<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in Kottke joins The Deck ad network</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2006 00:05:58 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Kottke joins The Deck ad network</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/04/17/kottke-joins-the-deck-ad-network/#comment-1293532</link><description>Thanks for the comment, Markus, but I'm not sure I agree.  I think advertisers are looking for something like a "targeted" buy, something more focused on a particular market than Google can give them -- and on sites or people that are seen as influencers within that market.  But hey, I could be wrong :-)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mathew</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2006 00:05:58 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Kottke joins The Deck ad network</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/04/17/kottke-joins-the-deck-ad-network/#comment-1293531</link><description>sounds like a gimmick to lure in stupid marketers.  Trying to con markets into believing stuff like "cost per influence" just won't fly in a world dominated by Cost per action.   The internet has allowed marketers to be able to track  ROI on every advertising dollar spent.    I can't see people buying into the brand marketing arguement, if there are cheaper places to spend more money  that have a greater effect</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Markus</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2006 23:48:51 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>