<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"> 
<channel>
<title>The Tom Peters Weblog: Marketing</title>
<link>http://www.tompeters.com/marketing</link>
<description>Dispatches from the New World of Work</description>

<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:creator>slides@tompeters.com</dc:creator>
<dc:rights>Copyright 2009 Tom Peters Company.</dc:rights>
<dc:date>2009-08-27T17:45:26-05:00</dc:date>
<admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.movabletype.org/?v=4.32-en" />
<admin:errorReportsTo rdf:resource="mailto:slides@tompeters.com"/>
<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
<sy:updateBase>2000-01-01T12:00+00:00</sy:updateBase>


<item>
<title>Social Media as Mass Marketing ... Not the Future</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/011217.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description><![CDATA["We're on Facebook."&mdash;Sign outside a nursery/garden center near my home In 1994 I had the opportunity to work on the...]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">11217@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>"We're on Facebook."</em>&mdash;Sign outside a nursery/garden center near my home</p>

<p>In 1994 I had the opportunity to work on the first hotel company website, when we pulled together 64 pages of brochure-ware for Hyatt Resorts. At that point, keyword advertising was years away and it would be another five years before <a href="http://www.sethgodin.com/permission/" title="Free offer" target="_blank"><em>Permission Marketing</em></a> would be published. As people started to think of what marketing would be like on the Internet, mass marketing was the paradigm they used, because that was what they knew.</p>

<p>Looking back 15 years later, our mid-90s view of Internet marketing seems primitive. My opinion: In the future, our current view of social media is going to look similarly primitive, and this time we'll get smart much more quickly. </p>

<p>Like early thoughts about Internet marketing, popular discussions of social media tend to use a mass marketing paradigm. "Wow, there are 250 million active <a href="http://www.facebook.com/" target="_blank">Facebook</a> users!" "<a href="http://twitter.com/" target="_blank">Twitter</a> grew 752&#37; in 2008. Incredible!" People talk about Facebook and Twitter user numbers with the awe that is usually reserved for late-January new stories about the power of Superbowl advertising.</p>

<p>More of my opinion: The big numbers won't be the big story in the future.</p>

<p>Already, the best uses of social media are not the mass uses. (Who cares if American Airlines has a Facebook fan page?) The best uses are the micro uses. Example: My 8th grade class, the 1973 graduating class of Lake Bluff Junior High School, has coalesced on Facebook and we're having a reunion. Now that's cool. I'll bet most of you have similar stories.</p>

<p>We don't know what social media's most effective marketing uses will be in the future. But if you want to get a hint of what it will be like, here's my suggestion: Don't think mass marketing.  Don't think of advertising-type metrics, such as reach, frequency, big numbers, and "cutting through the clutter." Think micro. Think relationships. Think of a customer saying, "What's in it for me?" not a marketer saying, "Cool, I have another marketing tool!" Think of customers talking with each other, not companies adding social media to their "marketing mix."</p>

<p>Executives feel a need to be "On Facebook and Twitter," as if being "On" these sites signifies that they are up to speed on the latest marketing tools. But being "On" these social media sites doesn't mean a thing. When your customers use social media to talk to each other about you ... now <em>that</em> means something.</p>

<p>[Read more by Steve at <a href="http://yastrow.com/" target="_blank">Yastrow.com</a>.]</p>
Posted by Steve Yastrow | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2009-08-27T17:45:26-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>In Your Next Sales Call, Don&apos;t Go For The Close</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/011213.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>Most successful sales conversations don&apos;t end by closing the sale. This may not be true for you if you&apos;re a...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">11213@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most successful sales conversations don't end by closing the sale.</p>

<p>This may not be true for you if you're a timeshare salesman, a clerk in a retail store, or an airline reservations agent. But for most everyone else it is true.</p>

<p>Examples:</p>

<p>&#8226; You are an independent graphic designer and you meet someone at a party ... the sales conversation is successful if the future customer enthusiastically remembers the conversation, and goes to your website to check it out when he returns home after the party.</p>

<p>&#8226; You sell large software projects and you have finally been invited to meet the CEO of a company you are trying to sell ... the sales conversation is successful if the CEO tells his team he really likes you and your offerings, and tells them to move forward with you.</p>

<p>&#8226; You are a CPA, and you have breakfast with a long-term client ... the sales conversation is successful if the client shares his fears about his own business, and gives you the name of a friend desperately in need of your services.</p>

<p>The common thread in each of these examples is that your relationship with the customer was better at the end of the sales conversation than it was at the beginning. Successful selling is usually not about going for the close. It's about advancing your relationship.</p>

<p>Try it today ... don't go for the close!</p>

<p>[Read more by Cool Friend Steve Yastrow at <a href="http://yastrow.com/" target="_blank">his website</a>.]</p>
Posted by Steve Yastrow | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2009-08-25T07:58:07-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>No Gender About It: Reaching the Values-Based Buyer</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010881.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>Why did campaigns like the American Express &quot;My Life. My Card.&quot; and the Kleenex &quot;Let It Out&quot; efforts so resonate...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10881@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why did campaigns like the American Express "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1zJk0Mx-n4" title="Watch it on YouTube" target="_blank">My Life. My Card.</a>" and the Kleenex "<a href="http://www.kleenex.com/Let-It-Out/Default.aspx" title="Read about it at Kleenex.com" target="_blank">Let It Out</a>" efforts so resonate with consumers? It may be the same reason that the recently launched Rockport "<a href="http://www.rockport.com/mattandrew/" title="See it on Rockport.com" target="_blank">Choose to Walk</a>" campaign (as critiqued by Stuart Elliott in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/business/media/02adnewsletter1.html?_r=1&8ad&emc=seiaa1" title="Read the article" target="_blank"><em>New York Times</em></a>) is likely to also be a success. Something in each of those efforts rings true, feels "like me," or otherwise touches the soul of the core customers for those brands&mdash;and that may well include you. </p>

