<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What if Google advertised on Television?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://notronwest.wordpress.com/2006/09/26/what-if-google-advertised-on-television/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://notronwest.wordpress.com/2006/09/26/what-if-google-advertised-on-television/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:17:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: mikull</title>
		<link>http://notronwest.wordpress.com/2006/09/26/what-if-google-advertised-on-television/#comment-1024</link>
		<dc:creator>mikull</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2006 04:50:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notronwest.wordpress.com/2006/09/26/what-if-google-advertised-on-television/#comment-1024</guid>
		<description>i wonder, would google lose it&#039;s &#039;net cred. (read: steet cred) if it did this? google always worked with being the &quot;hey we made this- here, use it for free&quot; approach, with stuff that actually worked for most intents and purposes. i always though google was really the first web 2.0 idea- something for nothing, fueled by the passion of the people who used it and preferred thanks to it&#039;s lack of NON-commercialism. most geeks praised the simple ad techniques google used to stay afloat all those years. with no advertising leading them to be the #1 search engine, they might be also thinking- why pay for something we already get for free? 

i mean, i see your point loud and clear, but who can avoid google? nearly every site out there has google ads- every geek rss feed is tracking google&#039;s steps- even yahoo uses the google engine. with the now countless alternatives google has developed, there&#039;s pretty much no escaping it. google doesn&#039;t need to advertise- it&#039;s a household name.

as with a few other items on your list, i would say if the public doesn&#039;t know about them by now, they&#039;re not going to. and isn&#039;t that refreshing? products, so to speak, that prosper based soley on the stength of their services. 

i wish so many other things were like this. and fathom this: google is paying some of it&#039;s top adsense clients hundreds of thousands a month- i can almost respect a company that values it&#039;s true audience&#039;s support so strongly. i&#039;m rambling, and it&#039;s late for me-- 

so i leave you with this: imagine if NO internet related products or services could advertise. would AOL finally just DIE? would all those travel websites that all do the same thing merge? perhaps; and if so, would major sponsors have to change the way they advertise? yeah, i won&#039;t hold my breath either. i remember when yahoo was it and google was this thing i kinda laughed about when i saw it at first. one step further: i remember when netscape was the rockin&#039; alternative to IE. netscape now sucks, and advertises on TV. Firefox made IE it&#039;s bitch, and little things like flock (fate uncetain!) actually get breathing room running on the same code. IT&#039;s MADNESS I TELL YOU!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i wonder, would google lose it&#8217;s &#8216;net cred. (read: steet cred) if it did this? google always worked with being the &#8220;hey we made this- here, use it for free&#8221; approach, with stuff that actually worked for most intents and purposes. i always though google was really the first web 2.0 idea- something for nothing, fueled by the passion of the people who used it and preferred thanks to it&#8217;s lack of NON-commercialism. most geeks praised the simple ad techniques google used to stay afloat all those years. with no advertising leading them to be the #1 search engine, they might be also thinking- why pay for something we already get for free? </p>
<p>i mean, i see your point loud and clear, but who can avoid google? nearly every site out there has google ads- every geek rss feed is tracking google&#8217;s steps- even yahoo uses the google engine. with the now countless alternatives google has developed, there&#8217;s pretty much no escaping it. google doesn&#8217;t need to advertise- it&#8217;s a household name.</p>
<p>as with a few other items on your list, i would say if the public doesn&#8217;t know about them by now, they&#8217;re not going to. and isn&#8217;t that refreshing? products, so to speak, that prosper based soley on the stength of their services. </p>
<p>i wish so many other things were like this. and fathom this: google is paying some of it&#8217;s top adsense clients hundreds of thousands a month- i can almost respect a company that values it&#8217;s true audience&#8217;s support so strongly. i&#8217;m rambling, and it&#8217;s late for me&#8211; </p>
<p>so i leave you with this: imagine if NO internet related products or services could advertise. would AOL finally just DIE? would all those travel websites that all do the same thing merge? perhaps; and if so, would major sponsors have to change the way they advertise? yeah, i won&#8217;t hold my breath either. i remember when yahoo was it and google was this thing i kinda laughed about when i saw it at first. one step further: i remember when netscape was the rockin&#8217; alternative to IE. netscape now sucks, and advertises on TV. Firefox made IE it&#8217;s bitch, and little things like flock (fate uncetain!) actually get breathing room running on the same code. IT&#8217;s MADNESS I TELL YOU!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
