I guess .04 percent is better than nothing

A Randall Stross column (subscription required) in yesterday's New York Times revealed that only two, count 'em two, of the Fortune 500 chief executive officers maintain a blog. Of the two, Jonathan Schwartz of Sun Microsystems and John Mackey of Whole Foods, only Schwartz blogs with any regularity.

Even though he is alone in his convictions, Schwartz could not be more adamant about the importance of blogging in a CEOs life. "My number 1 job is to be a communicator," said Schwartz. "I don't understand how a CEO would not blog if committed to open communication." In fell swoop, says Schwartz, he simultaneously reaches shareholders, software developers, and current and prospective customers. He says a single blog saves him countless hours of time that would have been spent composing individual e-mails to these very same groups.

So, why don't more CEOs blog? It's not because, as some suggest, blogging is a passing fad. It's because CEOs fear the loss of control that comes with blogging. Unlike a letter in an annual report, a prepared speech to an industry trade group or a print advertisement, blogging demands open, two-way communication. And, for an authoritarian, top-down manager surrounded by sycophants, that concept is way too scary.

But, as Schwartz pointed out in a Harvard Business Review article, one day all CEOs will blog. They'll wake up to its efficiencies and its ability to create new and different relationships with core constituents. It may take a few years, but I totally agree with Schwartz. Why? Because market competition and good ol' peer pressure will force the CEO to adapt or die. Once Schwartz's competitors realize how his blog pre-empts the types of traditional relationships they've been trying to nurture with the same prospective customer base, you'll see them pick up the keypad and start banging away.

There was one other key point in the Stross article that I wanted to share. Schwartz says he's dead set against ghostwritten CEO blogs. I totally agree. My good friend and competitor, Ken Makovsky, has gone on record as disagreeing, saying a ghostwritten blog is no different than a ghostwritten speech. Conceptually, he may be right. But, the blogosphere has its own rules and regulations. Bloggers want to have direct, one-on-one conversations with one another, and not have to deal with a designated member of the corporation's palace guard. As a result, ghostwritten blogs get deleted faster than those unsolicited requests from Ethiopian widows looking to deposit $15mm in your bank account.

So, here's a virtual tip of the hat to Mr. Schwartz for having the brains and the guts to go where no other CEO has gone. Let's hope future text books and manuals on business acknowledge his visionary act.

Comments

[Amanda Chapel]

Sorry. Didn't seem to take the link.

See http://strumpette.com. Go to July 28, "When a Girl Says 'Yes,' But Means 'No'

- Amanda

[Steve A]

Yikes! where to begin? I-Man, et al, simply because a technology or in this case a communications channel enabled by a technology, has a low target audience usage rate in the early adopter phase, is absolutely no indication of its future viability. In fact, the technology enabled media of the last couple decades has taught us that senior executives are not generally early adopters, but overwhelmingly embrace communications technologies as they mature.

Look at the growth curve of e-commerce, in the early to mid nineties do you know which company was featured on the cover of Wired Magazine as an e-business pioneer in online commerce? Amazon, ebay, Yahoo? The answer was none of these, it was a porn company, Danni’s Harddrive. When major businesses were shunning the Internet as a sales channel, the underbelly of commerce embraced the emerging technology much as it did and built the home video market. It took years and a boom / bust cycle before the Fortune 500 began to embrace this “new” channel, and all the while the detractors were many and loud as to the viability of the Internet as sales channel.

In any industry the established and dominant players are slow to embrace change, change is hard, it costs money and creates nightmares in processes which took years to refine. And with CEO communications there are many concerns, many established processes and many legal minefields to be navigated, but it will happen, it is inevitable because CEOs must and want to communicate with stakeholders and the fewer filters, media or otherwise between a CEO and any publics the better.

Blogging is first and foremost about direct and symmetrical communications. Nothing will stop the push for increased communications. The US Government is talking about plans to spend millions in upgrades to the briefing room; the main purpose, so the government can communicate directly to the American people, no filters, no media editing. Direct communications is the future.

And, I can't resist, but as a former cop, I can tell you that motor vehicle law allows for something called maintaining a uniform traffic speed. So yes, if they guy ahead of you is speeding, you may very well not be guilty of speeding.

[Ken Makovsky]

Steve,

A belated comment. I agree with your contentions about CEO blogging and its future, but I would like to correct the statement you attribute to me in this post.

"My good friend and competitor, Ken Makovsky, has gone on record as disagreeing, saying a ghostwritten blog is no different than a ghostwritten speech."

In our joint podcast I was specifically addressing CEO blogging when this subject came up. I never suggested ghostwriting. Rather I suggested an identified surrogate writer where the CEO felt his writing ability was limited. Here is the direct quote: "There are individuals (CEOs) out there, particularly in blogging, who may not feel particularly capable of writing effectively. And I think that you could use a line (in the blog) such as 'as told to so-and-so' in the company and that protects the integrity of the attribution, but it still gives that CEO an opportunity to communicate." I concur that bloggers want to have direct one-on-one conversations with each other.

I believe this clarifies my position.

Ken