<p>Each of those campaigns has dialed into the values of its market&mdash;those things beyond the given baseline expectations for fair price and high quality. Today's consumers are really looking through any superficial brandwash in search of recognition and appreciation for who they have chosen to be as people. It all boils down to social values.</p>

<p>Research cited in a recent GreenBiz.com <a href="http://www.greenbiz.com/feature/2009/03/02/how-get-green-goods-flying-off-shelves" title="Read it" target="_blank">article by Sarah Fister Gale</a> confirms that the new consumer is sticking to his/her beliefs and social values:<blockquote>The 2008 <a href="http://www.goodpurposecommunity.com/" title="See their website" target="_blank">Good Purpose</a> survey from public relations firm <a href="http://www.edelman.com/index_without_carbon_webinar_splash.asp" title="See their website" target="_blank">Edelman</a> overwhelmingly shows that buyers plan to remain loyal to products that they perceive to have strong social value.</p>

<p>According to survey results, 68 percent of consumers say that even in a recession they would remain faithful to a brand if it supports a good cause; nearly seven in 10 would be prepared to pay more for eco-friendly products.</blockquote></p>

<p>Now, here's the thing: a person's core beliefs or values are not gendered. He may buy Brand X because he loves its green approach, and she may buy Brand Y because it reflects her belief in community&mdash;or vice versa. Social values are being raised up; they are becoming more of a priority and something that <em>all</em> consumers are using as a filter in their very deliberate purchase processes.</p>

<p>In order to reach these people, marketers have to make sure their brands reflect what their customers really want from the values perspective. This is indeed a more challenging battle than traditional advertising, but brands don't have much choice in the matter. </p>

<p>Certainly, the women these companies have been serving have been nudging them toward this values-based exchange for years, but there seems to be that much more urgency now that <em>both</em> genders are more careful about how they spend their money in tighter times. </p>

<p>Traditionally considered to be peripheral and perhaps irrelevant, the topic of social values was avoided by many businesses&mdash;they stuck to the usual facts and figures rather than "dilute" their brand message with such nonsense. But, women and men both are now demanding more accountability on a broader spectrum of "attributes," and brands must identify and reflect their authentic values throughout to make an impression. If they do it well, consumers will&mdash;just as with the <a href="https://home.americanexpress.com/home/mt_personal.shtml?" title="See their website" target="_blank">American Express</a>, <a href="http://www.kleenex.com/NA/Default.aspx" title="See their website" target="_blank">Kleenex</a>, and <a href="http://www.rockport.com/home/index.jsp" title="See their website" target="_blank">Rockport</a> campaigns&mdash;see their own values within and respond.</p>

<p>[With this post, we are joined by <a href="http://www.tompeters.com/cool_friends/content.php?note=009496.php" title="See her Cool Friends interview" target="_blank">Cool Friend</a> Andrea Learned, who also blogs at her own website, <a href="http://learnedonwomen.com/" target="_blank">LearnedonWomen.com</a>. She has a Manifesto, "<a href="http://www.changethis.com/56.01.GenderTrap" target="_blank">Beware the Gender Trap</a>," at <a href="http://www.changethis.com/" target="_blank">ChangeThis</a>, too.]</p>
Posted by Andrea Learned | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2009-03-06T19:25:18-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>Sally H. vs. Steve Y.</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010848.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>Okay, let the game begin. This is where we&apos;ll be posting Sally and Steve&apos;s back and forth as the game...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10848@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, let the game begin. This is where we'll be posting Sally and Steve's back and forth as the game goes on. Let's see what happens.</p>

<p>sallyhogshead Okay, the gloves are off and I'm ready for "Super Bowl Smackdown" - live commentary with @steveyastrow at #tpsb43 and www.tompeters.com</p>

<p>sallyhogshead Quite the collection of advertising clichés in StateFarm spot: faux press conference, dream sequence, celebrity, mis-direct ending.</p>

<p>steveyastrow #tpsb43 This Audi chase ad may be exciting, but it is confusing, over done, and ... it includes car crashes! Car crashes in a car ad ...hmm</p>

<p>steveyastrow Hyundai is taking some risks by having multiple messages tonight - their Assurance program and the car of the year. </p>

<p>steveyastrow  Remember Max Headroom from the '80's? In the future attention spans would be so short that TV ads would be 1 second. Future = now</p>

<p>sallyhogshead @steveyastrow Steve: What's your take on a $3M media pricetag for :30 (or $100k / second) during a recession?</p>

<p>sallyhogshead Always surprises to see CMOs spend top media $ without top-shelf creative thinking behind it. This pre-game work is rather sub-par.</p>

