<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for RobinGrant</title><link xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="http://api.friendfeed.com/2008/03#sup" href="http://disqus.com/sup/all.sup#usercomments-97db58ad" type="application/json"/><link>http://disqus.com/people/RobinGrant/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:47:55 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Social Influence Marketing Guidelines</title><link>http://www.goingsocialnow.com/2009/10/social-influence-marketing-gui.php#comment-20999477</link><description>Hey Shiv - thanks for sharing these - much appreciated</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:47:55 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The BIMA Awards shortlist</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/10/bima-awards-shortlist/#comment-20587841</link><description>Oscar, Chris - thank you. We appreciate it!</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:26:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Got an internship. Yeah I did.</title><link>http://tomharvey.tumblr.com/post/205928280#comment-19261793</link><description>Hey Tom&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Looking forward to you starting tomorrow - and to everyone else at We Are Social getting to know you. It's going to be a fun month!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;:)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:07:05 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Seven Social Technology Firms I Admire</title><link>http://www.gauravonomics.com/blog/seven-social-technology-firms-i-admire/#comment-18397051</link><description>Hey Gaurav - great list!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Although you seemed to have missed &lt;a href="http://wearesocial.net/" rel="nofollow"&gt;We Are Social&lt;/a&gt; (although, of course I would say that).</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:49:01 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: We are very social</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/09/social/#comment-17041300</link><description>Hey Isabell - never! We just haven't been invited over yet... (cue the world's smallest violin)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:36:57 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Stop campaigning and start committing</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/06/stop-campaigning-start-committing/#comment-11951718</link><description>Thanks Scott - it's good to know it's going noticed outside of Europe!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;:)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:54:19 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The purchase funnel is no more</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/06/purchase-funnel/#comment-11901595</link><description>Hey Mark&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I don't know. It seemed useful to me yesterday (obviously partially for selfish reasons). It still seems useful today.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;None of the advice they give is revolutionary, but it is sound, it is backed by their research and it is from McKinsey.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:59:17 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The purchase funnel is no more</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/06/purchase-funnel/#comment-11895401</link><description>bah humbug!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I didn't say 'revolutionary' - I said:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;a viable alternative model, along with the science to back it up&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:21:27 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Socialisation of Media</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/06/socialisation-media/#comment-11888033</link><description>No worries Neil - you deserve it!</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:52:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The purchase funnel is no more</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/06/purchase-funnel/#comment-11887905</link><description>Nathan - have you actually looked at the presentation or at least read the bits I highlighted? How about this bit:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;once the consumer decides they are going to buy a product, they move into a stage that we call active evaluation. It is here that the number of brands they are considering increases. Which is exactly the opposite of the premise of the funnel&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;br&gt;To me, it not only seems pretty new, but it also has a proper grounding:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;a study examining the purchase decisions of almost 20,000 consumers across five industries and three continents&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:48:30 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Socialisation of Media</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/06/socialisation-media/#comment-11849253</link><description>Hey Lars - indeed it was. However, I wasn't trying to imply otherwise - what I'm highlighting here is Neil's fresh thinking on the subject - i.e. the text above, not the presentation...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:40:14 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Who owns social media?</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/06/owns-social-media/#comment-11824452</link><description>Hey Paul - I'd hope so, as the report costs a hefty $749. However, unfortunately, I haven't had the chance to get hold of a copy, so I couldn't tell you for sure...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:05:30 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Twitter&amp;#8217;s rise and the decline of blogs</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/06/twitters-rise-decline-blogs/#comment-11766358</link><description>Hey Richard - sorry - I wasn't trying to imply you were. My venom was aimed at the authors of the Harvard study, not you...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:22:28 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Twitter&amp;#8217;s rise and the decline of blogs</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/06/twitters-rise-decline-blogs/#comment-11732827</link><description>Si/Richard - The Harvard study is interesting, but it doesn't tell us anything surprising and the conclusions are wrong. &lt;a href="http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;Participation Inequality is nothing new and applies fairly uniformly across social media&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;In most online communities, 90% of users are lurkers who never contribute, 9% of users contribute a little, and 1% of users account for almost all the action.