I’ve been pondering the “ghost-blogging” debate for some time, listening (via podcasts) and reading (via blogs) the growing chorus of voices that proclaims ghost-blogging an acceptable and legitimate practice. People I respect are among those who argue…
- A good ghost writer can convey the intent and the personality of his or her subject.
- The best analogy for good ghost blogging is signing for the deaf, which transmits the exact words and inflection of the speaker deaf members of the audience cannot hear.
- Ghost writing is common in business and blogs are just another business communication tool; so what’s the beef with ghost blogging? It’s inevitable that a business communication tool will be used the same way other business communication tools are used.
- Ghost blogging and authenticity are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Sallie Goetsch (rhymes with sketch) is one of the most Adam Zand has weighed in, as have
And thus, the ever-expanding blog-reading public will perceive that the business world has perverted a channel of communication that was created in order to foster genuine conversation. (Speeches, press releases, and annual reports were not.) The business world has the opportunity to employ blogs to create human touch points in their organizations. Like Dan, I hope the truly authentic blogs that fulfill this vision will rise to the top. But for most people, business is business, and the inauthentic blogs will taint the rest. If the CEO isn’t writing his own blog, how can I believe anybody else in the organization is?
In a (non-existent) ideal world, CEOs who want to engage in the conversation but who aren’t willing to put their own pen to paper will opt for alternatives; God knows there are enough of them. Marriott International CEO Bill Marriott, for example, records his blog posts into a digital recorder; someone on his staff transcribes and
Suggest a Correction
Found an error or have a suggestion? Let us know and we'll review it.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!