<p>steveyastrow Yes, I can't even remember what ads I saw in the pre-game, and I'm trying to pay attention!</p>

<p>sallyhogshead On average, Superbowl parties have 17 people. Will Twitter lower that number, by giving people a virtual party?</p>

<p>steveyastrow Yes, the audience is 100 million people, but 97 million are dipping chips in guacamole right now.</p>

<p>sallyhogshead I don't care if the media is cheaper, it's still a waste to have lame ideas in the commercials.</p>

<p>sallyhogshead I don't care if the media is cheaper, it's still a waste to have lame ideas in the commercials.</p>

<p>steveyastrow Sally, my take on $3MM for 30 seconds in a recession: Customers are so scrutinizing right now, spending 3cents each on 100 million people is spreading yourself too thin.  They won't pay attention.</p>

<p>steveyastrow #tpsb43 This Audi chase ad may be exciting, but it is confusing, over done, and ... it includes car crashes! Car crashes in a car ad ...hmm</p>

<p>sallyhogshead Audi spot is great because it's so YouTube-friendly- you want to watch over n over. Highly crafted for Audi consumer tastes. #tpsb43</p>

<p>steveyastrow #tpsb43 Yes, if Iwatched the Audi ad 100 times on youtube, I might get it .... if.</p>

<p>sallyhogshead Hold on, deja vu, are we seeing two time-compression-technique spots almost back to back (Audi/Pepsi)? </p>

<p>steveyastrow #tpsb43 The Doritos ad was hilarious ... but will be the classic, "Who was that ad for?" conversation at the water cooler tomorrow. </p>

<p>sallyhogshead Recent study stated that a single Superbowl ad generates more sales than 250 regular commercials. I bet more.</p>

<p>steveyastrow #tpsb43 Sally, so why is reaching 100 million people at one time a good idea? Seems like a mile wide and an inch deep to me</p>

<p>steveyastrow #tpsb43 Sally ... but what are "regular commercials?"</p>

<p>steveyastrow #tpsb43 The bigger the audience, the more diluted, the more people watching who don't care about your message ... very few sales being made</p>

<p>sallyhogshead #tpsb43 Huge disagreement: SB is the ultimate shared experience in USA. Its power isn't the TV buy, but in the social currency afterwards.</p><p><a href="http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010848.php" title="Continue Reading: Sally H. vs. Steve Y.">Continued reading Sally H. vs. Steve Y....</a><p class="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size:11px; color: #333333; background-color: #f5f5f5; border: 1px solid #c0c0c0; padding-top: 2px; padding-right: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 4px; display: block;">
Posted by Erik Hansen | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2009-02-01T18:01:53-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>Super Bowl Show Down</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010847.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>We&apos;re going to be conducting an experiment at tompeters.com on Super Bowl Sunday. We&apos;ve asked our Cool Friends Sally Hogshead...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10847@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We're going to be conducting an experiment at tompeters.com on Super Bowl Sunday. We've asked our Cool Friends <a href="http://www.tompeters.com/cool_friends/content.php?note=008264.php">Sally Hogshead</a> and <a href="http://www.tompeters.com/cool_friends/content.php?note=010398.php">Steve Yastrow</a> to wage a back and forth discussion about the Super Bowl advertisements. It seems that Sally and Steve have different ideas about the relative merits of companies spending $3 million per thirty-second ad. Steve thinks it's a total waste of money; Sally thinks not. But their comments on the ads will take place at <a href="http://Twitter.com">Twitter.com</a>. Sally's Twitter address is <a href="http://twitter.com/sallyhogshead">twitter.com/sallyhogshead</a> and Steve's is <a href="http://twitter.com/steveyastrow">twitter.com/steveyastrow</a>. While it may be difficult to follow their replies to each other at Twitter itself, since all the other discussions (and there will be plenty) will be showing up as well. So to make their 'debate' more clear we'll be pulling their 'tweets' off Twitter and posting them as an ongoing blog post at tompeters.com. We'll be starting somewhere around 6 p.m. Eastern U.S. time tomorrow, Sunday, February 1. Hope you can drop by. </p>
Posted by Erik Hansen | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2009-01-31T13:11:20-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>This Is Not a Recession</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010803.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>Don&apos;t think of our current economic crisis as a recession. Instead, think of it as a recalibration. Everything is different...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10803@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don't think of our current economic crisis as a recession. Instead, think of it as a recalibration.</p>

<p>Everything is different now.</p>

<p>If you think of it as a recession, you may be tempted to "hunker down" and wait for the economy to cycle back.</p>

<p>If you think of it as a recalibration, you will be motivated to focus on what you have to do differently, since everything is different now.<blockquote>The way your business generates results is different, now.</p>

<p>Your customers think differently, now.</p>

<p>Your customers care about different things, now.</p>

<p>Your customers act differently, now.</p>

<p>Your customers may actually be different people, now.</p>

<p>Customers aren't disposable anymore; more than ever, you have to create sustainable customer relationships.</blockquote></p>

<p>Everything is different now.</p>

<p>I'm posting this on January 7, 2009.  One thing I'm convinced of is that the world I am working in today is different from any world I have ever done business in. The world has been reset. We can no longer look at the "LY" column on reports to use last year as a benchmark for what will happen this year.</p>

