Slashdot Mirror
The Fortune 500's Blogging
zlite writes "There's a new wiki that's tracking which of the Fortune 500 have public blogs. So far it appears that less than 20 of them are doing so, and their average share performance badly lags the rest of the F500. Why? This post suggests one reason: it's so risky that companies tend do it only when their traditional corporate messaging isn't working."
I find that most corporate blogs are BS PR. Few companies want to actually let their employees share their thoughts with the general public.
Bradley Holt
Public corporate blogging is dangerous territory, as I found out the hard way.
Whilst being encouraged to record experiences, insights and lessons learnt when working with partners and their products, in a publicly available, searchable format, I found the moment you mention corporate names and *ANY* shortcomings, suddenly this "sharing knowledge" becomes "finding scapegoat".
I guess what's required is an explicit corporate IT policy, with clear, specific guidelines on what can and cannot be blogged, if at all. This policy then needs to be shared, and "promoted" - beginning with the departments that would use it the most - IT. Unless there's a clear directive that knowledge sharing is appreciated, not much would change in the Fortune 500 world
http://efil.blogspot.com/
I've always regarded them as nothing more than "friendlier press releases". Also, with only a few cosmetic changes, the usual "recent press releases" page bears a striking resemblence to "web logs"...
Please help metamoderate.
If you're reading a corporate blog by Google or IBM, for example, you may just be reading a fancy press release, but one with interesting/technical details.
IBM's got a few blogs. They seem to be doing ok.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
A quick look at Ford weblog reveals the chance for something scandalous reaching the masses is nearly inevitable. Why are they risking it? I see a lot of companies playing with new ideas, but this one reaches a new level of employee trust that is unwarrented. Whistleblowers dream.
Why would you trust a testimonial when choosing hosting?
guess what's required is an explicit corporate IT policy, with clear, specific guidelines on what can and cannot be blogged, if at all. This policy then needs to be shared, and "promoted" - beginning with the departments that would use it the most - IT.
Wouldn't it just be better for all if the Fortune 500 companies just didn't allow "blogging" at all? It would end the astroturfing, googlebombing, and also the need for endless regulations that would make the whole exercise a bigger waste of time than it already is.
OMG!!! that's like against my free speech and whatnot! u must be George Bush!!! LOLOLOLOL
It does not make sense to say that some companies "lag behind" others, when the selection criteria for which companies to study (Fortune 500) is based on performance. That's stupid.
NEWS FLASH: These are motivational tools for geeky employees and a cheap way to publish information you'll find in any 10-K. Seriously take a look at the information being published: problems which can be solved by calling tech support, news items located on the company's website, general b.s., etc.
It's ridiculous to draw a correlation between "share prices" and "blogs", and make claims that blogging is implemented when "traditional corporate messaging" breaks down. Last time I checked, board rooms, telephones, fax machines, and email is working fine.
Top brass is always sitting around hacking their Treo 650 to run linux and the latest open source groupware, trust me on this. Business strategy is created by the 20-something crowd on publically accessable websites. Better yet, these companies are asleep at the helm, and just confidential information for all to see! Don't forget the whistle blowers!
So yea, a handful of people in a organization of tens of thousands use a blog to share trivial information -- this is really groundbreaking and newsworthy information. It'll definitely increase shareholder value!
I'm sure the author isn't using this story as a form of self-promotion in itself -- it's true "research" on this very important topic.
Christ, whenever I need a good laugh, slashdot's the ticket.
When is this forum going to realize the answer is not found on your slide rule or latest piece of hardware/software?
A friend of mine was fired from a job because he posted negative commments in a public forum about the employer. He didn't identify himself by name, or that he was employed by the company at that time. He just said something along the lines complaining the way management hanadled customer issues and security (i.e., ignoring them) and the fact that the entire support staff was outsourced. Apparently they tracked him down and confirmed he was an employee and fired him. Which in the long run was probably best for him anyway, because he doesn't call me all the time stressing out from work.
At my current job, there are several outsourcing companies that work onsite for the customer I'm assigned to. I was hanging out late after work one day and one of the guys I'm friends with was taking an "ethics in business" test. The company he worked for had recently been aquired by one of the three letter telco's so all the aquired employees were having the drink their corporate koolaid. So I'm shoulder surfing looking at the test he's taking. The material was such a corporate CYA it wasn't even funny. It could be easily boiled down to "don't commit anything to paper so that its not a lie later." It went into such detail as to recommend "sensitive issues" not be submitted by internal email or memo's since those details could be obtained during a deposition. Instead, invite relevant parties to a meeting and discuss it verbally so there is no record. Yeah, that's real ethics in business for ya.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
When you finally get to the "corporate blogs", they turn out to be PR pieces.
