<?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: Selling your soul</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/07/20/selling-your-soul/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/07/20/selling-your-soul/</link>
	<description>by Jeff Jarvis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:40:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: BuzzMachine &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Wanna buy an ad on my nose?</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/07/20/selling-your-soul/#comment-86146</link>
		<dc:creator>BuzzMachine &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Wanna buy an ad on my nose?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:41:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/wp/?p=103#comment-86146</guid>
		<description>[...] Hearst&#8217;s Shop Etc. magazine is turning its cover into an ad. That&#8217;s a line crossed, but many others have been tickling that line for sometime now. The New York Times is putting ads on the front of its business section and not ruling out ads on its cover. Sometime ago, I noted that AM New York was turning its front page into an ad, using the distribution power they&#8217;d built to make more money &#8212; which it could do because it is free and didn&#8217;t need to use the front page to sell copies. Hearst is likewise sending its adcover to subscribers who&#8217;ve already bought the thing. These are desperate moves by publishers dying to eke out more bucks and they are victories for advertisers who always want to get closer to the publishers&#8217; brands. But, of course, the more that advertisers take over those brands, the less those brands stand for. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Hearst&#8217;s Shop Etc. magazine is turning its cover into an ad. That&#8217;s a line crossed, but many others have been tickling that line for sometime now. The New York Times is putting ads on the front of its business section and not ruling out ads on its cover. Sometime ago, I noted that AM New York was turning its front page into an ad, using the distribution power they&#8217;d built to make more money &#8212; which it could do because it is free and didn&#8217;t need to use the front page to sell copies. Hearst is likewise sending its adcover to subscribers who&#8217;ve already bought the thing. These are desperate moves by publishers dying to eke out more bucks and they are victories for advertisers who always want to get closer to the publishers&#8217; brands. But, of course, the more that advertisers take over those brands, the less those brands stand for. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

