<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>Boxes and Arrows: Comments by C Archambault</title>
    <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/person/12440</link>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:38:19 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by C Archambault</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I have been thinking the same thing.  We build applications for internal use, and I find that &lt;span class="caps"&gt;NO ONE&lt;/span&gt; in IT is thinking about marketing, but we must to ensure adoption and success.  In areas where we&amp;#8217;ve heavily engaged users in product design and testing, adoption and success is ensured.  But the word doesn&amp;#8217;t spread to everyone.  Combined with a fear of change, where there are pockets of users who aren&amp;#8217;t touched by the design/testing process, the product initally fails and we have to do a lot of positive-press and one-on-one marketing.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/idea/view/14252#content_14256</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/idea/view/14252#content_14256</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:38:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>C Archambault</author>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;This is so relevant right now.  We often debate this internally.  My gut tells me that &amp;#8220;it depends.&amp;#8221;  The nature of the relationship with the brand as a whole is something to consider.  If the product is a something different, it could confuse the brand to tie it too closely with the parent.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/idea/view/13818#content_14257</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/idea/view/13818#content_14257</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:42:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>C Archambault</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