Nothing to see here, move along.
(It's striking how few blogs use a moderation system, like Slashdot's. Of course, Slashdot still doesn't let you moderate the stories.)
In one of Seth Godin's online talks, he talks about how he stuck a suction cup to his head (he's bald) and burst all the blood vessels underneath, so he had a huge red mark for three or four months. He says, "blogging is like this; what may seem funny at the time may make it impossible to get a job for months or years into the future. What I'm here to tell you all is that you should do it anyway." And I think he's dead on.
From that perspective, a corporate web log might as well be a PR mouthpiece page. I don't understand how that would be any better than just putting the press releases on an RSS feed and be done with it. Still, I think that's better than the tripe that Jonathan Schwartz puts up on his web log at Sun Microsystems.
I go to the few blogs "sponsored " by corporations to get info for my trading site but none of them offer one bit of information that can't be found in the millions of press releases that come out every day. The only useful blogs are the "rogue" blogs of the employees of the companies. It takes a while to find them but when found they are a great insight into the company. Blogs tend to be off the cuff and interesting. Corporate blogs are forced to be boring and regulated. I use blogs mostly for entertainment but occassionally search out information that can only be found in blogs. It is just another form of communication but it is a form of communication that does not work well with corporate structure. No more no less
Another possibility is that you don't become one of the biggest companies in America by paying people to dick around with things like blogs. Slashdot and Fark were bad enough already.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
If blogging is the last resort of a failing company, why are companies such as Oracle, Sprint, and Boeing doing it? Yes, it's regularly a press release in blog form, but that's a much more digestable format, imo. I'd rather get company news in plain talk over a quote that marketing told the CEO to sign off on as his.
Saving the World: One Drink at a Time
Tech companies blog because they want to be seen on the cutting edge, and podcasting and blogs are perceived to be the cutting edge of tech culture. Apple, which doesn't blog, is perceived to be creating the cutting edge with iTunes and iPod, so they have no need of it.
Company blogging is a double edged sword... it helps you connect more with clients, but also gives more fodder to your critics and competition. Just wait for the first major lawsuit against a company that uses its own blogs as evidence against it in court.
I'm sure corporate blogging will grow more popular, but I doubt that most companies will embrace it wholesale. Rather, they will allow a few individuals to blog, under heavy supervision and lots of rules.
The people doing the corporate blogging should not be the upper management or PR folks. Their views represent 1% of the company and are always positive. It should be the regular joe in the trenches with a day-to-day grind doing the speaking. Only then would people actually take the message seriously.
The Long Tail article states that "CEO Blogs" don't fit the bill for this list, yet the
list links to Jonathan Schwartz' blog??
Microsoft has the biggest blogging presence of any corporation, and I can say that their blogs are working extremely well. Channel 9 (http://channel9.msdn.com/ in particular is very successful. The video interviews and real-world feedback from the developers is really helping Microsoft connect better with its users - note the recent Firefox "Genuine" plugin and WMV plugins, Firefox compatibility with MSN projects, and a bigger push towards standards. Moreover, blogging has raised much more enthusiasm for Vista - hearing from the kernel devs how heap management has been improved or from the audio team about how audio mixing and performance are better really makes it clear what the product is and what it will mean.
The one thing about Corporate Blogging is a company (anyone, not just on the F500 list) doesn't need a blog unless it serves as a useful and quick forum to get information to/from customers. Traditional corporate companies which get successful, at some point of time get their support equation right besides the product(s) themselves. So, unless the Blogs were a forum to communicate to Customers, Shareholders and also add one more channel of reaching out safely, both Moderated and Unmoderated blogs would be unnecessary. Some companies use Customer support forums/message-boards quite successfully where both employees and customers interact. I find not much difference between Corporate Blogging and having a Forum with Press Releases and all except for the newfangled terminology. So long as companies find ways and means to interact with the customer faster over the net (Blogs or Forums or Message Boards or IRC channels) which can be logged for review, and the Customer/Consumer ultimately gets some extra benefits, this is a good thing. Otherwise its just much ado about terminology.
No Greater Friend, No Greater Enemy! (Lucius Cornelius Sulla)