Historians once dated the beginning of the end of the age of reverence to the First World War, when Britons and Europeans realised the fallibility of the upper classes who had always led them. What will historians say of the impact of the new media? Everyone can now participate, in making new and commenting on it. Blogs, podcasts, social web sites and the limitless power of the Web to inform means that men like Garnier can no longer rule by huffing and puffing in an absurd and pompous manner. At least Gordon Brown is trying, though he is failing to judge by opinion polls. future leaders in business must embrace the new communications and understand that their stakeholders are defined not by title or wealth but by access to the Web.

This shows the difference between people who must communicate to survive and those who not think it is necessary to do that. Entrepreneurs have more in common with politicians such as Gordon Brown than with executives such as Mr Garnier. It would be foolish to say entrepreneurs are better people in general than salaried executives - many successful entrepreneurs are selfish and driven - but they tend to be charismatic risk takers. They build companies that make products and deliver services. They live on their reputations. Communicating with staff, customers and stakeholders is essential. CEOs and senior executives are often highly intelligent and capable but they are salaried employees. They can chose whether to communicate because the business they run is not theirs. Another factor worth considering in the debate about communication is the nature of the business. Those CEOs who work in industries where it is hard to defend what is produced - cigarettes and weapons - or where ethics is a concern - such as drugs - are often wary of the spotlight. Energy companies used to be like this but in an era where green issues are centre stage many such companies see the importance of effective communications.

Taking up the first case study, I think it's an interesting move by Gordon to launch his own website and introduce an interactive module via YouTube following the strategy of Hillary and Obama. Although on a totally unrelated side note, I find Gordon's website to be more cluttered whereas Hillary's website is neatly stocked and well-organized and Obama's site is beautifully presented; presentation is of utmost importance in drawing attention of the people. Had Gordon used a better web template, YouTube would have attracted even more subscribers. Anyway, the transition from Analog Conformism to Digital Revolution by exploiting the YouTube fad and tapping the pulse of avid internet users is indeed a powerful marketing tool, but it should be well used. YouTube should also try to capitalize on this scenario by re-engineering their site and it must also try to target this new growing market segment: voters! rather than merely pleasing millions of users who wish to "chill out" by watching some videos on the net.
As for the second case study of Garnier, I feel exceedingly uncomfortable to tag him as a "leader". He might have been a successful CEO of a pharmaceutical giant for years by hook or crook, but there was one vital ingredient missing in his controversial corporate stint as CEO: Leadership. He is uncivil, mean, arrogant and somewhat of a tyrant; the traits which certainly don't spell efficient leadership qualities. In Garnier's case, it's not a matter of being in analog age or digital age, the problem is more preliminary and that is himself. His interview session also shows that he lacks the gift of the gab and miserably fails to give answers extemporaneously and in a convincing manner. Fine, he came prepared for GSK's bird-flu vaccine but when he was being clobbered with questions on Seroxat and his personal career, he should have the quality of gaining the upper hand in a conversation and redirecting it to what he wishes to talk about. Let's say you're an astrophysicist and you find your loquacious neighbor blabbering about his new lustrous marble flooring. You really can divert the topic towards you without hurting the ego of the other person. Marble Flooring ---> Rocks ---> Moon Rocks ---> Solar System -----> Stars and within no time your neighbor will be immersed in your animated conversation about escape velocities of blackholes and electromagnetic wave frequencies and gamma ray emissions of quasars!!

I reckon it is time for CEOs and business leaders to keep up with the pace of digital revolution and use it to the hilt as a powerful marketing tool. I find the CEO of my own company sending out glossy and excruciatingly long newsletters every month via email. They look very much like an excerpt from a newspaper article; I don't feel connected this way and oftentimes I simply delete such emails and count on the word-of-mouth news to know the progress of the company. The top management should make it a point to actually interact with the middle and lower rungs of corporate structure via video conferencing and "video newsletters" to know the "inside stories" rather than formally conducting biquarterly conferences. If I am to have an interactive session via YouTube with the top management, then I'd certainly have a go at my CMO because he is ultimately responsible for selling the business and besides, marketing guys are more open to both subjective and objective views unlike a CEO or President whose targets and working methodologies are pretty much fixed and odds are that all the advices might fall on their deaf ears.

I think the problem rests with the politician and his/her policies and not with the media. Also given the nature of the new media - esp. its viral and its uncontrollable form, anything said or done can very quickly be taken out of context. Far better to have fuller control of an public identity through exploiting older media, than to join Britney and Amy in youtube hell.

I dont think age has anything t do with it. People either enjoy communicating or they don't. I was no fan but the late Ronald Reagan would have loved the new technology had it been available when he was President. I am sure he would have had his own interactive web site. Some communicators are not really communicating. They pretend to listen when all they are doing is pretending to be open minded. But wise leaders in all fields listen to what people say and take heed. Leaders who don't value this can be young or old. Its attitude not age that matters.

Colin – you are right, historians have an interesting job ahead when they begin to analyse how our politicians and leaders have navigated the new media. How will they make sense of their fragmented images and messages?

Garry – I chuckled at the thought of Ronald Reagan embracing the new technology – I am sure he would have been a huge YouTube star.

Stephen is right to warn of the dangers of YouTube hell. M Garnier is clearly taking a more cautious approach in managing his reputation. It would be difficult to imagine him as a cyber neighbour of Amy or Britney, but full marks to Gordon for at least attempting to go interactive.

“I reckon it is time for CEOs and business leaders to keep up with the pace of digital revolution and use it to the hilt as a powerful marketing tool.”

Well said, Nikhil. You don’t give your age, but I am guessing you are of the generation that expects their CEOs to communicate with them in a more engaging and meaningful way.

Boring newsletters and stilted management memos will never be read, so why don’t top management : “make it a point to actually interact with the middle and lower rungs of corporate structure via video conferencing and "video newsletters" to know the "inside stories" rather than formally conducting biquarterly conferences” as you suggest?

More thoughts anyone? What do senior managers think? Why do formal communications in organizations remain so stilted when communication itself is the life blood of an organization?