<p>(Please join me on January 9th for my free 2009 Readiness Teleseminar. <a href="http://www.teleclasscatalog.com/event_details.html?eventid=10845" target="_blank">You can register here</a>.  I'll address six questions that you <em>must</em> answer, to thrive in '09.  Please sign up, and if you can't make it live you'll receive an audio recording after the event.)</p>

<p><br />
[Visit Steve's website and share ideas at <a href="http://www.yastrow.com/" target="_blank">www.yastrow.com</a>. See his books at <a href="http://www.yastrow.com/products.html/" target="_blank">www.yastrow.com/products.html</a>.&mdash;CM]</p>
Posted by Steve Yastrow | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2009-01-07T12:57:06-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>True Loyalty in Tough Times</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010739.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>The first notice most of us got of the current economic crisis came from TV and newspapers. Now, as the...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10739@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The first notice most of us got of the current economic crisis came from TV and newspapers. Now, as the ripple effects of softening business move through the marketplace, just about everyone I talk to is seeing some sort of softening effect on their business. We are all vulnerable.</p>

<p>We can't afford to be sloppy right now, in anything we do. We can't waste resources. We can't let customers, in whose acquisition we have invested considerable sales and marketing resources, slip away, believing that new customers will show up to take their places.</p>

<p>In this economy, customer loyalty is one of the most important variables that will affect our success. It will be increasingly difficult to find new customers who can become big customers, so we have to get the most benefit out of what we already have. But ... we also can't afford to be sloppy with our concept of customer loyalty.</p>

<p>In so many cases, companies mistake promotional bribes for loyalty. But the kind of loyalty created by this type of approach is fleeting, and defenseless against a better offer from your competitor. (And you can bet that your competitors will be offering richer deals in the near future.) This type of loyalty, which I call transactional loyalty, can temporarily steer transactions in your direction, but keeps you very vulnerable in tough times.</p>

<p>The kind of loyalty you want to create in these times is what I call True Loyalty. When a customer is truly loyal, she is not loyal to your latest promotional offer, or to filling out her punch card to get her 10th smoothie for free. When True Loyalty happens, the customer is loyal to you. More specifically, she is loyal to her relationship with you.</p>

<p>This is a big difference. If a customer believes she is in a "We" relationship with you, her frame of reference is not the latest transaction, but the entire history of her relationship with you.</p>

<p>Soon, here at tompeters.com and at <a href="http://yastrow.com/" title="Go to Steve's website" target="_blank">yastrow.com</a>, I will share my thoughts on how to create True Loyalty. For now, what do you think? How do you avoid transactional loyalty, and create True Loyalty? Is True Loyalty a key to thriving in a tough economic climate?</p>
Posted by Steve Yastrow | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2008-11-25T09:26:34-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>A Bribe Is Not a Relationship</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010606.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>In the early &apos;90s the word &quot;interactive&quot; got hijacked to mean any kind of marketing on the Internet. (How ironic...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10606@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the early '90s the word "interactive" got hijacked to mean any kind of marketing on the Internet. (How ironic since shopping on the Internet was not very interactive in those days.) Long before that, the word "brand" got misrepresented as something companies do to their customers, when in reality it is something customers do to companies.</p>

<p>Now I want to rant about how the word "loyalty" has been kidnapped. Loyalty has been dislocated from its true meaning and is now used to describe programs and promotions, usually supported by sophisticated software, that encourage customers to buy from a company multiple times.</p>

<p>Hey, there's nothing wrong with multiple purchases, but return visits don't necessarily correlate with true, meaningful loyalty. This kind of tit-for-tat transactional loyalty can be fleeting. Purchase intent one week doesn't automatically lead to purchase intent the next week, if a competitor offers a better sale price or promotion. This is the kind of loyalty that can evaporate quickly when another company offers better incentives.</p>

<p>The sturdiest, most indelible loyalty is that which is built from a relationship, and not from bribery. When a customer's frame of reference is her long-standing, ongoing conversation with a company, and not the gamesmanship of which company is offering the best rewards this month, she will not be easily seduced by a slightly better offer.</p>

<p>Can you use points programs, punch cards and repeat purchase incentives in your efforts to create true loyalty? Sure, but only if these promotions happen in the context of relationship-building encounters with those customers. And, what's most interesting, if you can build true "We" relationships with customers, you may not need to invest as many of your resources in these programs. Your customers will have more powerful reasons to keep coming back.</p>

<p>So, what's happening in your company? Are you creating solid, relationship-based loyalty, or are you continually wooing your customers with the latest new and improved, bigger and bolder, see-if- our-competitors-can-top-this promotion?</p>

<p>(Related question: Are loyalty promotions becoming a commodity?)</p>
Posted by Steve Yastrow | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2008-09-16T09:34:51-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>The Goal of a Sales Call</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010553.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>What is the goal of a sales call? Close the sale? Receive approval for your proposal? Secure a meeting with...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10553@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is the goal of a sales call?<br />
Close the sale?<br />
Receive approval for your proposal?<br />
Secure a meeting with the CEO?</p>

<p>Yes. These are all possible goals of sales meetings. But there is another goal that transcends all of these. The goal of every sales meeting&mdash;yes, <em>every</em> sales meeting&mdash;is to create a relationship-building encounter.</p>

