I came across this article recently. It talks about how executives don't use Twitter very much, and that could be costing companies big bucks.

A recent report from the McKinsey Global Institute states that social technologies could be worth up to $1.3 trillion dollars, which is about the amount of Australia's national GDP. The report goes on to say that the value of social media comes from improved communications and enhanced collaboration. In addition, social media also helps higher-ups unleash the vast stores of knowledge they've been hoarding and pass it along to their subordinates.

I found this article interesting because social media can also cost companies in terms of productivity and if not used properly, it can severely damage their reputations. This is one of the first articles I've read that actually talks about the positive benefit of using social media at work.

What's your take? Is social media an untapped resource or another way to waste time?

I'm not sure how much stock you can put in the claim that tweeting could "unlock from $900 billion to $1.3 trillion in value" - that seems like an awfully optimistic number - but I think of the values that social technologies can add to brand recognition and customer loyalty are very valid points.

The article states only 20 CEOs of the top Fortune 500 companies have Twitter accounts - those are a smart 20 CEOs I think.

Social media the language of younger generations and as millenials move to become the dominate consumer (and work)force in the market companies and CEOs need to embrace these emerging tech trends if they want to create and maintain valuable connections with the generation.

There are definite dangers to social media (one bad tweet can spark a PR nightmare) but I think the benefits of social media outweigh any ills.

Tweeting is here to stay and I think we're just starting to see the beginning.

"Social media the language of younger generations" ... Are you kidding me?

Social Media IS NOT the language of the young, it's HUMAN LANGUAGE - ALL HUMANS.

We've been "social" since the dawn of time and this is not some sub cultural language or dialect specific to "millenials" (which I also think is a dopey term...)

Social Media is not the words we choose per-se, it's a fusion of the platforms we choose and how we use them.

Social Media enables us to do what we inherently all want to do: connect, communicate and exchange ideas.

It's human nature. It's not 'just for kids'

I've also heard it put that "the price of not going social is not being in business in the future." Now that I think of it - I believe a certain Mr. Burchill was the author of the quote... ;-}

These kinds of predictions occur with regularity as technology evolves; I've seen Gartner Group quoted (in Mashable) as saying "By 2014, a gamified service for consumer goods marketing and customer retention will become as important as Facebook, eBay or Amazon" - so should execs be tweeting from Starbucks right after they check into Foursquare?

I think the general notion that social (and gamification, for that matter) is important to success is true, whether you approach it from McKinsey's rarified vantage point or James's more immediate response.

The "CEO as (micro) blogger" thing, though, is a different story. In most cases, the CEO's preference for social/not is irrelevant - they have legal staffs who quote passages from SEC regulations telling them that off-the-cuff commentary is not something executives should provide. $1 trillion is certainly a lot of money - but a theoretical pot of gold will likely prove less persuasive than lawyers threatening with-cause dismissals to people who are currently at the helm of large, public enterprises...