<?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: Advertorials Preferred To Ads?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/04/21/advertorials-preferred-to-ads/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/04/21/advertorials-preferred-to-ads/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:58:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Craig VerColen</title>
		<link>http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/04/21/advertorials-preferred-to-ads/comment-page-1/#comment-2927</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig VerColen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:00:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thenoisychannel.com/?p=1988#comment-2927</guid>
		<description>Most &#039;traditional&#039; publishers clearly mark paid/sponsored content (advertorials) vs. their own.  What needs to be watched is the blurring of these &#039;church and state&#039; lines. As publishers struggle with aging ad-supported biz models, and as some potentially less scrupulous social media outlets gain ground, demarcation could become less and less clear.  As you point out regularly, transparency and authenticity MUST be the pillars of new (and evolving old) media.  For those reasons, it&#039;s nice to see violators get called out when they fail to abide.  Notably Scoble  and less notably the recent Netezza campaign  (rectified after being called into question ).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most &#8216;traditional&#8217; publishers clearly mark paid/sponsored content (advertorials) vs. their own.  What needs to be watched is the blurring of these &#8216;church and state&#8217; lines. As publishers struggle with aging ad-supported biz models, and as some potentially less scrupulous social media outlets gain ground, demarcation could become less and less clear.  As you point out regularly, transparency and authenticity MUST be the pillars of new (and evolving old) media.  For those reasons, it&#8217;s nice to see violators get called out when they fail to abide.  Notably Scoble  and less notably the recent Netezza campaign  (rectified after being called into question ).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
