Exceptionally Guilty

“You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you may later rely on in court.”

What with all the talk about what makes a good CEO blogger, I’m given to muse about the possible future outcome when if your CEO doesn’t blog then the default assumption will be that it’s because either..

1. Your CEO is illiterite.

2. Your CEO is wanted for fraud and doesn’t wish to draw attention to himself.

3. Your CEO knows his products / services are crap and is worried that he’s gotten away with it this long so, best not to draw attention to their crapness publicly on a blog.

4. Your CEO is worried that a deadly looking, puce coloured cocktail containing items 1-3 will sink the share price and his jetski, and it’s then say?nara CEO lifestyle.

5. Your CEO is worried that some disenchanted staff may starting drinking the deadly puce cocktail, follow his lead and write about points 1-3 and a bunch of other bad stuff too. What’s bad for the goose…

6. Your CEO has nothing to hide, has great products and his customers and staff all love him but genuinely doesn’t feel motivated to start writing a CEO blog. Just not appropriate.

…and if it’s really point 6., but the world generally defaults to (in ignorance of fact) the only reason a given CEO doesn’t blog is due to points 1-5, then a whole guilty by exception / association thing emerges.

Of course, I personally doubt very much it’ll ever get this bad when we end up with the corporate communications equivalent of the Singularity when all CEO’s are blogging, I’m presuming due to points 1-5 and or point 6.

So, this was really a pointless post. Like that’s a first.