<p>This is not what always happens in practice. Sales training has taught us the value of a solid, sequential sales process, where we have learned how each step in that process leads to the next step: The purpose of a cold call is to get a meeting, the purpose of the first meeting is to get a second meeting, and the purpose of the second meeting is to be invited to make a proposal, etc. Of course, these are natural steps in the sales process. But what happens frequently is that sales people are so focused on getting to the next step that they miss the chance to have a great encounter during the meeting they are in at the moment. (It's also very obvious to a customer if a salesperson is more focused on what they can "get" from this meeting than on having a good meeting at this time. They can <em>see</em> the salesperson thinking ahead.)</p>

<p>What great salespeople know is that the sequential sales process is subservient to the current meeting. They know that the best way to get to the next step in the process is to create a relationship-building encounter in the present. (I’ve got a free ebook, <em>Encounters</em>, available by subscription at my website, <a href="http://www.yastrow.com/" target="_blank">www.yastrow.com</a> if you want to learn more about creating relationship-building encounters.)</p>

<p>When you focus on "now," the future will come of its own accord.</p>
Posted by Steve Yastrow | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2008-08-07T12:51:23-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>Stop Telling Stories</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010535.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>What does it feel like to be engaged in genuine dialogue? I have asked this question in many workshops and...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10535@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What does it feel like to be engaged in genuine dialogue?</p>

<p>I have asked this question in many workshops and speeches lately. Audience members have given very rich answers. "It's like a flow." "It's learning from each other." "What I say depends on what the other person says."</p>

<p>In his 1930 essay, "Dialogue," <a href="http://buber.de/en/" title="See Buber's homepage" target="_blank">Martin Buber</a> distinguished between genuine dialogue and "monologue disguised as dialogue," which he as "characterized ... solely by the desire to have one's own self-reliance confirmed by marking the impression that is made."</p><p><a href="http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010535.php" title="Continue Reading: Stop Telling Stories">Continued reading Stop Telling Stories...</a><p class="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size:11px; color: #333333; background-color: #f5f5f5; border: 1px solid #c0c0c0; padding-top: 2px; padding-right: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 4px; display: block;">
Posted by Steve Yastrow | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2008-07-28T07:54:06-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>Steve Yastrow Rules!</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010505.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Steve posted recently on dealing positively with the recession by doing better by your existing customers&mdash;and thus getting more of...]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10505@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve <a href="http://www.tompeters.com/entries.php?note=010491.php" title="Read Steve's blog entry" target="_blank">posted recently</a> on dealing positively with the recession by doing better by your existing customers&mdash;and thus getting more of their business. Well, here's some nice support for Steve's view (and a useful quote). <a href="http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/Speaker.cfm?SpeakerID=3201" title="Read about him at WSB.com" target="_blank">Horst Schulze</a> is the legendary former <a href="http://www.ritzcarlton.com/en/Default.htm" title="See their website" target="_blank">Ritz-Carlton</a> chief&mdash;father of "ladies and gentlemen serving ladies and gentlemen." He's come out of retirement to launch a luxury brand of small hotels. Here in Macau, I came across an interview with Horst in <em>Prestige</em> magazine (06.08). He directly addressed, with aplomb, the issue of starting a new business during a recession: "I [will] not accept the explanation of a recession negatively affecting the [new] business. There are still people traveling. We just have to get them to stay in our hotel."</p>

<p>More or less took the words out of Steve Yastrow's mouth. (And words with which I agree heartily.)</p>
Posted by Tom Peters | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2008-07-02T08:20:58-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>The Downturn Is a Rounding Error</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010491.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>The U.S. economy is in bad shape. If, by chance, you haven&apos;t heard about this yet, just turn on cable...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10491@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. economy is in bad shape. If, by chance, you haven't heard about this yet, just turn on cable TV news for 30 seconds.</p>

<p>What does this mean to your business? It could be terrible, but it doesn't have to be. </p>

<p>How can I say that?</p>

<p>For the last few months, I have been asking workshop audiences the following questions:</p>

<p>1. What percent of your customers are giving you all the business they reasonably could?</p>

<p>2. What percent of your referral sources are giving you all the referrals they reasonably could?</p>

<p>The answers to these questions have stunned me, because they have been so low. I knew they would be quite a bit lower than 100&#37;, but I've found that most executives estimate that only somewhere between 0 and 25&#37; of customers are giving them all the business they could. The numbers are even lower for referral sources.</p>

<p>So, let's say that the economic downturn has softened the market for your products or services by 10&mdash;20&#37;. Yes, that's a lot. But it pales in comparison to the 75&#37; of the business you are missing if your current customers are only giving you 25&#37; of their potential business.</p>

<p>Here's the cold, hard (but potential-laden) truth: For most companies, the untapped latent profit in their existing customer relationships is much greater than the magnitude of our current economic problems. </p>

<p>The downturn is real. But so is the amount of business you are missing from your current customer relationships. How do you develop this potential with your existing customers?</p>

