<?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:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Are the 4 P&#8217;s still relevant in today&#8217;s world?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.emergencemarketing.com/2007/10/05/are-the-4-ps-still-relevant-in-todays-world/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.emergencemarketing.com/2007/10/05/are-the-4-ps-still-relevant-in-todays-world/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on marketing, innovation, social networking, new products and the impact of technology on all those thingies</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:00:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Julian</title>
		<link>http://www.emergencemarketing.com/2007/10/05/are-the-4-ps-still-relevant-in-todays-world/comment-page-1/#comment-672</link>
		<dc:creator>Julian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:33:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergencemarketing.com/?p=958#comment-672</guid>
		<description>Interesting thoughts Francois -- do you have a link to that piece on insurance and 80%?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting thoughts Francois &#8212; do you have a link to that piece on insurance and 80%?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luca Taddei</title>
		<link>http://www.emergencemarketing.com/2007/10/05/are-the-4-ps-still-relevant-in-todays-world/comment-page-1/#comment-671</link>
		<dc:creator>Luca Taddei</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:54:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergencemarketing.com/?p=958#comment-671</guid>
		<description>The 4P&#039;s can remain fundamental, but for sure we have to give to the 4P&#039;s new meanings, more complete meanings. And the 4C&#039;s are also useful. I think that we have to integrate the 4P&#039;s and the 4C&#039;s, continuing to look around us to see changes and to understand these changes.

L.T.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 4P&#8217;s can remain fundamental, but for sure we have to give to the 4P&#8217;s new meanings, more complete meanings. And the 4C&#8217;s are also useful. I think that we have to integrate the 4P&#8217;s and the 4C&#8217;s, continuing to look around us to see changes and to understand these changes.</p>
<p>L.T.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Francois Gossieaux</title>
		<link>http://www.emergencemarketing.com/2007/10/05/are-the-4-ps-still-relevant-in-todays-world/comment-page-1/#comment-670</link>
		<dc:creator>Francois Gossieaux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:24:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergencemarketing.com/?p=958#comment-670</guid>
		<description>I guess we could broaden the definition of the P&#039;s so that they still make sense, but by themselves they no longer make sense.

In the old days &quot;Place&quot; was important - nowadays it is a matter of being available when people need you - so being &quot;findable&quot; is the key, and that is clearly not &quot;place,&quot; nor &quot;promotion.&quot;

In the old days pricing was important for an individual item (i.e., &quot;product&quot;). What is more important these days is the lifetime value of a customer, and in some cases that may mean giving stuff away for free to gain more revenue streams later...but &quot;Pricing&quot; for a &quot;Product&quot; can lead to very short-sighted decisions.

The point I am trying to make is that if you apply the 4 P&#039;s to develop your marketing plan, chances are very high that your product will join the 80% of new products that fail...

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess we could broaden the definition of the P&#8217;s so that they still make sense, but by themselves they no longer make sense.</p>
<p>In the old days &#8220;Place&#8221; was important &#8211; nowadays it is a matter of being available when people need you &#8211; so being &#8220;findable&#8221; is the key, and that is clearly not &#8220;place,&#8221; nor &#8220;promotion.&#8221;</p>
<p>In the old days pricing was important for an individual item (i.e., &#8220;product&#8221;). What is more important these days is the lifetime value of a customer, and in some cases that may mean giving stuff away for free to gain more revenue streams later&#8230;but &#8220;Pricing&#8221; for a &#8220;Product&#8221; can lead to very short-sighted decisions.</p>
<p>The point I am trying to make is that if you apply the 4 P&#8217;s to develop your marketing plan, chances are very high that your product will join the 80% of new products that fail&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Toby</title>
		<link>http://www.emergencemarketing.com/2007/10/05/are-the-4-ps-still-relevant-in-todays-world/comment-page-1/#comment-669</link>
		<dc:creator>Toby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:30:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergencemarketing.com/?p=958#comment-669</guid>
		<description>Francois - I agree with David on all accounts .. a rose by any other name and so on. The 5th P - People is a critical concept and for me is the umbrella P that synergizes all of the elements. I&#039;ve seen models where &#039;social media Ps&#039; e.g., peer-to-peer, participation, personalization were included. My vote is not to make P soup out of this but keep it simple with one more P - People. Wonder why that People P (now that does sound bad) was not included in the original model.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Francois &#8211; I agree with David on all accounts .. a rose by any other name and so on. The 5th P &#8211; People is a critical concept and for me is the umbrella P that synergizes all of the elements. I&#8217;ve seen models where &#8216;social media Ps&#8217; e.g., peer-to-peer, participation, personalization were included. My vote is not to make P soup out of this but keep it simple with one more P &#8211; People. Wonder why that People P (now that does sound bad) was not included in the original model.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Blanar</title>
		<link>http://www.emergencemarketing.com/2007/10/05/are-the-4-ps-still-relevant-in-todays-world/comment-page-1/#comment-668</link>
		<dc:creator>David Blanar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Oct 2007 05:39:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergencemarketing.com/?p=958#comment-668</guid>
		<description>The 4 Ps are fundamental; you can call them different names, repackage them as you see fit, but ultimately we will always need to consider the core constructs behind these four dimensions.

I&#039;ve read about countless &quot;Fifth Ps&quot; but the one I think has most relevance is: People.

People, after all, form the bonds and channels between the other four distinctions and should factor into any successful marketing plan.

ps. Francois, I&#039;m sure I don&#039;t need to remind you there&#039;s no such thing as free. :-)
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 4 Ps are fundamental; you can call them different names, repackage them as you see fit, but ultimately we will always need to consider the core constructs behind these four dimensions.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve read about countless &#8220;Fifth Ps&#8221; but the one I think has most relevance is: People.</p>
<p>People, after all, form the bonds and channels between the other four distinctions and should factor into any successful marketing plan.</p>
<p>ps. Francois, I&#8217;m sure I don&#8217;t need to remind you there&#8217;s no such thing as free. <img src='http://www.emergencemarketing.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