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;br&gt;It has was always been thus, but that doesn't stop it being social...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:38:52 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Hong Kong CID</title><link>http://www.charlesfrith.com/2009/06/hong-kong-cid.html#comment-11688041</link><description>Hey Charles - sounds like a nightmare - heading over to Sam's post now to see how I can help!</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:54:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Newspapers must look beyond SEO</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/06/newspapers-seo/#comment-10800639</link><description>Hey Ciaran - I really wasn't trying to imply that newspapers (or anyone else) shouldn't take SEO very very seriously (not enough companies do!), or to intentionally create linkbait (however serendipdous that would have been).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;However SEO, like paid search, doesn't create demand, it just forfils it. So they are going to have to do more than this...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:40:54 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: European social network usage</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/02/european-social-network-usage/#comment-10699519</link><description>Hey John - obviously Forrester's data is from last year so that would account for some of the discrepancy, but the two different data sources do seem to disagree with each other by a wide margin. Unfortuantely, this is not unusual!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;However, the overall trends are clear - social media usage is extremly high, and growing on a daily basis...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:25:27 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Brands and Twitter</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/02/brands-twitter/#comment-8924526</link><description>and also his &lt;a href="http://econsultancy.com/blog/3675-confessions-of-a-corporate-tweeter" rel="nofollow"&gt;Confessions of a corporate tweeter&lt;/a&gt; article on Econsultancy</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 09:56:07 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Who owns social media?</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/03/owns-social-media/#comment-7415913</link><description>@Jonathan, @Nigel and @James - I've added an update to the post to make things clearer...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:08:54 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: SXSW Interactive</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/03/sxsw-interactive/#comment-7156870</link><description>&lt;a href="http://howtohavefunwhenallyourfriendsareatsxsw.com/" rel="nofollow"&gt;Grrrr&lt;/a&gt;...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:07:28 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Brands and Twitter</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/02/brands-twitter/#comment-6753663</link><description>And for anyone wanting to see Guy in action, have a read of &lt;a href="http://one-size-fits-one.blogspot.com/2009/03/carphone-warehouse-on-twitter-service.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;Anjali Ramachandran's post about her experiences with Carphone Wharehouse&lt;/a&gt;....</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:07:40 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Brands and Twitter</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/02/brands-twitter/#comment-6752609</link><description>Hey Amelia&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I’m feeling guilty now – I obviously took a deliberately confrontational approach (as a tactic to be interesting, but clearly not nice) above, and it was only after I wrote my post that I saw your quote in &lt;a href= "http://www.nma.co.uk/Articles/41562/Brands+and+twitter.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;NMA’s article about Brands and Twitter&lt;/a&gt; (behind a pay wall, but typed below):&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;Twitter is a conversation, but the conversation must be worth having. People are looking for rules, but while there are different ways a brand can use Twitter, there’s no right or wrong way&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;br&gt;Anyway - I'm glad you found the post and comments worthwhile...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 01 Mar 2009 18:30:20 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Brands and Twitter</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/02/brands-twitter/#comment-6627600</link><description>I don't know - but I can tell you Robin doesn't get much sleep either ;)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:58:24 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Brands and Twitter</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/02/brands-twitter/#comment-6626072</link><description>Ciarán - I think perhaps you're confusing conversations with friendships?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Your quote from Danny Sullivan is also a red herring - of course a stranger interrupting a conversation between you and a friend is obtrusive - whether they have a commercial agenda or not.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;However, I'd like to be able to initiate a conversation with the waiter about my specialist dietary requirements and I'll also appreciate the value when they proactively engage me in conversation about today's specials. In fact I really feel like the Sea Bass now, when all I came in for was a salad...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:45:34 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Innovation and Networks of Influence</title><link>http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/02/innovation-networks-influence/#comment-6565057</link><description>Hey David&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Thanks for popping by. You can blame the link on me in the edit, rather than on Chris in the writing.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I wanted to link to something that represented the "normal discussions" about influence - and your blog post is pretty representative of that I think, and most importantly pretty easily read and understood by the layperson (which is why I didn't link to &lt;a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ratcliffe/?p=121" rel="nofollow"&gt;this article from May 2006&lt;/a&gt; for example, even though it basically says the same thing, or any one of countless others).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;It wasn't meant to mean anything more or less than that...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RobinGrant</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 05:55:36 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>