Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Fortune 500's Blogging

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the probably-4%-to-much dept.

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."

2 of 42 comments (clear)

  1. Re: The Fortune 500's Blogging by manavendra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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/
  2. Usual blogodreck by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful
    So we have a Slashdot link to a blog discussing another blog which links to another blog which links to a list of about fifteen companies which links to blog landing pages which finally link to the "corporate blogs". And every step of the way, there's advertising.

    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.)