Like countless others, I’ve been glued to my TV for the past few days absorbing all of the Olympics action, from the opening ceremonies to the drama of the women’s snowboard cross final. At first it was fun watching the Twitterverse provide funny side commentary via the #Olympics hashtag (even I’m guilty of posting a few tweets during the opening ceremonies, hoping that the Canadian band Rush would perform along with their laser show).

However, the opening ceremonies were the last thing I watched “live.” Because I’m at work while many of the events are happening, I’ve made a habit of recording all Olympics coverage on my DVR, then camping out on my couch for a few hours each evening before bed to catch up on the day’s happenings. In addition to skipping commercials, I’ll skim through the less-exciting parts of events such as the biathlon (will skip most of the cross-country skiing sections, but will watch the shooting!).

But, for me, watching the Olympics has been somewhat bittersweet. No matter how much effort I make to avoid finding out any results in advance, I somehow keep getting spoilers, mainly because a good part of my workday is spent interacting online. It seems like just as I tune out one information spigot, another one leaks:

• Twitter/Facebook: The usual suspects. It goes beyond just monitoring the #olympics hashtag.
• News: I frequently access CNN and ESPN during the day to stay on top of the news, but when I see a headline on the homepage that says “Miller takes bronze in downhill,” it’s a bit of a buzzkill for the evening.
• Mobile: Mostly related to international soccer matches we might get on delay here, but I’ve gotten text message spoilers from friends with game scores/congratulations/condolences. I’m a big fan of the official Olympics iPhone app (I’ve been using the app to check out the schedules), but the other day came across the real-time results of the men’s snowboard cross (another buzzkill).

It’s forced me to take a self-imposed “Social Media Blackout” during the day (i.e., I’ll only check in during the morning when I know there are no events in progress, or, only push out messages from my phone so I can avoid seeing any conversation).

There are several ways that a person will encounter programming in a time-shifted manner:

• Consumer Time Shifting: People elect to manually record programming (DVR, VCR) to watch at a later time, at their convenience.
• Network Tape Delay: TV network determines that certain content will air at a later time, e.g., moving the men’s downhill finals to prime time.
• Location: People in later time zones are forced to watch network time-shifted programming so it falls in prime time (e.g., can’t air “Lost” at 5 p.m. PST).

While problem #1 is self-imposed by a person, they have no control over problems #2 or #3 (that’s the fault of the TV networks).

Therein lies the paradox. We live in a time-shifted world, yet we are getting our information in an increasingly real-time manner.

The repercussions go well beyond the Olympics, as this essentially impacts *all* entertainment we watch on TV (awards shows, “Lost,” sport events, etc.). In an effort to avoid spoilers, people will be forced to take self-imposed social media blackouts until they have watched their time-shifted entertainment. And for sports in particular, there will be repercussions to the networks, since the fact is, consumers will be less likely to tune in to something if they already know the result.

So, how can we prepare/deal with this problem? “Time delay” filters on Twitter and Facebook that will stagger tweets/posts from your east coast friends by three hours? “Hide results” options on sports news sites?

Please share your suggestions below!

Upon reading the list, I was especially struck by the top two brands, the iPhone and CNN.  While one is a relatively new product that has revolutionized the way we use mobile and, most recently, doubled its Q4 sales over the previous year, the other is a nearly 30 year old news network competing with countless other organizations producing much the same product.  So why their congruent success?

It’s easy to understand why iphone topped the list.  The iphone has enabled the use of social media applications mobilely unlike any phone before it, and with a large majority of tech journalists and early adopters utilizing social media tools like Twitter, Digg, and Facebook, it makes sense why the internet was abuzz with the iPhone in 2008.

CNN, on the other hand, is a bit different.  Its product, journalism, is ubiquitous.  While there can be discerning attributes to the network’s journalism that may set it apart; journalistic integrity, un-biased coverage, evocative subject matter, it is only marginal in scale and certainly not enough to create large amounts of buzz, as the news is a product reproduced by myriad publishing organizations.  So why does CNN beat all but the iphone in social media mentions?  What makes it nearly as buzzworthy as the revolutionary iPhone?

I like to think of it as the “what” vs “how” differentiation.  The iPhone’s success is the iPhone.  It’s a product that’s buzzworthy for what it is and how it changes our everyday interactions.  Congrats to Apple and Jobs for developing such an amazing product.  However, CNN can’t rely solely on it’s “what,” the quality of its journalism.  Instead, CNN must rely more heavily on the “how,” the way it is delivered and the experience they provide.

This is where CNN levels its competitors.   CNN has joined the social media space in an innovative way that provides utility to its audience.  Case in point: the presidential inauguration.  CNN, like most other major networks, streamed the inauguration live on their website.  But while the majority focused on the quantity and ease of access to coverage, CNN focused on the social media integration.  CNN allowed their audience to connect and interact with their Facebook friends with a click of a mouse.  After the inauguration, CNN set up “The Moment,” a Microsoft photosynth experience encouraging inauguration attendees to submit their photos, creating a 3D image experience created by the people, for the people.  Gimmicky, sure, but it’s buzzworthy.

I recognize that the particular examples cited previously occurred in 2009, I cited them as the freshest examples of CNN’s innovation.  In 2008 CNN impressed us with Rick Sanchez et al. incorporating Twitter into on air segments, iReports, and essential tools and features such as RSS, bookmarks, and embeddable video (not to mention tech-geeky stunts including holograms and complex touch-screen maps.)

CNN continues to pursue what gives them that ‘purple cow‘ effect that inevitably draws the spotlight on a brand.  While their ‘what’ may be good, it’s their ‘how’ that is exceptional.