<p>Customers who believe they are in <a href="http://my.linkbaton.com/get?genre=book&item=1590791215&for=tompeters" title="Buy the book by the same name" target="_blank">"We"</a> relationships with you will give you a larger share of their business. They are willing to pay more, and they are less likely to leave you for a competitor. On the other hand, customers who are in "Us &#38; Them" relationships with you are more likely to spread the business around among your competitors, and will also be more likely to bolt to the competition for a lower price. If you create "We" relationships with your customers, one relationship-building encounter at a time, you will go a long way towards making up for&mdash;and maybe even surpassing&mdash;the effects of the soft economy.</p>
Posted by Steve Yastrow | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2008-06-25T08:55:33-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>Yes, You Are in Sales!</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010385.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>No matter your job title, no matter your function within an organization, no matter your skills, you must also be...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10385@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No matter your job title, no matter your function within an organization, no matter your skills, you must also be a salesperson. Tom gives as an example a successful Hollywood producer who taught himself sales to pave his own path to big success. He continues on to say that if you want to get <em>anything</em> done [and implementaion is paramount to Tom], then you <em>are</em> in sales. Watch the video (3 minutes, 17 seconds) to hear the whole story from Tom himself.</p>

<p><object width="320" height="240">	<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" />	<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" />	<param name="movie" value="http://www.vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1119308&amp;server=www.vimeo.com&amp;show_title=1&amp;show_byline=0&amp;show_portrait=0&amp;color=B30000&amp;fullscreen=1" />	<embed src="http://www.vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1119308&amp;server=www.vimeo.com&amp;show_title=1&amp;show_byline=0&amp;show_portrait=0&amp;color=B30000&amp;fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="320" height="240"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://www.vimeo.com/1119308?pg=embed&sec=1119308">Tom Peters on Yes, You Are in Sales!</a> from <a href="http://www.vimeo.com/user491660?pg=embed&sec=1119308">Tom Peters</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com?pg=embed&sec=1119308">Vimeo</a>.</p>

<p>[If you'd like a transcript of Tom's message, you can <a href="http://www.tompeters.com/blogs/freestuff/uploads/Yes_YouAreInSales060408.pdf" title="Download the PDF" target="_blank">download a PDF</a> here.]</p>
Posted by Shelley Dolley | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2008-06-04T14:20:13-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>Connected Without Banners</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010275.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>Got an email through the website pointing me to this blog at ideasonideas.com that attacked an ad agency exec for...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10275@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Got an email through the website pointing me to this <a href="http://www.ideasonideas.com/2008/03/inversion_of_advertising/">blog at ideasonideas.com</a> that attacked an ad agency exec for being clueless about banner ads. I had to admit that if not clicking on banner ads makes one clueless, then I must be counted among the clueless as well. </p>

<p>But, before my sentencing ...</p>

<p>I do an insane amount of shopping on the Web (I'd bet I go online 30-50 times a day if I'm not speechifying), so does my wife, for any damn thing-category you can name, from clothes to food to books-DVDs-song downloads to trips to used stoves, etc, etc. Moreover, her home furnishings company does 50&#37; of its sales on the Web, and the share is growing. For me, tompeters.com, ad-free incidentally (I'll explain if you'd like), has become my best marketing tool ever, ever, ever. </p>

<p>But neither my wife nor I is a banner-ad user, and I admit to harboring suspicions that Google is over-priced. I am at work on a Japanese garden at home (or will be when the weather allows, a jillion Vermont days from now). Among other things, I-we want a little bridge over a wee stream, the sort I saw a picture of somewhere, Web, mag, whatever. Now what? Susan's and my "now what" is 100&#37; Web, but 0&#37; banner ad. And, indeed, God bless Google. I simply typed in the search box "build or buy little bridge to traverse narrow stream," or some such. As I recall I had 87,000 choices, a surprise, but no surprise, given the # of words I used. Obviously, most were useless-unrelated. But after 15 minutes, and digging waaaaaaaaaaaay down beneath the top 10 or 20 (I always look for stuff deep down just to see what's there), I had a nice starter list of perhaps 20 leads; better yet, my mind, re possibilities, had been stretched beyond recognition. Now to me (old, 65) and my wife (none of your business), that was truly wondrous&mdash;100&#37; use of the Web, circa 2008. But not banner ads.</p>
Posted by Tom Peters | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2008-03-07T10:23:38-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>Snide Advertising</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010269.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>An article in the February 18th AdAge.com newsletter, titled &quot;Snide Advertising is Bad for Business and Society,&quot; decries the trend...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10269@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An article in the February 18th <a href="http://adage.com/" title="Go to their home page" target="_blank">AdAge.com</a> newsletter, titled <a href="http://adage.com/cmostrategy/article?article_id=125053" title="Read the article" target="_blank">"Snide Advertising is Bad for Business and Society,"</a> decries the trend toward "sarcastic" and "malicious" advertising.</p>

<p>With examples such as the <a href="http://www.fedex.com/us/about/unitedstates/advertising/" title="See the advertising section of their website" target="_blank">FedEx</a> "Dean, I need you to continue not living up to your r&eacute;sum&eacute;" ad, which you might have seen, author Richard Rapaport shows how pervasive this trend is. "Take the culture's most facile minds, challenge them to pry cash from an increasingly tapped-out audience, and what do you get?" Rapaport asks. "Commercials built on sadism, on derision, on one-upsmanship&mdash;in a word, 'snide.'"</p>

