<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/604643</link>
		<description>Comments by IanSchafer</description>
<item>
<title>Hard Knox Life : A Case of Why Brands Need to &quot;Be Awesome&quot; More Often</title>
<link>http://www.hardknoxlife.com/2009/07/11/a-case-of-why-brands-need-to-be-awesome-more-often/#IDComment27149379</link>
<description>Being &amp;quot;awesome&amp;quot; every once in a while earns you goodwill -- deposits in the emotional bank account -- that can be drawn against when needed (i.e. when you break a guitar). Little things like this define who you are as a brand. For example, who would you define as a better person -- one that donates to a charity in one large lump sum once a year, or one who gives a little bit *very* often? Of course, that&amp;#039;s subjective, but so are humans. When companies behave (well, or poorly), humans subjectively analyze their behavior and draw conclusions. Being awesome, or doing awesome things once in a while, will contribute to the conclusion that you&amp;#039;d *like* your consumers to draw. </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:47:53 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.hardknoxlife.com/2009/07/11/a-case-of-why-brands-need-to-be-awesome-more-often/#IDComment27149379</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>