<?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:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: UK search marketing agencies vs UK PR firms (updated)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://escherman.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/uk-search-marketing-agencies-vs-uk-pr-firms/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://escherman.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/uk-search-marketing-agencies-vs-uk-pr-firms/</link>
	<description>Andrew Bruce Smith of escherman on technology PR. And George Orwell. Mostly.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:25:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: adam</title>
		<link>http://escherman.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/uk-search-marketing-agencies-vs-uk-pr-firms/#comment-687</link>
		<dc:creator>adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:24:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://escherman.wordpress.com/?p=465#comment-687</guid>
		<description>I wrote a small article about SEO becoming online PR recently. I work in both areas and more and more people are talking in terms of social media and online PR as opposed to SEO.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ukpragencies.com/seo-becoming-online-pr&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SEO Becoming Online PR&lt;/a&gt;

Adam</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wrote a small article about SEO becoming online PR recently. I work in both areas and more and more people are talking in terms of social media and online PR as opposed to SEO.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ukpragencies.com/seo-becoming-online-pr" rel="nofollow">SEO Becoming Online PR</a></p>
<p>Adam</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tech firms global marketing spend: events (22pc - $3.3bn); digital (12pc - $1.8bn); PR (5pc - $750m): IDC &#171; In Front Of Your Nose</title>
		<link>http://escherman.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/uk-search-marketing-agencies-vs-uk-pr-firms/#comment-655</link>
		<dc:creator>Tech firms global marketing spend: events (22pc - $3.3bn); digital (12pc - $1.8bn); PR (5pc - $750m): IDC &#171; In Front Of Your Nose</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:24:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://escherman.wordpress.com/?p=465#comment-655</guid>
		<description>[...] Even so, digital is clearly making significant gains, now taking 12pc of budget (or $1.8bn). Even so, the breakdown of digital spend is again insightful. Again, generally accepted wisdom suggests that SEO is one of key elements of any digital marketing approach, but tech firms seem to be continuing to place their faith in display ads, PPC and e-mail, with only 7pc of digital marketing spend going on SEO. Bizarrely, it seems the tech sector is lagging FMCG businesses in terms of SEO investment (certainly judging by the client lists of the top search marketing firms in the UK). [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Even so, digital is clearly making significant gains, now taking 12pc of budget (or $1.8bn). Even so, the breakdown of digital spend is again insightful. Again, generally accepted wisdom suggests that SEO is one of key elements of any digital marketing approach, but tech firms seem to be continuing to place their faith in display ads, PPC and e-mail, with only 7pc of digital marketing spend going on SEO. Bizarrely, it seems the tech sector is lagging FMCG businesses in terms of SEO investment (certainly judging by the client lists of the top search marketing firms in the UK). [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Bruce Smith</title>
		<link>http://escherman.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/uk-search-marketing-agencies-vs-uk-pr-firms/#comment-589</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Bruce Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:46:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://escherman.wordpress.com/?p=465#comment-589</guid>
		<description>Nick - as per updated post above, apologies again for getting the wrong figures there - thanks for pointing out the error - and for the additional clarification on staffing figures.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nick &#8211; as per updated post above, apologies again for getting the wrong figures there &#8211; thanks for pointing out the error &#8211; and for the additional clarification on staffing figures.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Clarke</title>
		<link>http://escherman.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/uk-search-marketing-agencies-vs-uk-pr-firms/#comment-588</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Clarke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:19:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://escherman.wordpress.com/?p=465#comment-588</guid>
		<description>Hi,

Really interesting piece. Thanks for the post. Although just wondering where you got the figure of 80% for Profero&#039;s business coming from natural search? This is not the case. The correct figure is 5%, as per the NMA table. Also, 75 staff is total UK staff and not Profero Performance, which is our search arm.

For the next table we&#039;ll submit just the Performance team, to clarify this.

Interesting read, though.

Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>Really interesting piece. Thanks for the post. Although just wondering where you got the figure of 80% for Profero&#8217;s business coming from natural search? This is not the case. The correct figure is 5%, as per the NMA table. Also, 75 staff is total UK staff and not Profero Performance, which is our search arm.</p>
<p>For the next table we&#8217;ll submit just the Performance team, to clarify this.</p>
<p>Interesting read, though.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
