

Heads of top U.S. companies snub blogs, Facebook - pierrefar
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55O0F920090625

======
mdasen
_No doubt regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley and Reg-FD make CEOs cautious
about communicating freely_

That really hits the nail on the head. Heads of companies are assumed to be
speaking with the utmost authority and their blog entries could have deep
financial ramifications as people buy and sell stock.

But also, what would they write? If they aren't going to give away more
information than press releases, there's nothing of value there. If they were
to give away more than their press releases, then why aren't they putting that
info in their press releases?

There's the issue. Nothing says that companies can't communicate in a folksy
manner - Berkshire Hathaway does it every year in their annual report.
However, every number must be vetted, the language must be scrutinized to make
sure it isn't misleading about the company's situation, and you can't talk
about things that aren't public. Blogging seems like it's about giving you a
more inside picture, but what the head of the company is doing is by nature
somewhat secret. Once it isn't so secret, there's no reason for a
communications person who should be a better writer (it is their job after
all) to do the writing - by blog, press release, twitter, etc.

------
wmeredith
Is this unsurprising to anyone else? Social media is popular because it is
empowering. This particular subset of society are already empowered.

~~~
blang
I agree with you that social media is popular because it is empowering.
However, just because you are already empowered does not lead to a disinterest
in social media. Empowerment has not stopped high profile celebs, traditional
media outlets, or public figures from turning to social media.

~~~
wmeredith
I concur, but _as a group_ cutting out one of the medium's biggest (if not THE
biggest) draws was sure to have some affect.

------
TomOfTTB
I actually think most of these CEOs are right. I see the benefits of Social
Media I just think it's better to let the people in the trenchs interface with
the public. The position of CEO should have a certain mystique to it. Think
Steve Jobs who you rarely see when he's not on stage and hence his stage
appearances make more of an impact.

If a CEO makes sure to surround themself with quality people and lets those
people interface with the public they'll still get all the advantages of
social media AND get to keep that mystique about them.

~~~
pierrefar
The CEO of Zappos begs to differ: <http://twitter.com/Zappos> .

~~~
TomOfTTB
I think that kind of makes my point. Don't get me wrong, it humanizes him and
that's nice. But larger than life figures are larger than life because they
seem like something more than human.

I can't imagine Jobs getting the same response at an Apple Conference if he'd
been tweeting about how many pillows he had on his hotel bed that morning

------
cmars232
Hmm, maybe I should snub social media too. They're mostly time-suck.

------
jerf
"CEOs don't post on Twitter" -> "CEOs are missing a chance to connect with
their customers" doesn't follow. For a CEO, it suffices to _read_ Twitter or
blogs. They have followup channels that most people don't ("Hey, you, go email
this guy"). You can't tell if they are doing that or not. Given the nature of
a CEO's job, it would suffice just to _sample_ such sources, too.

Now, I bet most aren't doing that either, but it's hard to tell.

Even _without_ SarbOx, I wouldn't have the CEO of a large company posting,
simply because they are the ultimate authority (as others mention). If even a
VP posts something unfortunate, you've still got some maneuvering room for the
CEO to adjust the message. If the CEO makes a mistake, you're really stuck.

------
wglb
This is not surprising to me. Facebook just eats my time everytime I get on
there. I now go there only about twice a week. I would rather spend my time on
sites such as hn.

From the point of view of the head of a top US company, do you think that if
they had such accounts that they would actually do whatever writing showed up
there? Many don't even do their own email--this even extends to low-level
managers in some large companies I know.

------
nir
Good for them. They are concentrating on doing their job (hopefully ;))
instead of chasing fads they don't really understand anyway, twittering about
their breakfast or whatever. Media (CNN, NYT..) could actually take a hint
from that.

------
edw519
OP overlooks one critical consideration: reward / risk < 1.

One bad tweet or one misunderstood blog statement could be disastrous with
very little to gain.

Once you hit the <Enter> key, your mistake is out there for the world to see
forever. For us, no big deal. For them, it could cost millions.

[Wasn't there a recent story of a CEO accidently doing a negative "Reply to
All" email. I bet the dust still hasn't settled. Yes, here it is...

<http://blogs.usatoday.com/sky/2007/08/spirit.html>

]

