If there’s one word that’s tossed around with abandon when it comes to social media, it’s “transparency”. But like any word that gets overused as a shortcut to describing a concept, I think we need to back up the truck a bit and discuss what we really mean by that. Because this is one of the words that scares companies into thinking they have to bare all in order to use social media. And it prevents them from moving forward.
Inherent or Taught?
In this excellent post on the broken bits of social media strategy, Tom Webster talks about how telling people to “be human” isn’t very effective. Directing someone to behave in a manner that’s not part of company culture, or in a way that conflicts with their sense of self-preservation, is counter-intuitive and it’s backwards. In other words, telling someone to be human and empowering and allowing them to be are often two different things.
Same deal with transparency. When we say we want companies to be transparent, what we want is for them to be honest with us. Paul Gillin put that rather eloquently at the recent Inbound Marketing Summit in Boston, and mentioned (I think rightly) that if a business truly has an honesty issue, that goes far, far beyond social media’s ability to fix it.
So is honesty – honesty as woven into the very fabric of a business – something we can teach?
Too Much Information?
Contrary to some widsom, also, is the idea that honesty means giving away the farm. Sharing your trade secrets, disclosing private financial or other sensitive information, giving your customers the unfettered view of the good, the bad, and the ugly. I don’t ever think that everything behind the walls of a business should be fair game. Transparency and honesty don’t equate with utter vulnerability.
Perhaps what we’re really striving for is the demonstration of imperfection and a reasonable level of accessibility. The openness to a discussion instead of instilling gatekeepers and bulldogs at every turn. The willingness of business to show that not only do they not have all the answers all the time, but that their employees can relate to us on a level of individual need vs. an “entity-to-market” mindset.
We’re oddly comforted when a representative of a business says “you know, I don’t know the answer to that, but I’ll find out for you.”. The transparency here is acknowledging that not every question comes with a ready-made answer, and that the human on the other end has to find a response rather than dish out one that’s been pre-baked for them. Â Screw ups deserve acknowledgment, apologies, and work toward solutions. Questions deserve answers wherever possible.
Transparency is Not a Tactic
To reference Tom’s post again, often this directive to “be transparent” is issued tactically to front-line employees and those responsible for corporate communication. We’re asking the gatekeepers to be “transparent”. Which, almost immediately, smacks of mistrust, or at the very least a task on a list instead of a way of doing business.
So therein lies the rub. Is a “transparent” business something that can be accomplished at a surface level? Where does the idea of transparency need to be nurtured inside a business for it to be real?
Moreover, is it really transparency or honesty we’re asking for, or is it something different? What are we really expecting from companies (please don’t tell me to “be human” unless you can define that too), and as a business person, where would you draw the line between honesty and too much information? Is there such a thing as too much?
Think this through with me some more. It’s still a little tangled in my head.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=72f50937-6214-4e82-9dff-0043133eaf69)
I think we’re asking for companies to CARE. Part of this involves trusting your customers and showing them things that might yet not be perfect (part of being transparent), but allowing for input on how to make things better. Maybe what scares companies away from transparency, is that many of them truly don’t CARE, have forgotten how to show it, or just don’t know the right way to show it. Thoughts?
I think we’re asking for companies to CARE. Part of this involves trusting your customers and showing them things that might yet not be perfect (part of being transparent), but allowing for input on how to make things better. Maybe what scares companies away from transparency, is that many of them truly don’t CARE, have forgotten how to show it, or just don’t know the right way to show it. Thoughts?
For me, it’s helpful to think of transparency in visual terms. In the past there has been an insurmountable brick wall between customers and companies, and the occasional lob of information from one side or another.
What we’re asking for, nay +requiring+ is not necessarily to be shown the back rooms where the sausages are made, but at least to replace the wall with a glass one thats lower, so we can shake hands.
For me, it’s helpful to think of transparency in visual terms. In the past there has been an insurmountable brick wall between customers and companies, and the occasional lob of information from one side or another.
What we’re asking for, nay +requiring+ is not necessarily to be shown the back rooms where the sausages are made, but at least to replace the wall with a glass one thats lower, so we can shake hands.
I think that Transparency rather than being ‘human’ is the fact the we want to feel that the company is near us in the form that they too can make mistakes, don’t know an answer and have feelings. There is also another side to transparency that is that as costumers we would like to know more information on where the product comes from, if you have it in stock or not and where we can get our needs satisfied.
