I was asked this the other day. My immediate response was something a kin to “everyone should blog if they have something interesting and relevant to say”. Seth Godin makes a pretty good case against CEO blogging saying

“Here’s the problem. Blogs work when they are based on:
Candor
Urgency
Timeliness
Pithiness and
Controversy
(maybe Utility if you want six).

Does this sound like a CEO to you?

Short and sweet, folks: If you can’t be at least four of the five things listed above, please don’t bother. People have a choice (4.5 million choices, in fact) and nobody is going to read your blog, link to your blog or quote your blog unless there’s something in it for them.

Save the fluff for the annual report.”

I don’t think its that cut and dry. It depends on your expectations and the goals you set out to accomplish by writing the blog. If you wanted a huge audience to raise brand awareness then that’s going to be a very different blog then one written to get the attention of a niche provider market.

This is the new Guttenberg Press for anyone who wants to use it. Never before has the top of the company been able to communicate in a two way conversation with everyone else involved in the co-creation process. A confident CEO can and should regard a blog as an opportunity akin to television, but with the benefit of backtalk. That backtalk can be scanned, summarized and focused by staff, if need be. Staff writers could even write most of the content leaving only monthly or weekly posts for the ceo.

This doesn’t mean that they plug only their own products or services. A blog should not be created if the main intended purpose is becoming an advertisement. People won’t subscribe to it and you’ll be wasting your time, but who better than the ceo to give guidance on new technology issues or new brand strategy? Nobody. That’s who.