<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.fastcompany.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title></title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/member_recent_content/170657</link>
 <description>Member recent activity block for member profile page</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Comment on Node  ant</title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-7073</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;I meant to say that for &quot;most things, [a .17% click-through rate] leads to dismal overall results.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:25:57 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Jim  McCarthy</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1306365 at http://www.fastcompany.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Comment on Node  ant</title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-7072</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The other problem with this line of thinking (which I&#039;ve heard perennially since the late 90&#039;s) is that even a 70% increase on today&#039;s click through rates are poor.  70% sounds big until you realize that this is an industry that has approximately .1% CTR.  .17% isn&#039;t that much better, and for more things, it leads to dismal overall results.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:24:19 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Jim  McCarthy</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1306363 at http://www.fastcompany.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
