When social media was born, the discussion was exclusive to the Internet. And while Wi-Fi and smaller laptops made it easier to bring the Internet anywhere, without access to the Web, you were left out of the conversation. Now the need to have the fastest laptop on the block is giving way to the desire to hold the hottest smartphone in your hand.

We’ve seen the changes already with the rising popularity of FourSquare and enhanced mobile apps for Facebook and Twitter. Social media platforms that lack a compelling mobile element will quickly face irrelevance. While I was introduced to Twitter at (where else?) Twitter.com, I now spend as much time tweeting on my Blackberry as I do online. As the ability to capture, upload and view video from cell phones becomes more commonplace, YouTube’s Web site visitors will migrate to the mobile version to watch their favorite clips.

FourSquare’s Web site, meanwhile, is as bare bones as you’ll find and rightfully so. The experience is all about using your mobile devices to engage with your friends and followers. In this social medium, a Web site serves little purpose.

As 2015 approaches, the social media leaders will be those who master the mobile world. I’m looking forward to seeing who leads that race.

I connected with Sysomos, a social media analytics firm, to find out which films, actors, actresses and directors are leading in share of voice and sentiment over the past month. And most importantly for the nominees, will this buzz transform into gold at the Academy Awards?

My full report with charts on the conversation is available here: PBS MediaShift

Would you have guessed that Sandra Bullock had the most mentions on Twitter (8,732) out of all the nominees during the past month?

You may also follow the Digital Lifestyle team on our blog (www.zenodigital.com) or on Twitter (@zenodigital) to see what’s influencing our world in 2010.

Zeno Group Digital Lifestyle: Top Stories of 2009

Below, I go through the themes that stood out for me today. But my biggest takeaway from the past two days is simple: listening. It’s what the FDA decided to do by holding these hearings – and as much as everyone wanted more feedback from the panel, aren’t they doing what we always recommend? Before you engage, listen. Conduct the research, put your ear to the ground, get a better sense of the issues and then develop a plan to engage.

It’s what many of the speakers decided to do before the hearings. They listened by fielding new research, identifying information they already had on hand that would be of use to the FDA, and sharing their presentations for feedback and collaboration. It’s what interested parties did by tweeting and retweeting up a storm with the hashtag #fdasm well in advance of the hearing and through the hearing itself, creating a unique record of reactions and insights.

While I wish the hearing provided more of the patient perspective, I think there is a strong possibility that they are using this time to listen, as well, and I hope they take advantage of the FDA public docket being open through February to submit comments.

All in all, it reminds me quite a bit of Zeno Group’s namesake, Zeno of Citium: “We have two ears and one mouth, so we should listen more than we say.” And unfortunately, we have been operating in an environment where many companies have been afraid to do the essential work of listening due to uncertainty of their role and responsibility to engage. Hopefully this hearing is the first step in removing that barrier.

As promised, a few themes from the day (from a PR perspective):

• Transparency. The FDA was encouraged to develop a clear definition of sponsorship. Many presenters focused on the need for companies to be transparent when it comes to sponsorship, and ensure that consumers and HCPs clearly understand what is sponsored content and what is not.

• Responsibility. Adverse event reporting, and the level of responsibility companies have to report events found online, is such an important topic that the entire morning session was devoted to the issue. There were frequent references to an environment of paralysis with companies not knowing the level of their responsibility for adverse event reporting and off-label discussions online.

• Privacy. In developing guidance, speakers stressed the need to balance the importance of allowing companies to engage in conversation and correct erroneous information, with the importance of respecting patient anonymity and the doctor-patient relationship online.

• Clarity. The FDA was encouraged to provide clarity around the following questions by various speakers:
  • How should “sponsorship” should be defined?
  • To what extent should companies be required to track down all details about a potential adverse event report when key information such as a person’s name is missing?
  • Does AE reporting as it currently stands serve the needs of patients?
  • Should FDA’s MedWatch change its name and overall user experience to be more accessible to consumers?
  • Shouldn’t the FDA distinguish between types of digital media, with unique guidelines for forums, blogs, etc.?
  • Shouldn’t the FDA make a distinction on guidelines based on audience – consumers or healthcare providers?

Consumers now expect companies to be listening, accessible and responsive to them through social media channels. Healthcare professionals expect the same. Companies outside of the health space have set a new standard for customer service and, frankly, have raised the bar across industries. But we must acknowledge that there are ways in which the health space is unique, and respect the complexity of what the FDA must tackle in the coming months.

