<?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: Comparison Shopping Engine Traffic up 56%</title>
	<atom:link href="http://onlinesaleschannels.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/comparison-shopping-engine-traffic-up-56/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://onlinesaleschannels.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/comparison-shopping-engine-traffic-up-56/</link>
	<description>SEO, PPC, CSE, Viral, Social Marketing and Other Various Acronyms</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:32:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: surgesilk</title>
		<link>http://onlinesaleschannels.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/comparison-shopping-engine-traffic-up-56/#comment-777</link>
		<dc:creator>surgesilk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:39:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlinesaleschannels.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/comparison-shopping-engine-traffic-up-56/#comment-777</guid>
		<description>Out of control is obviously subjective. CSE&#039;s act in an arbitrage fashion. For some merchants, this channel is quite profitable. Additionally, it serves to both brand yourself and to acquire customers. The 40% number you reference? Can you provide documentation? 
A flat fee seems to fly in the face of your arguement since low traffic terms would actually cost more that high traffic terms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Out of control is obviously subjective. CSE&#8217;s act in an arbitrage fashion. For some merchants, this channel is quite profitable. Additionally, it serves to both brand yourself and to acquire customers. The 40% number you reference? Can you provide documentation?<br />
A flat fee seems to fly in the face of your arguement since low traffic terms would actually cost more that high traffic terms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://onlinesaleschannels.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/comparison-shopping-engine-traffic-up-56/#comment-707</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:23:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlinesaleschannels.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/comparison-shopping-engine-traffic-up-56/#comment-707</guid>
		<description>Comparison shopping engines maybe gaining more traffic, but at what cost? The CPC rates on the shopping engines and search engines are out of control, how does anyone other the Google, Yahoo and a few more companies make any money? An 40% of online merchants will spend more on marketing then they will gain back from sales, and a good portion of those merchants will close shop before the residual sales will kick in. That is why we at PriceLeap.com introduced a flat fee marketing program, stop by and take a look.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Comparison shopping engines maybe gaining more traffic, but at what cost? The CPC rates on the shopping engines and search engines are out of control, how does anyone other the Google, Yahoo and a few more companies make any money? An 40% of online merchants will spend more on marketing then they will gain back from sales, and a good portion of those merchants will close shop before the residual sales will kick in. That is why we at PriceLeap.com introduced a flat fee marketing program, stop by and take a look.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
