I like EMC's upgrade on the FORTUNE 500 list! By jumping from #201 to #172, EMC is now "A FORTUNE 200 Company." Nice ring!
In related news ...
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran an article on FORTUNE 500 use of social media (inclusive of a snazzy quote by EMC's Chuck Hollis). Can you believe only 81 of the F500 have company sponsored blogs? Of those, only 23 have a company sponsored Twitter address linked to their blogs. EMC, gladly, is in that elite list of 23.*
Are more than 4/5ths of largest companies in America not aware of the shift to social media and blogs as a primary means of on-line communication -- now more popular than email? [See this Nielson report.] Or are their lawyers & leaders fearful of Web 2.0 to the point that they find it preferable to NOT engage the way customers and other business-generating communities wish to communicate today?
Other recognition I liked includes this NY Post article from last week on Employee Engagement. It profiles EMC's use of social media as especially beneficial for employee engagement and business value during an economic downturn.
Lastly, I don't think I ever called out Mashable ranking EMC as a Top 40 Brand on Twitter.
What's the point beyond "Hurray for EMC?"
The business climate is tough. In times like this you want to partner with companies that feel "safe," right? But what made a company "safe" won't keep it safe. All companies need to adapt. A FORTUNE 500 company that shows it can embrace new communication and engagement models -- and turn them into business leverage is a good thing. And, just maybe, such a company is also worthy of getting cozy with.
--------------- Talk Back ---------------
Is it important to you that companies you depend upon (financially or otherwise) show an ability to lead, adapt, and in this case, embrace emerging communication models?
Why do you think so many FORTUNE 500s are hesitant to embrace social media as a means to engage with talent, customers, prospects, investors, and more?