Do we need the word 'Social' anymore?

You're all right!
Kathy - because it makes it easier to explain the dynamics of online groups
Carla - because there is a new dimension to each of these "technologies" once supercharged with the social dynamics. I mean eMail is not equivalent to old-fashion mail, even though they have some commonalities.
Antoine - is perhaps the most correct. It might be that at the core of the dynamics lies a far more important principle of human group dynamics, but for the time being, "Social Something" is the best we've got.
So Mike, IMHO unfortunately you are the only I can't agree with. The dynamics of online commerce has taken on a new qualitative aspect not just quantitative (speed, numbers)

To be relevant in today's marketplace CRM has to imbed social media elements. The true distinction of CRM incorporating this will eventually exclude (sooner rather than later) those CRM brands that don't incorporate it. Therefore, the norm for CRM will have it. The need to have to differentiate CRM with or without an "s" is temporary at best, and will not need it in the end - except for those who are enamored with new acronyms. Which person and/or company today considering CRM would not expect it to have social functionality? What if, in different industries with established categories, or groups, what-have-you that the first production run of the car with a radio in it was then separated out of the group by calling it an rCar, then later with air conditioning the acCar....

Come on, let's get over the fascination of the "s". It's now a part of CRM as a newer/better/stronger solution, but it is still CRM.

Hmmm. Ideally no. But since so many business leaders are still trying to grapple the tectonic shift that's happening in business today, it's helpful. So for now, I'm sticking with using it.

Since when was business, viewed, handled, and conducted professionally, never social to begin with? It simply is an acknowledgement of what has gone on with and without technology. All that has changed is that the customer now has a stronger, wider, and more public base which has resulted in acknowledging them in a manner technologically. It is simply a recombination of components further advancing the "R" in relationships.

The question may be: « is "social" the right word ».
The point is that we need a word to define the fact that business is “following” and not “leading” in most cases. The need is to have a word that point the fact that, to a certain extend, the crowd is actually, thru soxial tool, faster than most of market leaders. I agree with Mike : Relationships are changing the way an idea, a concept, a product is being spread in a market share.
The word “social” is about that.
If you have a better word (an advanced one) I’ll adopt it if it make sense. Meanwhile, I’ll use this one :)

You are segregating the word "social" from the rest of the mix and it doesn't work like that. Social Media, Social Bookmarking, or the broader term Social Marketing all reflect a different TYPE of social outreach in today's technological marketing efforts. To view the word "social" in an antiquated microcosm (of what it once was) is offers little in today's marketplace.

Agree with Carla. Many words have altered meanings with the integration of technology. Social is one of them. When referred to from a marketing aspect, it means public, shared, societal and can imply even more. But when we refer to a social gathering or party, we've simply dropped the word "social" and just say, 'we're going to have a party!' For now and because it is so integrated into our society and our business strategy, I'll stick with social media or social marketing or social...

It's a signal that things are changing and companies need to think (very) differently. So from that perspective, I'd suggest that 'social' is still useful. Organizations, especially larger ones, tend to revert to 'how we do things' and new terminology (like 'e' 10-15 years ago) can help support and reinforce the need to drive change.