After listening to 33 presentations, it became clear that there are areas where many stakeholders agree. A few that stood out to me:

• Patients are online. A growing number of Americans are already seeking health information and interaction online (data from the Pew Internet & American Life Project was cited by multiple speakers).
• Industry has a role. The conversation is already happening and industry should be a part of it, particularly because the industry is well suited to ensure patients have access to accurate product indication and safety information.
• Links should be embraced. The internet functions differently than other media, and links are the normal method of navigation – many presenters expressed support of a “one-click” rule for this reason.
• Content ownership and responsibility. Industry should be responsible for content they develop or control; however, while industry should monitor social media, there should not be an obligation to monitor and respond to user-developed content.

We’ll report back with another recap following tomorrow’s full day of speakers. And I’ll leave you with one of the examples used by Mary Ann Belliveau and Amy Cowan of Google when demonstrating how consumers search for health information: In September, 1.6 million people searched “breast cancer” through Google. (Wow!)

“Please don’t take this as a “Don’t you know who I am?” ego rant, but the outside PR firm rep for Talecris didn’t know I cover pharma @ CNBC.”

“Nearly 6 hours (6 hours!) after Sanofi $SNY issued PR on H1N1 vaccine study corp comm gets around to emailing me the PR. What’s the hurry?”

It’s important to keep in mind that what may once have required too much effort or trouble for the media – calling out bad pitches – is now made quite easy through Twitter. And this is true of both journalists and bloggers.

The good news? It’s an excellent reason to step up our game.

The September 2009 issue is embedded below and may also be found on The Social 7 blog.  Follow the ongoing conversation on Twitter: thesocial7

Zeno Group Digital Lifestyle-TheSocial7 Sept.09

Read the full article on PBS MediaShift.  Do you use Facebook Connect on your iPhone or on any Web site?

1) On July 23, Pres. Obama referred to “health insurance reform” when in Cleveland. While few noticed this substantive change in White House strategy back then, kudos to Cathy Arnst, BusinessWeek, for flagging it. The strategy is to assign blame to a segment (the insurance industry).

2) As has been noted by many, when Social Security was created, Americans tended to retire at 65 and die in the following year or so. Thanks to medical and health advances, we are living longer. The challenge is how to pay for our longer lives and the advances that help to make that happen.

3) Care of health care reform, I have learned a little something about Twitter: I commented on a tweet about health care being a right. I got a direct message back that was questioning my opinion. I tried to send a direct message back, but can’t until that person follows me. (This frustration further confirms my earlier blog that I am twitless.)

At the root of my health care reform post was that we need to consider the quantity of health care provided. Surely, this is very complicated. While “death panels” are a flash point, in fact, we need to do a much better job providing end of life care. Americans are optimists and we all hope for a miracle cure. I agree that a well informed physician and patient team should be in control of the decision. Ultimately, though, we need to become more realistic about the intended outcomes of care, the evidence that is available to guide the decision and weigh the options. By the time anyone reaches middle age, just like getting the invitation to join the AARP, we should also embrace the critical landmark of establishing a living will and ensuring we have done the very best we can to plan financially for long lives.

Earlier this year the SEC informed their member schools that “ticketed fans can’t ‘produce or disseminate (or aid in producing or disseminating) any material or information about the Event, including, but not limited to, any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or other information concerning the Event.” The policy received such negative backlash that a revised version is coming out today, but the underlying message will likely remain the same: the SEC doesn’t want fans’ tweets, status updates, Flickr pictures and other social media accounts of their games landing on the Web.

The first story I read about the policy was from St. Petersburg Times staff writer Michal Kruse, who said “Many are saying this makes the bosses of the SEC look like fuddy-duddy technophobes — that they don’t ‘get’ new media. They get it. The language of the conference’s policy suggests they know all too well the high-stakes fight that’s just beginning.”

Kruse argues that the broad policy is designed not so much to ban the present-day social media tools- the tweets and Facebook photos that could come from gameday at an SEC venue, but to prepare for the future. When technology arrives that makes it possible to broadcast live streaming video from your cell phone, a policy prohibiting that will already be in place. I understand that line of thinking; CBS has a multi-billion dollar TV contract in place that they want protected (and obviously the SEC wants to protect that source of revenue). Future technology could become an alternative to watching games on the network.

But in the meantime, the policy comes off as pretty short-sighted, not to mention practically impossible to enforce in real time. As Mashable’s Adam Ostorow points out, how often do you see a Facebook update that someone is watching or attending a sporting event and feel inclined to turn on the TV? In my opinion, social media builds fan affinity in a way that ultimately helps the brand.

Ask any college football fan the best way to enjoy gameday and almost all of them will answer one of two ways: being at the stadium, or watching the game on TV, be that at someone’s home or at a sports bar. An old school minority still enjoys games on the radio, but no one is going to use a student or even a journalist tweeting from the stands or press box as their primary source if they have access to a TV or tickets to the game. The thought that this communications diminishes the value of CBS’ current contract with the SEC is folly. Social media brings fans closer to the games they love, and ultimately the television rights holder reaps the benefit.