<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Great Coverage, Ominous Picture</title>
	<link>http://blog.rightmedia.com/2007/05/16/great-coverage-ominous-picture/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:28:03 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Andy</title>
		<link>http://blog.rightmedia.com/2007/05/16/great-coverage-ominous-picture/#comment-176204</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2007 19:40:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.rightmedia.com/2007/05/16/great-coverage-ominous-picture/#comment-176204</guid>
					<description>Mike - You've mentioned in the past (iMedia, 9/6/06) that if exchanges gain traction that there will be more networks, but fewer huge dominant networks.  Why would this be the case?  Even with exchanges adding efficiencies to specific buys, won't scale still matter in terms of adding value for advertisers from better targeting across the publishing universe?  Andy</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike - You&#8217;ve mentioned in the past (iMedia, 9/6/06) that if exchanges gain traction that there will be more networks, but fewer huge dominant networks.  Why would this be the case?  Even with exchanges adding efficiencies to specific buys, won&#8217;t scale still matter in terms of adding value for advertisers from better targeting across the publishing universe?  Andy
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
