In a recent article from Social Media Club, Chris Heuer outlines the differences between Social Media and Social Business. The article prompts us (as social professionals) to really start defining where the lines are in the social world between content and actions around content. Even if community managers, brand ambassadors and social/brand strategists don't work with the intention of following these guidelines it's great to acknowledge they exist (or should exist). While I appreciate making a difference between external and internal content, communication and engagement, I do want to tweak the definitions of Social Media, Social Software and Social Business a bit.
The short version: 'Social Media' I would define as sharable content. The networks, the platforms like Twitter, Facebook and anything built for internal consumption (items currently defined in 'social software') should be defined in two tiers of social software. 'Social business' feels pretty accurate: the nodal point(s) of internal and external communication and content engagement.
The long version:
Social Media
Social media really is the sharable content. The networks, the platforms, forums, common areas where content can be shared is actually the software. I am looking at content (my definition of 'social media') from a bit of a technical perspective: text, photo, video, link or other document type that can be shared with many listeners at once. Before we had social networks, forums or even the internet, we had social media: there were ads, products, services and experiences we wanted to share with other people. It just took longer to share. Snail-mail letters, phone calls, newspaper articles or other outreach through media outlets available at the time.
'Internal social media' would be a second tier of this definition. While internal communication is generally to be kept private until ready for public consumption (read: sharing with the public), internal company information can be promoted to external public information. Among early stages of this corporate sharing includes press releases: publicly sharing news that was previously internal and private to a given company.
Social Software
There are two tiers to this element as well. I like the idea of internal programs, intranets and tools that keep a company's community (and sub-communities like development departments, marketing departments, etc) in touch with sharable content about the company. (This includes industry news, competitive information, sales opportunities, it's not just 'what is up with X Co.' it's also about the landscape of what's moving around in the local (physical) and corporate (everywhere) communities.) The first tier would be as Chris described: internal software to facilitate communication throughout a company/business. Also: software used to connect internal communications with the real world (for internal consumption).
The second tier would be the graduated engagement platforms of business to the public. This includes the platforms like Facebook, Twitter, internal content publishing and consumption software and any other communication (like email, phone calls, direct mail, etc) that helps share the message. Social software is (read: should be) about what tools and resources are used internally to stay engaged with internal and external discussions on the company's landscape: it's about staying engaged everywhere.
Last thing I want to note: software isn't limited to what the company sanctions or uses. It's also about what their target audience uses and what their employees use (whether in- or out- of the workplace). It's one thing to engage your target audience on a piece of software (ex. Twitter), it's another thing to engage where your audience actually/perceivably spends their time (which could be on some open-source-forum site from 20 years ago).
Social Business
I like the definition Chris offered of social business being the meeting point between external communication/content and internal efforts. I wouldn't change much in this high-level intersection of content and engagement. The only thing I'll note is how fragile "Social Business" can be. [Some comment goes here about how fast information can be shared, but I'll omit since y'all already know.] An employee of a company is an extension of a brand. (Whether they like it or not and whether they're on the clock or not.) An advocate or user of a company's products, services etc is in fact an extension of a brand. The rapport of the individuals that represent your company directly (employees) or indirectly (target audience) affect your social business.
Chris mentioned that these high-level categories aren't definitions so much as a starting point for a conversation and I agree. In fact, I'd argue that these aren't moving targets, they are static guidelines. Only the actual content (social media) and types and availability of tools (social software) used to interact with a brand's target audience (social business) are what are changing and evolving. All of the (marketing) challenges a brand faced before the internet and social networks are just as relevant now, the time frame to engage with users is shortened.