For a company to be transparent i think this has to come from the top, be able to communicate with your employees telling them how the company is going,showing them the numbers, sharing what bothers you and what not. In this way transparency needs to be in the culture of the company. If not it will be a fake transparency, because the front line people will not know the real situation in order to be transparent with the costumer.
Too much information will be to share stuff that really gives you a competitive advantage, like the secret formula for Coke, which doesn’t exist by the way. It’s most likely the costumer doesn’t want to know this, I just want to enjoy a glass of Coke, not make my own. For example Zappos has a lot of inner processes that make it possible for it to deliver it’s goods, make the inventories work well and be able to have a 365 days return policy, the company is super transparent, but yet we don’t know those core processes in which a part of their advantage relies.
I would love to see what everyone else thinks, because drawing the line to transparency and understanding it has to come from the culture it’s not the common use in business today.
I think that Transparency rather than being ‘human’ is the fact the we want to feel that the company is near us in the form that they too can make mistakes, don’t know an answer and have feelings. There is also another side to transparency that is that as costumers we would like to know more information on where the product comes from, if you have it in stock or not and where we can get our needs satisfied.
For a company to be transparent i think this has to come from the top, be able to communicate with your employees telling them how the company is going,showing them the numbers, sharing what bothers you and what not. In this way transparency needs to be in the culture of the company. If not it will be a fake transparency, because the front line people will not know the real situation in order to be transparent with the costumer.
Too much information will be to share stuff that really gives you a competitive advantage, like the secret formula for Coke, which doesn’t exist by the way. It’s most likely the costumer doesn’t want to know this, I just want to enjoy a glass of Coke, not make my own. For example Zappos has a lot of inner processes that make it possible for it to deliver it’s goods, make the inventories work well and be able to have a 365 days return policy, the company is super transparent, but yet we don’t know those core processes in which a part of their advantage relies.
I would love to see what everyone else thinks, because drawing the line to transparency and understanding it has to come from the culture it’s not the common use in business today.
I agree with Jorge. Transparency definitely has to come from the top, lead by example, it has to be done more than said.
Corporate culture is so important when conducting business, not just in social media space; I do believe if integrity exists within a company then we can almost guarantee the transparency will be there.
I agree with Jorge. Transparency definitely has to come from the top, lead by example, it has to be done more than said.
Corporate culture is so important when conducting business, not just in social media space; I do believe if integrity exists within a company then we can almost guarantee the transparency will be there.
Amber,
Thanks for tweeting with me several hours back on the topic. The biggest problem I have with ‘transparency’ is that I feel it’s innate and cannot be manufactured. Does that mean it can’t be learned? No. A company, by human business definition, should be built upon a culture– that culture demonstrating values and principles that are intrinsic to the company. If the culture does not ever represent those values, how then can the company be honest, available, CARING, or in this case, transparent?
Culture can be learned and then that transfers to conditioning oneself to live out those values, but sadly, the underline motive for most is not to help customers, but rather have companies help themselves by helping their customers.
That being said, can transparency ever really be determined or just learned, therefore being tactical by nature?
Amber,
Thanks for tweeting with me several hours back on the topic. The biggest problem I have with ‘transparency’ is that I feel it’s innate and cannot be manufactured. Does that mean it can’t be learned? No. A company, by human business definition, should be built upon a culture– that culture demonstrating values and principles that are intrinsic to the company. If the culture does not ever represent those values, how then can the company be honest, available, CARING, or in this case, transparent?
Culture can be learned and then that transfers to conditioning oneself to live out those values, but sadly, the underline motive for most is not to help customers, but rather have companies help themselves by helping their customers.
That being said, can transparency ever really be determined or just learned, therefore being tactical by nature?
I think maybe transparency is for the most part supposed to mean that companies want to show that they have nothing to hide and can therefore be trusted not to “pull a fast one” on anybody. The interesting conflict that comes up happens when companies DO, in fact, have something to hide but are trying to pretend that they don’t. I’ve worked in customer service for such a company before (which shall remain nameless) and I can tell you it’s a heck of an awkward position to be in.
