<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thinking &#8216;me&#8217; not &#8216;we&#8217; motivates Americans</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.futurity.org/top-stories/thinking-me-not-we-motivates-americans/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.futurity.org/top-stories/thinking-me-not-we-motivates-americans/</link>
	<description>Research news from leading universities</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 03:14:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Brooks</title>
		<link>http://www.futurity.org/top-stories/thinking-me-not-we-motivates-americans/comment-page-1/#comment-564802</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Brooks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:44:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futurity.org/?p=285502#comment-564802</guid>
		<description>Applying the above to our business we saw some of the same, but there was a tipping point where interdependence became fueled by independent choices . We are a payments technology company and the first product we brought to market was a merchant marketing program that combined buy local, fundraising, give back, gift card...essentially allowing merchants non-profits and shoppers to help each other succeed. We reasoned that participants having individual choices would personalize and drive the program. But the overall linking of businesses (interdependent) under a common program , which gives the program greater value, was initially an issue because stores wanted their own program and did not want money earned from shopping at their store to be able to be spent at another. Of course the opposite was true as well. It was only once we had many stores in the program...even greater value from interdependence....that all groups lost resistance to a multiple store coalition and used their independent choices to actually increase the size and scope of the program</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Applying the above to our business we saw some of the same, but there was a tipping point where interdependence became fueled by independent choices . We are a payments technology company and the first product we brought to market was a merchant marketing program that combined buy local, fundraising, give back, gift card&#8230;essentially allowing merchants non-profits and shoppers to help each other succeed. We reasoned that participants having individual choices would personalize and drive the program. But the overall linking of businesses (interdependent) under a common program , which gives the program greater value, was initially an issue because stores wanted their own program and did not want money earned from shopping at their store to be able to be spent at another. Of course the opposite was true as well. It was only once we had many stores in the program&#8230;even greater value from interdependence&#8230;.that all groups lost resistance to a multiple store coalition and used their independent choices to actually increase the size and scope of the program</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
