com&lt;/a&gt; and AllAdvantage ever did.)If Facebook can turn app inventory into something more desirable and get developers to foot the bill, then perhaps they&#039;re keeping their eye on ad revenue after all - and more power to them.  I just wonder if app certification will be valuable enough to developers for them to get their house in order and then pay for the cert.  The keys there will be educating end users on the value of certification, and of course, the users actually finding certified apps more useful. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It always seems like hubris to me when I see statements like &quot;Facebook is more interested right now in member acquisition than in advertising revenue.&quot;  Obviously the argument goes that the member acquisition is supposed to eventually lead to revenue, but this smacks of 1999&#039;s prevailing attitudes &#8211; build the site, get the users, and we&#039;ll figure out the money later.  We know how well that turned out for most.  (Don&#039;t get me wrong, Facebook has already gotten a lot further than <a href="http://pets.com" rel="nofollow">pets.com</a> and AllAdvantage ever did.)If Facebook can turn app inventory into something more desirable and get developers to foot the bill, then perhaps they&#039;re keeping their eye on ad revenue after all &#8211; and more power to them.  I just wonder if app certification will be valuable enough to developers for them to get their house in order and then pay for the cert.  The keys there will be educating end users on the value of certification, and of course, the users actually finding certified apps more useful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Williammee</title>
		<link>http://smartblogs.com/social-media/2008/11/19/why-verify/#comment-33563</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Williammee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smartblogs.com/socialmedia/?p=19#comment-33563</guid>
		<description>It always seems like hubris to me when I see statements like &quot;Facebook is more interested right now in member acquisition than in advertising revenue.&quot;  Obviously the argument goes that the member acquisition is supposed to eventually lead to revenue, but this smacks of 1999&#039;s prevailing attitudes - build the site, get the users, and we&#039;ll figure out the money later.  We know how well that turned out for most.  (Don&#039;t get me wrong, Facebook has already gotten a lot further than pets.com and AllAdvantage ever did.) 
 
If Facebook can turn app inventory into something more desirable and get developers to foot the bill, then perhaps they&#039;re keeping their eye on ad revenue after all - and more power to them.  I just wonder if app certification will be valuable enough to developers for them to get their house in order and then pay for the cert.  The keys there will be educating end users on the value of certification, and of course, the users actually finding certified apps more useful. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It always seems like hubris to me when I see statements like &quot;Facebook is more interested right now in member acquisition than in advertising revenue.&quot;  Obviously the argument goes that the member acquisition is supposed to eventually lead to revenue, but this smacks of 1999&#039;s prevailing attitudes &#8211; build the site, get the users, and we&#039;ll figure out the money later.  We know how well that turned out for most.  (Don&#039;t get me wrong, Facebook has already gotten a lot further than pets.com and AllAdvantage ever did.) </p>
<p>If Facebook can turn app inventory into something more desirable and get developers to foot the bill, then perhaps they&#039;re keeping their eye on ad revenue after all &#8211; and more power to them.  I just wonder if app certification will be valuable enough to developers for them to get their house in order and then pay for the cert.  The keys there will be educating end users on the value of certification, and of course, the users actually finding certified apps more useful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

