<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Social press releases all wrong?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.blogworldexpo.com/blog/2007/01/21/social-press-releases-all-wrong-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.blogworldexpo.com/blog/2007/01/21/social-press-releases-all-wrong-2/</link>
	<description>Blogosphere's Biggest Blogging Conference</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:43:02 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Blog World Expo Blog &#187; The real revolution of new media</title>
		<link>http://www.blogworldexpo.com/blog/2007/01/21/social-press-releases-all-wrong-2/#comment-282</link>
		<dc:creator>Blog World Expo Blog &#187; The real revolution of new media</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:39:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogworldexpo.com/blog/2007/01/21/social-press-releases-all-wrong-2/#comment-282</guid>
		<description>[...] Stowe Boyd and Chris Heuer are having a little debate about the purity of social media press releases which I spouted off about earlier this evening. Chris was kind enough to come by and comment. I started to leave a 2nd reply to his comment and thought the point deserved its own post. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Stowe Boyd and Chris Heuer are having a little debate about the purity of social media press releases which I spouted off about earlier this evening. Chris was kind enough to come by and comment. I started to leave a 2nd reply to his comment and thought the point deserved its own post. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PR2.0</title>
		<link>http://www.blogworldexpo.com/blog/2007/01/21/social-press-releases-all-wrong-2/#comment-263</link>
		<dc:creator>PR2.0</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:10:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogworldexpo.com/blog/2007/01/21/social-press-releases-all-wrong-2/#comment-263</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Thank You for Bringing Attention to the Need for C...&lt;/strong&gt;

If anything, this conversation demonstrates why the blogosphere (and most importantly, people) will chew-up and spit-out traditional PR and corporate marketing types Â– without thinking twice. But thatÂ’s the beauty of this. It forces evolution and imp...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Thank You for Bringing Attention to the Need for C&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>If anything, this conversation demonstrates why the blogosphere (and most importantly, people) will chew-up and spit-out traditional PR and corporate marketing types Â– without thinking twice. But thatÂ’s the beauty of this. It forces evolution and imp&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Solis</title>
		<link>http://www.blogworldexpo.com/blog/2007/01/21/social-press-releases-all-wrong-2/#comment-262</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Solis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:50:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogworldexpo.com/blog/2007/01/21/social-press-releases-all-wrong-2/#comment-262</guid>
		<description>Whatever we call it, the bottomline is that there's always a need to improve and evolve - the rest is just the technology at hand at the time.  There is more than "one" way to get news out to people who consume, share, and interpret information.  It all requires a unique approach that talks to them in a way that &lt;a href="http://www.briansolis.com/2007/01/enough-already-getting-social-media.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;addresses&lt;/a&gt; their needs and concerns.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whatever we call it, the bottomline is that there&#8217;s always a need to improve and evolve - the rest is just the technology at hand at the time.  There is more than &#8220;one&#8221; way to get news out to people who consume, share, and interpret information.  It all requires a unique approach that talks to them in a way that <a href="http://www.briansolis.com/2007/01/enough-already-getting-social-media.html" rel="nofollow">addresses</a> their needs and concerns.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://www.blogworldexpo.com/blog/2007/01/21/social-press-releases-all-wrong-2/#comment-256</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jan 2007 05:16:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogworldexpo.com/blog/2007/01/21/social-press-releases-all-wrong-2/#comment-256</guid>
		<description>You wont here any of that 2.0 crap from me. Thats a techy thing =p. 

I personally like new media because it will always be knew. As blogs become more common place video blogs and podcasts come along, internet radio is just getting started and internet TV is no doubt on the way. When those things are all old something new will have come along. 

New media content creators don't view themselves as social media participants as they do citizen journalists, or publishers, editors, producers. 

We actually may be talking about 2 different things come to think of it. You may be refering to every person with a blog or who surfs DIGG. 

New media to me is created by folks who treat their site as on online newspaper, magazine, TV channel, or radio station. They may not be making money but they take their blogs and podcasts seriously. That is what I would call new media. 

But like I said earlier call it whatever you want, its cool, its powerful and it is just beginning.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You wont here any of that 2.0 crap from me. Thats a techy thing =p. </p>
<p>I personally like new media because it will always be knew. As blogs become more common place video blogs and podcasts come along, internet radio is just getting started and internet TV is no doubt on the way. When those things are all old something new will have come along. </p>
<p>New media content creators don&#8217;t view themselves as social media participants as they do citizen journalists, or publishers, editors, producers. </p>
<p>We actually may be talking about 2 different things come to think of it. You may be refering to every person with a blog or who surfs DIGG. </p>
<p>New media to me is created by folks who treat their site as on online newspaper, magazine, TV channel, or radio station. They may not be making money but they take their blogs and podcasts seriously. That is what I would call new media. </p>
<p>But like I said earlier call it whatever you want, its cool, its powerful and it is just beginning.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Heuer</title>
		<link>http://www.blogworldexpo.com/blog/2007/01/21/social-press-releases-all-wrong-2/#comment-255</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Heuer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jan 2007 02:29:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogworldexpo.com/blog/2007/01/21/social-press-releases-all-wrong-2/#comment-255</guid>
		<description>I actually think conversational media is closer to the correct phrasing, but then again, so is participatory media - new media is what we called it last time so don't pull out new media 2.0 (puleeeeze don't). Digital media is partially correct too - but in the end I think it will all be called media - period.

For now, the new new part is that it is more social, it is about participating in the conversation digitally if you will, so this is where I have ended up on social media being the term personally.  As Giovanni Rodrigueze says, the more accurate way of describing it is about 'socializing' media.

I did this &lt;a href="http://www.quesocompuesto.com/files/2007.01.07.htm" rel="nofollow"&gt;beercast with Mike Hudack from Blip.TV and many others at PME 2006&lt;/a&gt;, where Mike puts up a good argument against the use of social media as a term, which is relevant to this part of the discussion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually think conversational media is closer to the correct phrasing, but then again, so is participatory media - new media is what we called it last time so don&#8217;t pull out new media 2.0 (puleeeeze don&#8217;t). Digital media is partially correct too - but in the end I think it will all be called media - period.</p>
<p>For now, the new new part is that it is more social, it is about participating in the conversation digitally if you will, so this is where I have ended up on social media being the term personally.  As Giovanni Rodrigueze says, the more accurate way of describing it is about &#8217;socializing&#8217; media.</p>
<p>I did this <a href="http://www.quesocompuesto.com/files/2007.01.07.htm" rel="nofollow">beercast with Mike Hudack from Blip.TV and many others at PME 2006</a>, where Mike puts up a good argument against the use of social media as a term, which is relevant to this part of the discussion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
