It's a bit morbid, sure, but it's a fact of life: a CEO's health can affect stock price, particularly when that CEO is as tied to the success and public image of a company as Steve Jobs.
When the Apple head came out on stage back in June to deliver the keynote, looking far more gaunt than usual, minds immediately went back to his struggle with pancreatic cancer, some three years back.
Jobs survived, of course, but that battle left people wondering whether the "common bug" that Apple chalked his new weight loss up to was yet another manifestation of the company's omnipresent security. Beyond that single non-admission, the company answered simply that, "Steve's health is a private matter."
Jobs, for his part, has been a touch more forthcoming--aggressively so--at least to one New York Times reporter. "This is Steve Jobs," said the Apple head in a call to the paper. "You think I'm an arrogant [expletive deleted by NYT] who thinks he's above the law, and I think you're a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong."
In the off-the-record conversation, Jobs went on to confirm the fact that ailment was indeed more than the simple common bug that Apple had initially reported. It was not, however, he added, life threatening.
"After he hung up the phone, it occurred to me that I had just been handed, by Mr. Jobs himself, the very information he was refusing to share with the shareholders who have entrusted him with their money," wrote The Times reporter, without divulging any more information. "You would think he'd want them to know before me. But apparently not."
Touche, slime bucket.
July 28, 2008 10:47 AM
While the decision to keep his health private may be Jobs' prerogative at this juncture, it would also make sense of him to take advantage of this crisis of faith to address the issue of succession, which will inevitably come up again at a later date, even if he is given a clean bill of health tomorrow.
Dr. Tantillo ('the marketing doctor') did a recent post on his branding blog (http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv), asserting that Jobs and Apple are two separate brands--Jobs one that is irreplaceable but that can, at this juncture, help ensure Apple's longevity--and that, with the question of Jobs' health at least being raised, this is definitely the time to do so.
Full post: http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/07/24/brand-advisory.aspx