<?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: VCs and social media</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sethlevine.com/wp/2009/09/vcs-and-social-media/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sethlevine.com/wp/2009/09/vcs-and-social-media</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:52:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: sethlevine</title>
		<link>http://www.sethlevine.com/wp/2009/09/vcs-and-social-media/comment-page-1#comment-19236</link>
		<dc:creator>sethlevine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:34:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://new.sethlevine.com/wp/2009/09/vcs-and-social-media#comment-19236</guid>
		<description>Itâs  certainly been interesting to watch. I think one of the key challenges is that  the platforms are enablers but not necessarily able to fully reach their monetization  potential on their own (for example, other companies are making far more money  on Facebook than Facebook actually isâ¦). Iâm not sure what continues to drive  the ânext big thingâ movement in social media. The notion that users get locked  in because of the power of the network works to some extent (certainly in  giving a first move in a specific genre of social media a distinct advantage)  but just when you think somethingâs got staying power thereâsÂ  a new form  factor that comes along (Friendster-&gt;myspace-&gt;facebook for example).  Continues to be very interesting to watch.&lt;br /&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Itâs  certainly been interesting to watch. I think one of the key challenges is that  the platforms are enablers but not necessarily able to fully reach their monetization  potential on their own (for example, other companies are making far more money  on Facebook than Facebook actually isâ¦). Iâm not sure what continues to drive  the ânext big thingâ movement in social media. The notion that users get locked  in because of the power of the network works to some extent (certainly in  giving a first move in a specific genre of social media a distinct advantage)  but just when you think somethingâs got staying power thereâsÂ  a new form  factor that comes along (Friendster->myspace->facebook for example).  Continues to be very interesting to watch.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike F</title>
		<link>http://www.sethlevine.com/wp/2009/09/vcs-and-social-media/comment-page-1#comment-19235</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike F</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:05:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://new.sethlevine.com/wp/2009/09/vcs-and-social-media#comment-19235</guid>
		<description>Hey Seth, what do you think about social networking media in general?  It seems to me that they are all going to be one hit wonders when you think of platform.  For example, MySpace was great, then FaceBook and now Twitter.  They seem to only work when everyone uses the same platform, and when the masses switch, then the last one dies.  Again, example, MySpace.  It seems fickle.  How do you choose a good platform with staying power?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Seth, what do you think about social networking media in general?  It seems to me that they are all going to be one hit wonders when you think of platform.  For example, MySpace was great, then FaceBook and now Twitter.  They seem to only work when everyone uses the same platform, and when the masses switch, then the last one dies.  Again, example, MySpace.  It seems fickle.  How do you choose a good platform with staying power?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

