Businessweek Archives

Fortune 500 blogging wiki undercounts


? Reporting on the Job: Take Two |

Main

| Any Podcasting Questions for Maria Thomas, NPR's Online Guru? ?

January 05, 2006

Fortune 500 blogging wiki undercounts

Stephen Baker

Great to see the new Fortune 500 blogging wiki. But I think it seriously undercounts the number of blue chip companies that are blogging. Here's why: Lots of big companies have blogs in divisions. Look no further than us. We write about BusinessWeek and the media industry. But I haven't dared put us onto the Wiki, because we aren't a McGraw-Hill blog. If our colleagues at Standard & Poors launch a blog, they'll have the same issue.

The fact is, blogging is about niches. Big companies have lots of them, and can spawn lots of blogs. Jason Calacanis's blog is counted on the wiki as a Time Warner blog. But he's more like us. He writes about his niche--not much about Dick Parsons or the lay-offs at Time Magazine. Imagine if someone tried to write a McGraw-Hill blog, covering the textbook business, magazines, trades, and financial ratings and info services. It would be a mess.

10:02 AM

business blogging

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fortune 500 blogging wiki undercounts:

? Business Blogging in 2006 from Toomre Capital Markets LLC

Sandy Kemsley has an enlightening post entitled Business Bl [Read More]

Tracked on January 7, 2006 05:12 PM

Too bad the folks who came up with this Fortune 500 blogging wiki didn't take a look at TheNewPR wiki first. There are lists there of CEO blogs, corporate blogs, and product blogs. It would be pretty easy to extract Fortune 500 blogs from this list. FYI, http://www.thenewpr.com.

Posted by: Shel Holtz at January 5, 2006 11:42 AM

But blogging a highly indirect measure of how well a company is engaging customers. It's not as if that number is zero for non-blogging companies. In the absence of hard data on this, such a "B500" list is just more memepuffs for the blog marketers. I'll have a long piece on this for Monday, I promised Heather.

Posted by: Jon Garfunkel at January 6, 2006 08:39 AM

Jon,

I'd also say it depends on how a company's corporate blogging practice is enacted.

This example from SUN indicates they may be getting it right.

http://navigator.bacons.com/CURRENT/flip_side_of_blogging.asp

But I think we can all come up with some examples of how blogging actually made things worse for a while for an organization due to the way blogging was implemented.

Posted by: John Cass at January 6, 2006 01:07 PM

Stephen,

You are definitely right on your analysis. It basically depends on your company's blogging platform strategy. At HP, we have developed a single company wide blogging platform, which means that any employee or executive in any region or business unit would post on the single blog platform hosted by hp.com. In our case the wiki is accurate

Eric

http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/kintz/

Posted by: Eric Kintz at April 11, 2006 07:26 PM


Hollywood Goes YouTube
LIMITED-TIME OFFER SUBSCRIBE NOW

(enter your email)
(enter up to 5 email addresses, separated by commas)

Max 250 characters

 
blog comments powered by Disqus