Tag Archives: ceos

Behind Indiana’s Impressive CEO Ranking

Posted on by
Reply

Many of you likely saw the news yesterday about Indiana maintaining its No. 5 overall ranking – and tops in the Midwest – in Chief Executive magazine’s 13th annual Best & Worst States for Business survey. A few things that might have been missed:

  • As the name indicates, these rankings are based on CEO perceptions. It’s good for Indiana to be regarded so highly overall by the group making ultimate business decisions, but it also leads to few changes for most states
  • Texas was No. 1 for the 13th straight year and Florida No. 2 for the fifth year in a row. North Carolina (despite the turmoil over its since-repealed transgender bathroom issue) and South Carolina also topped Indiana
  • At the bottom, California was at No. 50 for the sixth year in a row. New York and Illinois were next in line
  • There has been some movement, however, in the middle. Ohio, now at No. 11, was No. 41 in 2011 and No. 22 just two years ago. On the other end of the spectrum, Louisiana was No. 7 in 2015 and No. 33 this time around
  • Indiana’s individual category rankings included: Workforce quality, No. 8 (although we know there is much work to do in this area); taxes and regulation, No. 14 (we would have expected to be a little higher there); and living environment, No. 16
  • Industry rankings were also part of the survey. Indiana was second in manufacturing and 10th in energy

Larry Gigerich, executive managing director of Fishers-based Ginovus and chair of the Indiana Chamber’s economic development committee, was quoted in the release of the rankings. He said simply, “The top-ranking states have continued to implement public policy supporting economic development to ensure that they remain as leaders.”

Complete rankings are available online.

CEOs Just Saying No to Social Media

Posted on by
Reply

Social media may be taking much of the rest of the world by storm, but Fortune 500 CEOs are not quite ready to take the personal plunge in most cases. Bulldog Reporter has the story:

The 2012 Fortune 500 Social CEO Index was created (by Domo and CEO.com) to investigate the social media habits of leading CEOs. It found that while CEOs lagged far behind the general population in terms of overall social media participation, they are more active on one social network — LinkedIn — than the general public. When it comes to specific social networks, LinkedIn was by far the most popular among Fortune 500 CEOs, with 26 percent on the network, compared to just 20.15 percent of the U.S. general public.

But on other major social networks, including Facebook, Twitter and Google Plus, the presence of Fortune 500 CEOs was minimal at best, with only 7.6 percent on Facebook, 4 percent on Twitter, and less than 1 percent on Google Plus. By contrast, more than 50 percent of the U.S. population uses Facebook and 34 percent uses Twitter.

"The results came as a surprise considering that social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn are part of the daily fabric of life," said Josh James, Domo founder and CEO, in a news release. "We really expected to see more social engagement from CEOs, especially since the benefits of social media are no longer just wishful thinking."

Others findings from the study:

  • 70 percent of CEOs have no presence on social networks

  • Among the 20 Fortune 500 CEOs who have opened Twitter accounts, five have never tweeted

  • Rupert Murdoch of News Corp, with 249,00 followers, is now the most-followed Fortune 500 CEO, surpassing HP’s Meg Whitman who was in the number one spot when the survey was taken

  • 10 Fortune 500 CEOs have more than 500 LinkedIn connections, while 36 CEOs have 1 LinkedIn connection or none

  • Six Fortune 500 CEOs contribute to blogs, and only one of the six CEOs, John Mackey of Whole Foods, maintains his own blog

Zuck Does What Zuck Wants

Posted on by
Reply

As most of you know, Facebook acquired Instagram last week for about… (cue Dr. Evil) one BILLION dollars. But an article in the Wall Street Journal illustrates how the board’s input on CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s decision was virtually nil. Notwithstanding the fact that he holds majority voting rights and can technically do what he wants, it’s still a pretty bad-a** move, in this blogger’s opinion. WSJ reports:

On the morning of Sunday, April 8, Facebook Inc.’s youthful chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, alerted his board of directors that he intended to buy Instagram, the hot photo-sharing service.

It was the first the board heard of what, later that day, would become Facebook’s largest acquisition ever, according to several people familiar with the matter. Mr. Zuckerberg and his counterpart at Instagram, Kevin Systrom, had already been talking over the deal for three days, these people said.

Negotiating mostly on his own, Mr. Zuckerberg had fielded Mr. Systrom’s opening number, $2 billion, and whittled it down over several meetings at Mr. Zuckerberg’s $7 million five-bedroom home in Palo Alto. Later that Sunday, the two 20-somethings would agree on a sale valued at $1 billion.

It was a remarkably speedy three-day path to a deal for Facebook—a young company taking pains to portray itself as blue-chip ahead of its initial public offering of stock in a few weeks that could value it at up to $100 billion. Companies generally prefer to bring in ranks of lawyers and bankers to scrutinize a deal before proceeding, a process that can eat up days or weeks.

Mr. Zuckerberg ditched all that. By the time Facebook’s board was brought in, the deal was all but done. The board, according to one person familiar with the matter, "Was told, not consulted."

Mr. Zuckerberg owns 28% of Facebook’s stock, and controls 57% of its voting rights, giving him the freedom to act independently if he wants. Mr. Systrom, similarly, owns about 45% of his company. That control means investors must accept the fact that the CEOs can move quickly. 

Should Your CEO Really be Blogging?

Posted on by
Reply

When blogs and social media really began to take off, there were some who argued that businesses should put their top executive’s face out there and get their CEO blogging about the company. Over time, that’s worked for some folks, and not so much for others. PR Daily offers further analysis on why it remains a challenging communications topic for many:

Mark Schaefer of Schaefer Marketing Solutions and the blog Businesses Grow says most CEOs will never get to that level of ease and comfort. Charismatic executives such as Steve Jobs and Richard Branson are atypical, he says, though that level of authenticity would certainly be an advantage for a CEO.

However, Schaefer says the interviews with the 10 bloggers show that they’re “out of touch with reality” in terms of what CEOs can and can’t say. “It’s naïve to believe that CEOs are going to be as authentic as someone who’s blogging about gadgets,” he says.

A key reason for that difference, he says, is the law. For example, a CEO whom Schaefer knows tweeted about a meeting with shareholders only to find he had broken a Securities and Exchange Commission rule. That CEO ended up paying a fine and having to appease angry investors.

“CEOs are under a tremendous amount of scrutiny,” Schaefer says.

The public isn’t the only constituency to consider, Olson says. Being critical of another company, another CEO, or the business environment in general may go over well in the public eye, but it “may threaten a CEO’s standing with his contemporaries or perhaps be read as disloyalty,” she says.

Likewise, saying doesn’t make up for doing, Olson says. Expressing sympathy for employees who lose benefits doesn’t mean much when a CEO is taking home a big salary or huge bonuses.

“PR can’t fix an inherently and systemically flawed corporate structure,” she says.

Bernstein points out that some points the bloggers make are contradictory. It’s hard to be fearless and authentically human at the same time, he says.

“Even Seal Team Six members feel fear,” Bernstein says. “However, coming across as confident despite any fear is admirable.”