<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Affinitive's Social Media Playground &#187; vitrue</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.socialmediaplayground.com/tag/vitrue/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.socialmediaplayground.com</link>
	<description>Welcome to Social Media Playground, a place to discuss all things related to word of mouth (WOM) and social media marketing. Brought to you by Affinitive, a word of mouth and social media marketing, technology and strategic solutions firm located in New York City and San Francisco.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:37:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>What vs. How: Fundamental Differentiation in the Social Media Sphere</title>
		<link>http://www.socialmediaplayground.com/social-media/what-vs-how-fundamental-differentiation-in-the-social-media-sphere/2009/02/03/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=what-vs-how-fundamental-differentiation-in-the-social-media-sphere</link>
		<comments>http://www.socialmediaplayground.com/social-media/what-vs-how-fundamental-differentiation-in-the-social-media-sphere/2009/02/03/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:35:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Courtney</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Industry News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[buzz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cnn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[purple cow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vitrue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[word of mouth]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialmediaplayground.com/?p=159</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier last week I came across the Top 100 Social Brands of 2008, a list compiled by measuring brand mentions across social media platforms and based on an average of these mentions for each brand in the month of December. Upon reading the list, I was especially struck by the top two brands, the iPhone [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Earlier last week I came across the <a href="http://adage.com/digitalnext/article?article_id=134180">Top 100 Social Brands of 2008</a>, a list compiled by measuring brand mentions across social media platforms and based on an average of these mentions for each brand in the month of December.</p>
<p>Upon reading the list, I was especially struck by the top two brands, the iPhone and CNN.  While one is a relatively new <img class="alignright" style="float: right;" src="http://www.mp4converter.net/images/upload/iphone_home.gif" alt="" width="189" height="311" />product that has revolutionized the way we use mobile and, most recently, <a href="http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/1/att-q4-iphone-sales">doubled its Q4 sales</a> 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?</p>
<p>It&#8217;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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>I like to think of it as the &#8220;what&#8221; vs &#8220;how&#8221; differentiation.  The iPhone&#8217;s success is the iPhone.  It&#8217;s a product that&#8217;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&#8217;t rely solely on it&#8217;s &#8220;what,&#8221; the quality of its journalism.  Instead, CNN must rely more heavily on the &#8220;how,&#8221; the way it is delivered and the experience they provide.<a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_and_cnn_the_power_of_the_social_web_revealed.php"><img class="alignright" style="float: right;" src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/fbconnect-obama.jpg" alt="Image courtesy of ReadWriteWeb" width="312" height="168" /></a></p>
<p>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, <a href="http://newteevee.com/2009/01/14/where-to-watch-obamas-inauguration-online/">streamed the inauguration</a> 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 <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_and_cnn_the_power_of_the_social_web_revealed.php">allowed their audience to connect</a> and interact with their Facebook friends with a click of a mouse.  After the inauguration, CNN set up &#8220;<a href="http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2009/44.president/inauguration/themoment/">The Moment</a>,&#8221; 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&#8217;s buzzworthy.</p>
<p>I recognize that the particular examples cited previously occurred in 2009, I cited them as the freshest examples of CNN&#8217;s innovation.  In 2008 CNN impressed us with Rick Sanchez et al. <a href="http://mashable.com/2008/09/04/cnn-twitter/">incorporating Twitter into on air segments</a>, iReports, and essential tools and features such as RSS, bookmarks, and embeddable video (not to mention tech-geeky stunts including <a href="http://weblogs.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/blog/star-wars-hologram.jpg">holograms</a> and complex <a href="http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/uploads/minority-report-ui.jpg">touch-screen maps</a>.)</p>
<p>CNN continues to pursue what gives them that &#8216;<a href="http://www.sethgodin.com/purple/">purple cow</a>&#8216; effect that inevitably draws the spotlight on a brand.  While their &#8216;what&#8217; may be good, it&#8217;s their &#8216;how&#8217; that is exceptional.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.socialmediaplayground.com/social-media/what-vs-how-fundamental-differentiation-in-the-social-media-sphere/2009/02/03/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>182</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

