<?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: The elephant in the room: Can agencies be a part Agency 2.0?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.opengardensblog.futuretext.com/archives/2009/03/the_elephant_in.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.opengardensblog.futuretext.com/archives/2009/03/the_elephant_in.html</link>
	<description>Wireless mobility - Innovation - Digital convergence - mobile web 2.0</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:47:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.opengardensblog.futuretext.com/archives/2009/03/the_elephant_in.html/comment-page-1#comment-1779</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:12:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dev5.indigocontenthost.co.uk/archives/2009/03/the_elephant_in.html#comment-1779</guid>
		<description>Thanks Jonathan. Maybe I expected something more like &#039;O Reilly Web 2.0&#039; document when I saw a title like &#039;Agency 2.0&#039; but its still useful none the less. I think there is however a need to look at the broader  - more disruptive questions I have raised. I see the same thinking over and over again - and as I said, today its mostly the norm. Lets hope someone else takes this discussion up elsewhere and builds up on it. kind rgds Ajit
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Jonathan. Maybe I expected something more like &#8216;O Reilly Web 2.0&#8242; document when I saw a title like &#8216;Agency 2.0&#8242; but its still useful none the less. I think there is however a need to look at the broader  &#8211; more disruptive questions I have raised. I see the same thinking over and over again &#8211; and as I said, today its mostly the norm. Lets hope someone else takes this discussion up elsewhere and builds up on it. kind rgds Ajit</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jMac</title>
		<link>http://www.opengardensblog.futuretext.com/archives/2009/03/the_elephant_in.html/comment-page-1#comment-1778</link>
		<dc:creator>jMac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:51:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dev5.indigocontenthost.co.uk/archives/2009/03/the_elephant_in.html#comment-1778</guid>
		<description>I agree with your points.
The presentation is not intending to discuss whether agencies are valid as an entity but instead intends to show ways in which progression could be apparent in instances where clients wish to maintain a relationship and an agency has the will to transform.
Whether or not either variable is likely is not the subject of that particular presentation although a valid conversation nonetheless.
We should be careful not to confuse points of view with constructive suggestion. Either way round.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with your points.<br />
The presentation is not intending to discuss whether agencies are valid as an entity but instead intends to show ways in which progression could be apparent in instances where clients wish to maintain a relationship and an agency has the will to transform.<br />
Whether or not either variable is likely is not the subject of that particular presentation although a valid conversation nonetheless.<br />
We should be careful not to confuse points of view with constructive suggestion. Either way round.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->
