Social media. Community. Tagging. Commenting. All these are the buzz words associated with the application of social media to content. But does it matter in the TV world — materially, that is? Maybe, but I am not convinced.

When you think of media innovation, the harnessing of the latest technologies and the reinvention of business processes, you probably don’t then think of pizzas (unless that kind of mental exercise makes you hungry).But maybe you should.

A few weeks ago, media buying agency MPG, a sibling in the Havas family, birthed a new out of home digital video/experiential group, Chrysalis, cocooned by Connie Garrido. In celebration, Steve Lanzano, MPG COO, threw a party last week at MPG headquarters. Suzanne Alecia, president of the Out-Of-Home Video Advertising Bureau (OVAB), was tasked with providing the entertainment. The concept was simple: expose members of the Havas family (MPGers, MediaContacters) along with its clients to the wonders of digital video advertising in the place-based video realm to encourage integration into future planning and buying stratagems.

Leave it to Showtime to work both sides of the same genre coin (and I mean that in a good way). Staring down the last season of “The L Word,” arguably a game-changer in the portrayal of lesbian, bisexual and transgender women on cable television, Showtime announced a few months back a spin-off that would shoot after the final season. The show is created by “L-Word” show runner Ilene Chaiken, who (here is the kicker) will take a storyline from the linear program and extend it into an online series. If Showtime moves, the Webisodes will segue into a new linear series.

Don’t know. Never been caught — though sighted, cited but not convicted. Supreme Court orally arguing. First time in 30 years. Broadcast indecency standards.

The lesson is clear: good tuning data be damned, it is really all about crummy viewership data. While I will be the first to cede that data obtained from set-top boxes is tuning data and not viewing data, there is the small issue of relevance. When the subset of a small, opt-in panel watching a particular network is in the low double digits — as it is for nearly all locally inserted, advertising supported television stations and networks — the demographic data is inherently error-prone and the resulting demographic ratings rife with error. It would not matter if the process used to select panelists were flawless — nor if the technology used to measure viewers were perfect — when the numbers are so small.

If you believe in the power of the crowds, if you believe in the power of hope, and if you believe in the power of change, then this week has been quite a ride. But what I want to do is to look at what happened on the political landscape — change — and apply it to our business.

OK, so you may not agree with the last part of the title for this column, but that’s fine, since this isn’t about whether or not the right guy won — we won’t know that for a while yet. Although I confess I wanted Obama to carry the day, this piece is about media, not politics, so you can read on without fear of any partisan proselytizing from me.

After I graduated from Betty Owens secretarial school in March 1975, my first job interview was with The American Bible Society for a secretarial position. My application was rejected. Too aggressive, I was told - though carpentry was part of my lineage. Next interview, advertising agency BBDO, which decades later was subsumed by OMD, to be hired in the TV programming department to work for Bob Levinson and Paul Wigand. Within months I wangled a job as commercial traffic coordinator for Chrysler, which shortly thereafter morphed into an assistant national TV buying position…

In my view, the crux of the problem associated with presidential polling is panel participation, or more appropriately, nonparticipation. Unlike television research, small sample size in this environment is not nearly as problematic. But for some of the pollsters involved in a recent conference call I heard last week, nearly nine out of 10 people initially chosen to participate in the poll refused to participate. Which means quite literally, if a researcher went up to the door of ten houses on a block (or in a grocery store or more likely on a telephone) nine shut her down before answering all of her questions. How big of a problem is this? Well, that depends…