Corporate Blogging

First, the stuff we already know: Great things happen when people blog... they get out of their boxes and communicate with the world.  Perhaps the ultimate form of the First Amendment in electronic form, blogging has the power to inspire and create change unlike most other forms of expression we know.  Foremost, it's an interactive platform that elicits feedback and inspires dialog.  Combined with the pervasiveness of the Internet, it allows our words a near limitless audience, bound universally by both wires and wireless.

I've posted briefly on blogging before, and there is a topical question that remains today one of the most common discussions in business communications: "Why don't more businesses blog?"  This is especially true in the larger corporate world.  As blogging is often an entrepreneurial mindset, we consequently see most blogs coming from the individual or small business level.  And although - as Doc Searls pointed out in a recent Webcast with Jay Deragon - some prominent large organizations are using blogging and Web 2.0 in their communications and branding efforts, it remains true that many larger, influential corporations are simply not engaging in this arena enough - or even at all.  After all, what is a corporation but a box of people?  The scale or scope of the organization matters not; whether a ten-person design shop or a 10,000-person insurance giant, companies - at their core - consist of the hearts and minds of human beings, not merely machines, desks, and inventories.  And those humans are the transceivers of the branding soul of their companies.  It is their voices that resonate within and without the walls of an organization.  And it is precisely why they should blog.

And at an individual level, many of them do.  They often participate in groups like LinkedIn or Facebook, and are often familiar with the world of blogging, networking, and the concept of personal branding.  Yet their companies often shy away from formal participation in these areas.  Why?  Why would an organization avoid - and often discourage - corporate connectivity at the 2.0 level?

There are perhaps many reasons, ranging from protection over a brand and how it is conveyed, to a desire to control the dialog of its people.  But I see this as counterproductive, backward logic.  By a corporation silencing the dialog and expression of its employees, it has also stifled its closest and strongest source of brand ambassadorship.  A company of 10,000 employees effectively has 10,000 marketing assistants, on call 24/7/365.  That's a lot of free publicity effort.

Although blogging at the corporate level can be primarily driven by employees through their own words, it is also a medium through which hired marketers and public relations pros may ghost write the content - and this in itself is an oft-debated tactic (see Morgan McLintic's thoughts here, for example.)  A story may be better framed by a professional, but isn't it the honest sincerity and soul of an actual employee's words that can make a blog genuine to its readers?  And what of anonymous blogging, when the writer is completely transparent to readers? (See Teresa Valdez Klein's quick post.)

Here's another one: the educational sector.  In a recent Hartford Business Journal article, it was pointed out that there were currently fewer than three dozen college heads around the entire U.S. with blog sites.  Compared with the number of accredited colleges and universities in our country, that's a paltry number.  It's also a bit ironic in that among the greatest features of blogging is its educational aspect. 

In all sectors, blogging puts a face to a leader, enhancing his or her image and connection to the world.  It adds color, depth, credibility, and accessibility to an otherwise oft-one-sided relationship.  And this also applies to everyone within an organization, of any shape or form, from the ground floor up.

What are your thoughts on this?