<?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/3192555</link>
		<description>Comments by arikhanson</description>
<item>
<title>http://www.prdaily.com/ : Does the smiley face have a place in the PR workplace? | Articles</title>
<link>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/10161.aspx#IDComment229501685</link>
<description>Too often, we take way too much fun out of the workplace. This is a way we can inject some fun (albeit small) back into that. After all, you spend upwards of 160 hours a month at work--does all of that time have to be so stuffy? ;) </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:15:53 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/10161.aspx#IDComment229501685</guid>
</item><item>
<title>http://www.prdaily.com/ : Does the smiley face have a place in the PR workplace? | Articles</title>
<link>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/10161.aspx#IDComment229500602</link>
<description>So again, it depends on the receiver. Clearly, people in your office should not use them with you. But, that doesn&amp;#039;t mean others can&amp;#039;t use them, right? Personally, I&amp;#039;m not offended, so people use them with me freely. I just don&amp;#039;t think it&amp;#039;s a black-and-white issue. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:14:07 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/10161.aspx#IDComment229500602</guid>
</item><item>
<title>http://www.prdaily.com/ : Does the smiley face have a place in the PR workplace? | Articles</title>
<link>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/10161.aspx#IDComment229499725</link>
<description>I think it depends on the receiver of the message. If you know they&amp;#039;re open to it (and actually like it), why wouldn&amp;#039;t that be appropriate in an office setting? </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:12:44 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/10161.aspx#IDComment229499725</guid>
</item><item>
<title>http://www.prdaily.com/ : The skills employers desire in today&rsquo;s PR pro: Agency owners and recruiters weigh in | Article</title>
<link>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/10077.aspx#IDComment223666073</link>
<description>Tried to incorporate a few corporate folks, but they were tougher to run down. These folks responded quickly--so, I put them in the post.  </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 02:20:38 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/10077.aspx#IDComment223666073</guid>
</item><item>
<title>http://www.prdaily.com/ : We need your ideas for our PR Daily Awards | Articles</title>
<link>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/9848.aspx#IDComment211836706</link>
<description>Ideas:  * Best use of a non-core social media platform (IG, StumbleUpon, etc)  * Best PR blogs (probably already been mentioned)  * Best PR productivity tool  * Best PR events of the year  * Best management of a &amp;quot;crisis&amp;quot; online by a brand  Just a few. I&amp;#039;ll keep thinking.  </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:40:58 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/9848.aspx#IDComment211836706</guid>
</item><item>
<title>http://www.prdaily.com/ : Why companies should stop blocking social media | Articles</title>
<link>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/9024.aspx#IDComment178134625</link>
<description>Thanks, Rob. The Ragan folks typically add a photo to each post they pick up from my blog--I actually didn&amp;#039;t use your cartoon in my original post. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:21:14 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/9024.aspx#IDComment178134625</guid>
</item><item>
<title>http://www.prdaily.com/ : Why companies should stop blocking social media | Articles</title>
<link>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/9024.aspx#IDComment178134448</link>
<description>Update: Friend and fellow blogger Jeffrey Cohen of Social Media B2B uncovered more recent data--the number has gone down. 31 percent of companies are cited as now blocking social media sites. &lt;a href=&quot;http://bit.ly/oV3orz&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://bit.ly/oV3orz&lt;/a&gt; </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:20:19 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/9024.aspx#IDComment178134448</guid>
</item><item>
<title>http://www.prdaily.com/ : Why companies should stop blocking social media | Articles</title>
<link>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/9024.aspx#IDComment177827190</link>
<description>Other than my own, no. Does that mean I can&amp;#039;t have an opinion on the topic? </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:41:01 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/9024.aspx#IDComment177827190</guid>
</item><item>
<title>http://www.prdaily.com/ : PR hiring trend: Employers want media producers | Articles</title>
<link>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/8944.aspx#IDComment175629482</link>
<description>Check the #happo stream? ;) I think it&amp;#039;s a burgeoning trend. Companies are just starting to realize the content demands on them. Most are relying on agency partners for that content now--I&amp;#039;d start there. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:24:26 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/8944.aspx#IDComment175629482</guid>
</item><item>
<title>http://www.prdaily.com/ : PR hiring trend: Employers want media producers | Articles</title>
<link>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/8944.aspx#IDComment175629262</link>
<description>Fair enough. And, for the record, I&amp;#039;m not saying the iPhone (and like mobile devices) are the *only* device you&amp;#039;ll need to be familiar with. I did say that video standards have &amp;quot;softened&amp;quot;--not gone completely by the wayside. I do think video quality is important. Just not as important as it may have been 5-7 years ago.  </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:23:29 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/8944.aspx#IDComment175629262</guid>
</item><item>
<title>http://www.prdaily.com/ : PR hiring trend: Employers want media producers | Articles</title>
<link>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/8944.aspx#IDComment175628729</link>
<description>Does it have to be an either/or situation? I think it&amp;#039;s really both. In this post, I was just pointing out how PRs are going to be asked to be multi-media storytellers in the months/years ahead, as opposed to just text storytellers now (in some cases). Of course there&amp;#039;s a strategic component. I&amp;#039;m just saying I&amp;#039;ve been noticing this trend among firms/employers that are hiring. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:21:44 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/8944.aspx#IDComment175628729</guid>
</item><item>
<title>http://www.ragan.com : What&rsquo;s in your email signature line? | Articles</title>
<link>http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/43090.aspx#IDComment160688739</link>
<description>Agree on both counts. Company name is a definite. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 8 Jun 2011 17:37:01 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/43090.aspx#IDComment160688739</guid>
</item><item>
<title>http://www.ragan.com : What&rsquo;s in your email signature line? | Articles</title>
<link>http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/43090.aspx#IDComment160688660</link>
<description>Wasn&amp;#039;t that the topic of a separate post on PR Daily? Personally, I really don&amp;#039;t like the &amp;quot;Best&amp;quot; salutation. I don&amp;#039;t even use one. Straight email signature. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 8 Jun 2011 17:36:38 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/43090.aspx#IDComment160688660</guid>
</item><item>
<title>http://www.ragan.com : What&rsquo;s in your email signature line? | Articles</title>
<link>http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/43090.aspx#IDComment160688427</link>
<description>Sure, but not everyone uses Outlook. And I&amp;#039;m not always uploading contacts. Sometimes, I just want one specific piece of info. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 8 Jun 2011 17:35:34 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/43090.aspx#IDComment160688427</guid>
</item><item>
<title>http://www.ragan.com : What&rsquo;s in your email signature line? | Articles</title>
<link>http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/43090.aspx#IDComment160688261</link>
<description>Pet peeve #2 ;) </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 8 Jun 2011 17:34:45 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/43090.aspx#IDComment160688261</guid>
</item><item>
<title>http://www.ragan.com : What&rsquo;s in your email signature line? | Articles</title>
<link>http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/43090.aspx#IDComment160688068</link>
<description>Exactly why I would include email. And, I completely forgot the physical address--that&amp;#039;s a must.  </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 8 Jun 2011 17:33:49 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/43090.aspx#IDComment160688068</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>