<?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:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mags Behaving Badly? B2.0 &amp; Wired</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.psfk.com/2005/11/mags_behaving_b.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.psfk.com/2005/11/mags_behaving_b.html</link>
	<description>Ideas &#38; Trends</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:14:19 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris Anderson</title>
		<link>http://www.psfk.com/2005/11/mags_behaving_b.html/comment-page-1#comment-3216</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Anderson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-3216</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Piers,&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I&#039;m confused. Magazines review products all the time that are also advertised in their pages. What&#039;s important is that one is not influenced by the other--that&#039;s why we have &quot;Chinese walls&quot; to ensure that ad team doesn&#039;t know what the edit will be and vice versa. Part of not knowing is that you can&#039;t predict ahead of time when you will in fact have the two in the same issue, as was the case this time. But in such cases we try to avoid any perception of conflict by ensuring that the ad is placed as far from the story as possible to emphacize that the two are unlinked. This is standard practice, and done according to ASME guidelines. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Ads that have their own edit-looking copy are clearly marked &quot;Advertisement&quot; or &quot;Promotion&quot;, as was the case here (I just checked). &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Chris&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Piers,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m confused. Magazines review products all the time that are also advertised in their pages. What&#8217;s important is that one is not influenced by the other&#8211;that&#8217;s why we have &#8220;Chinese walls&#8221; to ensure that ad team doesn&#8217;t know what the edit will be and vice versa. Part of not knowing is that you can&#8217;t predict ahead of time when you will in fact have the two in the same issue, as was the case this time. But in such cases we try to avoid any perception of conflict by ensuring that the ad is placed as far from the story as possible to emphacize that the two are unlinked. This is standard practice, and done according to ASME guidelines. </p>
<p>Ads that have their own edit-looking copy are clearly marked &#8220;Advertisement&#8221; or &#8220;Promotion&#8221;, as was the case here (I just checked). </p>
<p>Chris</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Piers Fawkes</title>
		<link>http://www.psfk.com/2005/11/mags_behaving_b.html/comment-page-1#comment-3217</link>
		<dc:creator>Piers Fawkes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-3217</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks Chris. We appreciate your input. We were just interested and hopefully didn;t sound too accusing - we do flick through some mags and think it&#039;s amazing what they get away with. We only talked about Wired because we care. P&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Chris. We appreciate your input. We were just interested and hopefully didn;t sound too accusing &#8211; we do flick through some mags and think it&#8217;s amazing what they get away with. We only talked about Wired because we care. P</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