<p>Rapaport is right. This trend is bad for business. So why does it happen?</p>

<p>First of all, let's not credit ad agency creatives with being "the culture's most facile minds." The advertising that major agencies practice is still based on the flawed notion that "brute force" wins the hearts, minds, and wallets of consumers. Snide is used because agency creatives (and their complicit clients) mistakenly believe that their goal is to "cut through the clutter." No, the goal is to create ads that blend with all other contacts the customer has with the company doing the advertising, in order to create a connection that encourages the customer to be more involved with that company and its products.</p>

<p>If these minds were so facile, they wouldn't miss, so completely, the point of what they are doing. Or, in a more cynical vein, we could say they know what they are doing, but are more interested in creating clever advertising than in helping their clients' businesses.</p>

<p>Advertising is a sick business. And it isn't just for the oft-mentioned reason that "consumers are using so many more media outlets&mdash;the Internet, hundreds of TV stations, thousands of publications."</p>

<p>It is because people just don't buy this way anymore. Customers&mdash;your customers&mdash;are scrutinizing, savvy, discerning, and self-reliant. They look beyond your promises, and consider every interaction with your company as a chance to evaluate you.</p>

<p>Snide advertising isn't only snide. It is anachronistic.</p>
Posted by Steve Yastrow | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2008-02-26T12:20:44-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>Super Bowl Rant</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010244.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>Late January always brings, along with the cold weather, news stories about Super Bowl advertising. We hear how Super Bowl...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10244@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Late January always brings, along with the cold weather, news stories about <a href="http://www.nfl.com/superbowl" title="For those who don't know what the Super Bowl is" target="_blank">Super Bowl</a> advertising. We hear how Super Bowl advertising is a "no-brainer" because of the audience size, and how advertisers will benefit from "all the buzz." </p>

<p>I disagree with just about all of this news. In this post I will answer the seven most common reasons people think Super Bowl advertising is a great marketing opportunity:</p>

<p>* It's the only time you can reach so many people at one time.<br />
* A Super Bowl advertiser gets extra value because people are interested in being entertained by the commercials.<br />
* But it worked for (insert company name here).<br />
* They must know what they are doing if they are spending so much money.<br />
* You have to be there if your competitors are.<br />
* It's ok if you're a big enough brand and can afford it.<br />
* It burnishes a company's image, and can even increase a stock price.</p>

<p>If you've purchase a 30-second spot for this year's game, prepare to be upset with me.</p><p><a href="http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010244.php" title="Continue Reading: Super Bowl Rant">Continued reading Super Bowl Rant...</a><p class="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size:11px; color: #333333; background-color: #f5f5f5; border: 1px solid #c0c0c0; padding-top: 2px; padding-right: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 4px; display: block;">
Posted by Steve Yastrow | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2008-02-01T10:13:53-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>The Future Is Now</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010176.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>It is 1973. You are at Disneyworld. You enter Tomorrowland, and after a whirl on Space Mountain you decide to...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10176@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is <strong>1973</strong>. You are at Disneyworld. You enter Tomorrowland, and after a whirl on Space Mountain you decide to check out the new exhibit on the future of marketing. You hear ...</p>

<p>"By the early 21st century companies won't need to deal directly with customers anymore. Robotic computers, called CRMs, will handle all customer relationships. And, in fact, two companies will be able to create relationships with each other without any human contact, as their computers court each other to build a lasting friendship."</p>

<p>In 1973, delegating customer relationships to computers would have seemed ludicrous. 1973 was also the year Woody Allen introduced us to the "Orgasmatron" in his movie <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070707/" title="Read about the movie on IMDB.com" target="_blank"><em>Sleeper</em></a>. The idea that computers would some day substitute for human interaction was the stuff of satire.</p>

<p>But ...</p><p><a href="http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010176.php" title="Continue Reading: The Future Is Now">Continued reading The Future Is Now...</a><p class="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size:11px; color: #333333; background-color: #f5f5f5; border: 1px solid #c0c0c0; padding-top: 2px; padding-right: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 4px; display: block;">
Posted by Steve Yastrow | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2008-01-03T10:22:00-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>Transaction vs. Relationship</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010130.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>I&apos;ve been a Hilton customer and a Hilton Honors member for years. You wouldn&apos;t have known it when I checked...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10130@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I've been a Hilton customer and a <a href="http://hhonors.hilton.com/en/hhonors/index.jhtml" title="Read about the Hilton Honors program" target="_blank">Hilton Honors</a> member for years. You wouldn't have known it when I checked into <a href="http://www1.hilton.com/en_US/hi/hotel/CHIPHHH-The-Palmer-House-Hilton-Illinois/index.do" title="See the hotel on Hilton.com" target="_blank">Chicago's Palmer House Hilton</a> last week.</p>

