<?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:go='http://ns.gigaom.com/'
xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Are New Video Networks In Trouble?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2008/10/27/are-new-video-networks-in-trouble/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/27/are-new-video-networks-in-trouble/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:38:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reilly</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/27/are-new-video-networks-in-trouble/#comment-151002</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Reilly]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:09:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=26788#comment-151002</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mark,

I think what you&#039;ve wrote is spot on. If we define the various &quot;webs&quot; through the lens of the business structure, web 1.0 was all about innovation, web 2.0 was all about innovation + small costs/team, hopefully web 3.0 can finally take all of those and be about making money.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark,</p>
<p>I think what you&#8217;ve wrote is spot on. If we define the various &#8220;webs&#8221; through the lens of the business structure, web 1.0 was all about innovation, web 2.0 was all about innovation + small costs/team, hopefully web 3.0 can finally take all of those and be about making money.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Evans</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/27/are-new-video-networks-in-trouble/#comment-151001</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Evans]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 06:06:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=26788#comment-151001</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The silver lining in this whole thing might be to focus innovation on new business models, ones that actually work. More interesting, it may come from those who&#039;ve been layed off.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The silver lining in this whole thing might be to focus innovation on new business models, ones that actually work. More interesting, it may come from those who&#8217;ve been layed off.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ted Shelton</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/27/are-new-video-networks-in-trouble/#comment-151000</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ted Shelton]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 03:45:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=26788#comment-151000</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It seems to me that Revision 3 is doing the sensible thing that a long list of tech companies are doing and it shouldn&#039;t really be newsworthy at this point that any one company is doing it -- re-evaluating projects based on changed market conditions.

As the Sequoia slides so succinctly explained, sometimes you go for market share and sometimes you go for capital preservation. Revision 3 is doing the smart thing and reacting to the current reality -- we have rapidly moved from a market share game to a capital preservation game in the high tech startup world.  Kent is entirely wrong -- it is not about saying Rev3 &quot;can&#039;t make it&quot; but is instead about saying Rev3 is playing the game according to the new rules.

Look at it this way -- Real GDP is going to fall in 2009 and ad spend as a percentage of GDP is going to fall - this double whammy is going to knock a huge hole in US advertising spending -- including new media spending on things like Rev3. Two choices if you are a new media company, diversify away from ad spend or shrink to conserve cash and see if you can weather the bad 12-18 months we have coming.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that Revision 3 is doing the sensible thing that a long list of tech companies are doing and it shouldn&#8217;t really be newsworthy at this point that any one company is doing it &#8212; re-evaluating projects based on changed market conditions.</p>
<p>As the Sequoia slides so succinctly explained, sometimes you go for market share and sometimes you go for capital preservation. Revision 3 is doing the smart thing and reacting to the current reality &#8212; we have rapidly moved from a market share game to a capital preservation game in the high tech startup world.  Kent is entirely wrong &#8212; it is not about saying Rev3 &#8220;can&#8217;t make it&#8221; but is instead about saying Rev3 is playing the game according to the new rules.</p>
<p>Look at it this way &#8212; Real GDP is going to fall in 2009 and ad spend as a percentage of GDP is going to fall &#8211; this double whammy is going to knock a huge hole in US advertising spending &#8212; including new media spending on things like Rev3. Two choices if you are a new media company, diversify away from ad spend or shrink to conserve cash and see if you can weather the bad 12-18 months we have coming.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

