<?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, dependency and trust</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theequitykicker.com/2008/01/07/social-media-dependency-and-trust/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theequitykicker.com/2008/01/07/social-media-dependency-and-trust/</link>
	<description>Nic Brisbourne's view from London on venture capital and exploiting change in technology and media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:08:00 +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: thom singer</title>
		<link>http://www.theequitykicker.com/2008/01/07/social-media-dependency-and-trust/#comment-1318</link>
		<dc:creator>thom singer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:42:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theequitykicker.com/2008/01/07/social-media-dependency-and-trust/#comment-1318</guid>
		<description>That is an interesting point about customers having direct influence over strategy.  I think they always have, but now we have this instant feedback and the creation of customer communities that never existed before...thus it is more an giant upping of the stakes where the company can be immediately held accountable to its actions.

The big issue is that online social networking tools, like Facebook, are more than just a utility, but instead they are part of a person&#039;s identity.  This is what they want, because they need stickiness or they die (seems like only last year we all loved MySpace, now it is Facebook...and they know next year the trendy spot could be something new).

These companies are working hard to create &quot;Community&quot;...but with a community you have different standards that you must live by...and this is where the changes in how a company runs will come in.  If you are legitimate in being a community with your customers then you give up the rights to be a dictatorship.

I have no idea who is right and wrong in the Scoble situation, but I do know that Facebook cannot just dump people without due process or those people, if they have a big audience will become a problem.  They will need to look for new ways to police their policies than to just ban people from the party or they party will move somewhere else.

Have a great day.

thom</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is an interesting point about customers having direct influence over strategy.  I think they always have, but now we have this instant feedback and the creation of customer communities that never existed before&#8230;thus it is more an giant upping of the stakes where the company can be immediately held accountable to its actions.</p>
<p>The big issue is that online social networking tools, like Facebook, are more than just a utility, but instead they are part of a person&#8217;s identity.  This is what they want, because they need stickiness or they die (seems like only last year we all loved MySpace, now it is Facebook&#8230;and they know next year the trendy spot could be something new).</p>
<p>These companies are working hard to create &#8220;Community&#8221;&#8230;but with a community you have different standards that you must live by&#8230;and this is where the changes in how a company runs will come in.  If you are legitimate in being a community with your customers then you give up the rights to be a dictatorship.</p>
<p>I have no idea who is right and wrong in the Scoble situation, but I do know that Facebook cannot just dump people without due process or those people, if they have a big audience will become a problem.  They will need to look for new ways to police their policies than to just ban people from the party or they party will move somewhere else.</p>
<p>Have a great day.</p>
<p>thom</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: thom singer</title>
		<link>http://www.theequitykicker.com/2008/01/07/social-media-dependency-and-trust/#comment-11065</link>
		<dc:creator>thom singer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theequitykicker.com/2008/01/07/social-media-dependency-and-trust/#comment-11065</guid>
		<description>That is an interesting point about customers having direct influence over strategy.  I think they always have, but now we have this instant feedback and the creation of customer communities that never existed before...thus it is more an giant upping of the stakes where the company can be immediately held accountable to its actions.

The big issue is that online social networking tools, like Facebook, are more than just a utility, but instead they are part of a person&#039;s identity.  This is what they want, because they need stickiness or they die (seems like only last year we all loved MySpace, now it is Facebook...and they know next year the trendy spot could be something new).

These companies are working hard to create &quot;Community&quot;...but with a community you have different standards that you must live by...and this is where the changes in how a company runs will come in.  If you are legitimate in being a community with your customers then you give up the rights to be a dictatorship.

I have no idea who is right and wrong in the Scoble situation, but I do know that Facebook cannot just dump people without due process or those people, if they have a big audience will become a problem.  They will need to look for new ways to police their policies than to just ban people from the party or they party will move somewhere else.

Have a great day.

thom</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is an interesting point about customers having direct influence over strategy.  I think they always have, but now we have this instant feedback and the creation of customer communities that never existed before&#8230;thus it is more an giant upping of the stakes where the company can be immediately held accountable to its actions.</p>
<p>The big issue is that online social networking tools, like Facebook, are more than just a utility, but instead they are part of a person&#8217;s identity.  This is what they want, because they need stickiness or they die (seems like only last year we all loved MySpace, now it is Facebook&#8230;and they know next year the trendy spot could be something new).</p>
<p>These companies are working hard to create &#8220;Community&#8221;&#8230;but with a community you have different standards that you must live by&#8230;and this is where the changes in how a company runs will come in.  If you are legitimate in being a community with your customers then you give up the rights to be a dictatorship.</p>
<p>I have no idea who is right and wrong in the Scoble situation, but I do know that Facebook cannot just dump people without due process or those people, if they have a big audience will become a problem.  They will need to look for new ways to police their policies than to just ban people from the party or they party will move somewhere else.</p>
<p>Have a great day.</p>
<p>thom</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.236 seconds -->

