<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Community Guy - Latest Comments in BzzAgents and Ethics</title><link>http://communityguy.disqus.com/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:36:12 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: BzzAgents and Ethics</title><link>http://www.communityguy.com/397/bzzagents-and-ethics/#comment-1464723</link><description>I feel less censorious of BzzAgent. They seem to be quite transparent in the way they operate. If you look at their blog their critics are in full voice.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I think this is one way in which they are hosting a conversation.&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;It's easy to condemn something for not being new, but a lot of useful innovation is incremental; Kuhnian shifts are not ten a penny.&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I question the idea that the presence of BzzAgent's CEO on the WOMMA board means its should be distrusted.  I think our trust in it should be based on what is says, does, and stands up for - rather than relying on guesses about the motivations of its participants.&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;My hunch about BzzAgent is that most of its agents will create buzz for stuff they actually like, and not for stuff they don't.  There may be a few nutters involved but on the whole I'd prefer marketing dollars to go into methods relying on the quality of the product more than the sizzle of the admen.&lt;br&gt;		&lt;br&gt;			&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;			&lt;br&gt;		&lt;br&gt;		&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Johnnie Moore</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:36:12 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>