<?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: Fleishman Hillard joins the in-house monitoring trend</title>
	<atom:link href="http://reputationonline.co.uk/2009/11/23/fleishman-hillard-joins-the-in-house-monitoring-trend/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://reputationonline.co.uk/2009/11/23/fleishman-hillard-joins-the-in-house-monitoring-trend/</link>
	<description>Reputationonline.co.uk weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:38:12 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris Lee</title>
		<link>http://reputationonline.co.uk/2009/11/23/fleishman-hillard-joins-the-in-house-monitoring-trend/comment-page-1/#comment-301</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:59:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reputationonline.co.uk/?p=1861#comment-301</guid>
		<description>We&#039;ve just seen the Edelman crew unveil its &#039;TweetLevel&#039; tool - is this going to become de facto big PR agency practice, now? Does everyone have to have their own analytics tool to demonstrate how very social they are? If so, I think that&#039;s an issue: Companies may be able show that they can monitor and measure online reputation, but can they come up with the ideas to successfully engage when those figures their tool find aren&#039;t quite as positive as the client would like?

Very interesting development, though. How many more will provide this in the next six months?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;ve just seen the Edelman crew unveil its &#8216;TweetLevel&#8217; tool &#8211; is this going to become de facto big PR agency practice, now? Does everyone have to have their own analytics tool to demonstrate how very social they are? If so, I think that&#8217;s an issue: Companies may be able show that they can monitor and measure online reputation, but can they come up with the ideas to successfully engage when those figures their tool find aren&#8217;t quite as positive as the client would like?</p>
<p>Very interesting development, though. How many more will provide this in the next six months?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vikkichowney'</title>
		<link>http://reputationonline.co.uk/2009/11/23/fleishman-hillard-joins-the-in-house-monitoring-trend/comment-page-1/#comment-300</link>
		<dc:creator>vikkichowney'</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:51:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reputationonline.co.uk/?p=1861#comment-300</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think it&#039;s the announcement that&#039;s interesting though (hence why I&#039;m talking about it a few weeks after the launch). I think it&#039;s the interest in this space. Valid or not, this is something many big agencies are now investing in.

The partnership isn&#039;t exclusive either (not in the news I read anyway...)

Of course it&#039;s important to them, it&#039;s about putting their name in the hat, which brings me back to my first point :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s the announcement that&#8217;s interesting though (hence why I&#8217;m talking about it a few weeks after the launch). I think it&#8217;s the interest in this space. Valid or not, this is something many big agencies are now investing in.</p>
<p>The partnership isn&#8217;t exclusive either (not in the news I read anyway&#8230;)</p>
<p>Of course it&#8217;s important to them, it&#8217;s about putting their name in the hat, which brings me back to my first point <img src='http://reputationonline.co.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Will McInnes</title>
		<link>http://reputationonline.co.uk/2009/11/23/fleishman-hillard-joins-the-in-house-monitoring-trend/comment-page-1/#comment-299</link>
		<dc:creator>Will McInnes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:37:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reputationonline.co.uk/?p=1861#comment-299</guid>
		<description>In my opinion this kind of move - for a big agency to make an announcement around a partnership with a monitoring partner - is marginally better than no move at all, but I&#039;m not sure how much it really means.

Surely the primary question is: why bet on a particular horse when this market place of online monitoring is so rapidly changing, so technologically challenging and so immature? Why do that when you can establish strong, mutually beneficially relationships with one or more partners without committing exclusively?

Having been on the other side of conversations like these, with very established agency businesses, I&#039;ve ended up wondering &#039;why does an announcement mean so much to these guys?&#039;. In the end, I&#039;ve decided that perhaps it&#039;s because the majority of their interest is making an announcement to create a certain perception in the market rather than the meat of what the announcement is really about.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In my opinion this kind of move &#8211; for a big agency to make an announcement around a partnership with a monitoring partner &#8211; is marginally better than no move at all, but I&#8217;m not sure how much it really means.</p>
<p>Surely the primary question is: why bet on a particular horse when this market place of online monitoring is so rapidly changing, so technologically challenging and so immature? Why do that when you can establish strong, mutually beneficially relationships with one or more partners without committing exclusively?</p>
<p>Having been on the other side of conversations like these, with very established agency businesses, I&#8217;ve ended up wondering &#8216;why does an announcement mean so much to these guys?&#8217;. In the end, I&#8217;ve decided that perhaps it&#8217;s because the majority of their interest is making an announcement to create a certain perception in the market rather than the meat of what the announcement is really about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tweets that mention ReputationOnline » Blog Archive » Fleishman Hillard joins the in-house monitoring trend -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://reputationonline.co.uk/2009/11/23/fleishman-hillard-joins-the-in-house-monitoring-trend/comment-page-1/#comment-298</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention ReputationOnline » Blog Archive » Fleishman Hillard joins the in-house monitoring trend -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:42:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reputationonline.co.uk/?p=1861#comment-298</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vikki Chowney, Reputation Online. Reputation Online said: New post: Fleishman Hillard joins the in-house monitoring trend http://bit.ly/6un5PL [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vikki Chowney, Reputation Online. Reputation Online said: New post: Fleishman Hillard joins the in-house monitoring trend <a href="http://bit.ly/6un5PL" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/6un5PL</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
