Heads of top U.S. companies snub blogs, Facebook | Hacker News Reader

Heads of top U.S. companies snub blogs, Facebook

reuters.com

10 pointspierrefar15 comments

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.

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

I think this is more a consequence of the "lot to lose" side of being empowered rather than the existing benefits of being empowered. What I mean is that those who are empowered are probably not at all opposed to becoming more empowered. The risk from them may be greater than the reward though.

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.

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.

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.

The CEO of Zappos begs to differ: http://twitter.com/Zappos .

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

I think the mystique of Tony Hsieh is that he gives you a personal perspective into what it is like to be a CEO of an innovative, growing, top company. Engaging employees. Meeting customers. Meeting other influencers. Day-to-day musings. Celebrity meetings. Marketing pow-wows. Taking pictures of El Gato (his cat). Possibly the first Internet celebrity CEO.

They also get the privilege of only interacting with quality people. It must be nice not having to deal with as many idiots.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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

]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com