<p>As I left home in the north suburbs for day one of a two-day conference, I threw a change of clothes into the car. A late-afternoon snowstorm was forecast, and I wanted the option to opt out of a hellish commute home. At about 4:30 p.m., I exercised that option and booked the Palmer House on <a href="http://www.hotwire.com/" title="Visit their website" target="_blank">Hotwire.com</a> for &#36;93. That's a really low price for a great hotel. Unfortunately, they felt the need to remind me what a low price I paid.</p><p><a href="http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010130.php" title="Continue Reading: Transaction vs. Relationship">Continued reading Transaction vs. Relationship...</a><p class="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size:11px; color: #333333; background-color: #f5f5f5; border: 1px solid #c0c0c0; padding-top: 2px; padding-right: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 4px; display: block;">
Posted by Steve Yastrow | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2007-12-18T11:17:44-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>Marketing Power!</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010107.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>Years ago I did some work with the Ford division of the Ford Motor Company. I distinctly remember division boss...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10107@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Years ago I did some work with the Ford division of the Ford Motor Company. I distinctly remember division boss Ross Roberts saying [booming] to me, "Whoever said marketing programs were not powerful is nuts. We have brilliantly trained a generation of consumers not to come into the dealership unless we offer &#36;3,000 off." Likewise, I heard on "Marketplace" this morning that one reason seasonal spending is lower than expected is that consumers won't shop until stores offer <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/ready-deal-shoppers-wait-holiday/story.aspx?guid=%7B8DD3EF1D-744A-45E9-8383-CD19851C7BCB%7D" title="Read about seasonal shopping at marketwatch.com" target="_blank">deep discounts</a>&mdash;which they increasingly do, long before 12.26.<br />
 <br />
Something about reaping what ye sow, eh?<br />
</p>
Posted by Tom Peters | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2007-12-04T13:27:17-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>What Is a Customer Relationship? (Part Two)</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010062.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Recently we have had some very good discussion about customer relationships&mdash;thank you for the comments. Last Friday I offered part...]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10062@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Recently we have had some very good discussion about customer relationships&mdash;thank you for the comments. Last Friday I offered part one of a two-part definition of a customer relationship:<br />
<em><br />
A relationship is an ongoing conversation with a customer ...</em></p>

<p>Here's the rest of the suggested definition:<br />
<em><br />
A relationship is an ongoing conversation with a customer, in which the customer never thinks of you without thinking of the two of you.</em></p>

<p>Comments?</p>
Posted by Steve Yastrow | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2007-11-06T22:33:00-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>What is a customer relationship?</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010052.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>We&apos;ve had a great conversation here over the last few days about customer relationships. What is a customer relationship? I...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10052@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We've had a great conversation <a href="http://www.tompeters.com/entries.php?note=010048.php">here</a> over the last few days about customer relationships.</p>

<p>What is a customer relationship? I will suggest a two-part definition, but I would like to offer it one part at a time. Here's the first part:</p>

<p><em>A customer relationship is an ongoing conversation with your customer ...<br />
</em><br />
Comments?</p>
Posted by Steve Yastrow | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2007-11-02T06:24:49-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>Relationships: A Competitive Advantage</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010048.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>I was eating lunch with an executive of a hotel company, in a restaurant located at one of his company&apos;s...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10048@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was eating lunch with an executive of a hotel company, in a restaurant located at one of his company's hotels. He was talking about competitive threats, describing how companies in his category are constantly copying each other's innovations. I said, "If I were your competitor, I could walk into this hotel and easily copy your physical product. I could study your service standards, and copy them too. What I could not copy are the personal relationships you have with your customers. Those relationships would be impenetrable to me."</p>

<p>In an age of interchangeable products and easily duplicated services, customer relationships have become one of the most powerful competitive advantages available to a business. Do you agree?</p><p><a href="http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010048.php" title="Continue Reading: Relationships: A Competitive Advantage">Continued reading Relationships: A Competitive Advantage...</a><p class="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size:11px; color: #333333; background-color: #f5f5f5; border: 1px solid #c0c0c0; padding-top: 2px; padding-right: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 4px; display: block;">
Posted by Steve Yastrow | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2007-10-30T17:31:24-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>Who Woulda Thunk I:For Shame On Waterman and Peters!</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/009996.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>Bob and Tom are idiots! Neither of them, in 1982 in In Search of Excellence, predicted that in October 2007...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">9996@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bob and Tom are idiots! Neither of them, in 1982 in <em>In Search of Excellence</em>, predicted that in October 2007 there would be a <em>Vanity Fair</em> ad for <a href="http://www.louisvuitton.com/" target="_blank">Louis Vuitton</a> featuring <a href="http://www.mikhailgorbachev.org/" target="_blank">Mikhail Gorbachev</a> sitting in the back of a limo with his Vuitton bag at his side.</p>
Posted by Tom Peters | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2007-10-05T08:55:01-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<item>
<title>Who Woulda Thunk II:Built to ... Last?</title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010000.php?rss=1]]></link>
<description>Headline, Wall Street Journal, 3 October 2007: &quot;Wal*Mart Era Wanes Amid Big Shifts In Retail: Rivals Find Strategies To Defeat...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10000@http://www.tompeters.com/</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Headline, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119135657404946747.html" target="_blank"><em>Wall Street Journal</em></a>, 3 October 2007: "Wal*Mart Era Wanes Amid Big Shifts In Retail: Rivals Find Strategies To Defeat Low Prices; World Has Changed"</p>

<p>Sentence #1: "The Wal*Mart Era, the retailer's time of overwhelming business and social influence in America, is drawing to a close."</p>

<p>(You know my biases ... I'm not surprised. "Lasting" is a chimera.)</p>
Posted by Tom Peters | 
</p>]]></content:encoded>
<dc:date>2007-10-05T08:50:33-05:00</dc:date>
</item>


</channel>
</rss>

