I ran across this column in CIO Magazine today regarding the use of social media by Fortune 100 CEOs. Although it’s not really on a topic that I blog about, I was attracted to it because it is not unexpected. I bet if you were to ask them why, you would get answers like:
"I don’t have time"
"I don’t see its value"
"We have a marketing organization that handles this"
and so on.
I must say that I’m a bit torn on this. Whereas I embrace social media and use it more than the average bear, I understand a CEO who argues that he/she has hired someone to do the job for him/her. A CEO should be thinking about leadership and strategy. However, are they in danger of missing out on the opportunity to grab mind-share in the social media space? What would the potential cost be 10 years down the road, or is social media never going to replace traditional means of building brand? Is it good enough to have someone else do it for him/her? Folks like Gary Vaynerchuk have been exceptionally successful with social media, leveraging it into TV appearances, speaking engagements, and book deals. On the other hand, Gary’s firms are not yet in the Fortune 100 range, so is a comparison between Gary V and Mike Duke (Wal-Mart) even relevant?
What do you think? Should large company CEOs get on Twitter, Facebook, et al? Why or why not?
Grow Strong!
Coach Grev
Comments
Post a Comment