@GM_CEO: Should I wear the dock siders or the penny loafers?

I know this really is not what Gini’s post (or the original article for that matter) had in mind, but thought I’d add my $.02 in that maybe we don’t care whether these “very important people” have to say, and if they truly get the spirit of social media, they’ll find their way on there and showcase their own personalities (if they have them).

Social media re-humanizes these social systems. It gets business back to the fundamental principle of people transacting and building trust with other people.

The SEC has certain rules about information being presented and disclosed to the public and the CEO would need to be extremely careful as to what he or she communicates, even through his or her own personal social networking efforts. From a liability standpoint, I’m not sure the benefit outweighs the potential downside.

With respect to the FTC, the issue here is the marketing message and how it can and may be perceived. Currently, the FTC is considering guidelines and rules about marketing messages being conveyed through social media. Again, as the leader of a public company, the CEO must tread carefully and, even in conveying a marketing message, must be very careful not to break any SEC rules. Again, the benefits need to be weighed against potential consequences.

All that being said, I stongly believe public companies should have a major presence in social media, including social networking, letting the marketing experts spearhead the activity and content. While doing so, I do believe the CEO could, and should, participate strategically with key, well-defined content, more to enhance the overall effort as opposed to being front and center.

Now the flipside, private companies. I do believe CEOs of private companies need to be as transparent as possible. They’re usually the vision and drive behind the company. His or her thoughts and statements lend a great deal of credibility to the company, which ultimately may be defining factors in a customer, client, vendor or partner doing business with the company.

Often, the CEO, is the company which why we see companies named after the Founder and CEO. Many times, the CEO is actually the “commodity” being sold by the company. This is especially true with professional organizations, consulting companies, etc.

Service and product driven companies are different as there are usually consumers or clients as end-users. As such, they rely on the “personal guarantees” of the CEO and that message usually needs to be promoted to drive business. I’m thinking along the lines of George Zimmer, CEO of Men’s Wearhouse.

When it’s all said and done, there are few, more efficient ways of promoting a business, large or small, than through social media, and social networking. The messages are concise and clear, and often present the human side of the business. And, clients and customers alike, feel more confident “knowing” the CEO and his or her thoughts, feeling more confortable with their decision to do business with the company or organization.

Here’s a simple, yet totally unscientific rule of thumb: If a business needs to have the CEO’s personal guarantee on loans and lines of credit, then the CEO should be very active in social media and social networking activities. If the company can enter into loan and credit agreements without any personal guarantees, it’s best to leave the social media and social networking efforts to the marketing experts.

Point #1: Last week, there was an opposite article written about those CEOs and top executives who are not on social media outlets are missing the boat. The fact is, a company needs to be where it’s customers are. Clearly, customers are on social media outlets. If top execs do not feel it necessary to be a part of something as big as this, they may find their customers feel they are not real or not in touch with customer needs. I guess this means that none of the CEOs find it necessary to have a Blackberry or iPhone either….ahhh, not likely the case, right?

Point #2: For a CEO to be on social networking, it gives them a human side. They are not being asked to post every five minutes about their every move. An occasional post about something interesting, something they learned, someone who impressed them (which could remain nameless). A good example of this on Twitter (& maybe not a Fortune 100, but quite internationally successful) is @MichaelHyatt, CEO of Thomas Nelson Publishers. That company is no small potatoes, yet Michael posts about interesting meetings he has had or even having tech trouble. Many times to the average Joe or Jane, CEOs seems so far from them…like God to many people. It would be nice to see that they are human and may have similar interests or travel to similar places, etc.

Point #3: President Obama saw the importance and advantages of today’s technology and social media outlets during his campaign. He has a Twitter account, albeit not likely him personally posting. Many important leaders in our world understand the importance of reaching out to the people. Even Queen Elizabeth has opened herself to changing the old adages of keeping behind closed doors, thanks to the public’s response to Princess Diana. If they understand it, what does that say about these CEOs?

Just my two cents.

You’ve got a great perspective on this issue and I think you are, at least in part, addressing the issue of trust. Trust in companies is rapidly disappearing in this economic crisis and one way to begin to restore trust, in a business of any size, is by being accessible. People don’t place trust in companies, they place it in people and then do business with people they trust.

Social media is simply another form of communication to be used the right way, or the wrong way. But saying a CEO shouldn’t use it is like saying that they shouldn’t use email or the telephone. The people and the conversation matter, the technology just enables it.

Great post,

Randy