<?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: CR, culture and corporate strategy &#8211; joining the dots</title>
	<atom:link href="http://crmatters.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/cr-culture-and-corporate-strategy-joining-the-dots/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://crmatters.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/cr-culture-and-corporate-strategy-joining-the-dots/</link>
	<description>musings on strategy, brand and engagement with a CR bent</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:40:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dan Gray</title>
		<link>http://crmatters.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/cr-culture-and-corporate-strategy-joining-the-dots/#comment-171</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Gray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:22:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crmatters.wordpress.com/?p=436#comment-171</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the comment, Jim. I’d say that M&amp;S’ focus on costs is more about meeting threshold levels of performance and that their core value discipline is (or at least should be) product leadership. Historically, M&amp;S’ reputation was always built on product quality. Indeed, I’d argue that the downturn in their fortunes, particularly under Richard Greenbury’s tenure as CEO, came as a direct result of losing sight of that focus.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the comment, Jim. I’d say that M&amp;S’ focus on costs is more about meeting threshold levels of performance and that their core value discipline is (or at least should be) product leadership. Historically, M&amp;S’ reputation was always built on product quality. Indeed, I’d argue that the downturn in their fortunes, particularly under Richard Greenbury’s tenure as CEO, came as a direct result of losing sight of that focus.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JimC</title>
		<link>http://crmatters.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/cr-culture-and-corporate-strategy-joining-the-dots/#comment-169</link>
		<dc:creator>JimC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:55:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crmatters.wordpress.com/?p=436#comment-169</guid>
		<description>Interesting, I can see the link. How would you classify companies like M&amp;S in this? Superficially at least they are attempting to appeal to the high- street shopper&#039;s sense of doing right by the world with &quot;Plan A&quot;, but they seem to have embedded it deeper into their strategy. A quick look would put them at CR3 or 4 on your scale. At the same time they also seem to be cost focussed and have more POS showing what they are doing than anyone with the possible exception of Tesco.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting, I can see the link. How would you classify companies like M&amp;S in this? Superficially at least they are attempting to appeal to the high- street shopper&#8217;s sense of doing right by the world with &#8220;Plan A&#8221;, but they seem to have embedded it deeper into their strategy. A quick look would put them at CR3 or 4 on your scale. At the same time they also seem to be cost focussed and have more POS showing what they are doing than anyone with the possible exception of Tesco.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