It’s also interesting to see the extents to which companies go to protect their intellectual property rights while still claiming to be fully transparent. Sometimes they’ll tell you as much as they can but when you venture into certain territory you have to sign an NDA before proceeding. Of course, if IP is the issue, I don’t think they’re necessarily doing anything wrong – they usually will make it clear that the transparency only applies to their PRACTICES, not their PROPERTY, so it’s not as though they’re trying to keep people from finding out about the doomsday device hidden in their secret lab or anything (in fact, I hear Coca-Cola is very proud of their doomsday device and will gladly show it to anyone who asks… but I digress…).
That said, however, I have noticed a number of what appear to be truly transparent projects starting to emerge — mostly from independent businesses and self-employed individuals. These are things like authors releasing podcast & pdf versions of their novels before they see print (sometimes in conjunction with their publishing houses) and game companies having open betas for games they’re developing (both for electronic and tabletop games), publishing internal e-mails, skype conversations, etc, to show the whole process. It sort of turns the usual idea of companies keeping things quiet on its ear, so I’ll be very interested to see how those projects develop.
I think maybe transparency is for the most part supposed to mean that companies want to show that they have nothing to hide and can therefore be trusted not to “pull a fast one” on anybody. The interesting conflict that comes up happens when companies DO, in fact, have something to hide but are trying to pretend that they don’t. I’ve worked in customer service for such a company before (which shall remain nameless) and I can tell you it’s a heck of an awkward position to be in.
It’s also interesting to see the extents to which companies go to protect their intellectual property rights while still claiming to be fully transparent. Sometimes they’ll tell you as much as they can but when you venture into certain territory you have to sign an NDA before proceeding. Of course, if IP is the issue, I don’t think they’re necessarily doing anything wrong – they usually will make it clear that the transparency only applies to their PRACTICES, not their PROPERTY, so it’s not as though they’re trying to keep people from finding out about the doomsday device hidden in their secret lab or anything (in fact, I hear Coca-Cola is very proud of their doomsday device and will gladly show it to anyone who asks… but I digress…).
That said, however, I have noticed a number of what appear to be truly transparent projects starting to emerge — mostly from independent businesses and self-employed individuals. These are things like authors releasing podcast & pdf versions of their novels before they see print (sometimes in conjunction with their publishing houses) and game companies having open betas for games they’re developing (both for electronic and tabletop games), publishing internal e-mails, skype conversations, etc, to show the whole process. It sort of turns the usual idea of companies keeping things quiet on its ear, so I’ll be very interested to see how those projects develop.
It seems to me that calls for transparency are actually three different types of calls: calls for clarity, calls for consistency, and calls for communication. Confusion arises when we toss all of them together under one vague umbrella. But lack of each, separably and together, often underlies consumer calls for change.
We want to know what it is a company does, and what it stands for (clarity). We want to see it deliver on that in an expected, predictable way (consistency). And we want it to tell us what we want to know, when we want to know it (communication), even if sometimes that’s just to let us know we’re a valued customer, or that our complaint has been heard.
I don’t think we actually want companies to tell us everything all the time. We want to know what each company’s individual set of rules is. We don’t want to be surprised by their actions or their products. We want companies to live up to our expectations of them. And most importantly, we want to have enough information for us to know all of the above.
I may wish, for example, that Nike didn’t use sweatshop labor–but they don’t hide the fact that they do (they can’t). They admit they do, and at least in the last few years, have put programs in place to add educational training for their workers. It’s up to me as a consumer to decide if their clear and consistent use of of sweatshop labor is in line with my own set of values (it isn’t), and what I’ll do about it. Nike got in trouble when they weren’t clear on their stance and how it fit into their company values–and weren’t open or clear in their communications about it.
The question of “too much” is an individual one, both on the company and consumer level. I may want to live in blissful ignorance of how the products I use arrive at my door or in my hands. In that case, a company that consistently tells me all about itself would be sharing too much–but perhaps just enough to someone for whom that quality is important in the companies s/he buys from. We have to assume that Nike’s customers are either (a) okay with their general management and production practices or (b) don’t value that as an important component in their decision making.
How much I share as an individual is also a choice. You may easily be able to find out a lot about me without my active permission: you can find out where I live, where I went to school, that I have a child, what I do. But as I was reminded at a presentation I saw CT Moore (@gypsybandito) give, I have full control of my thoughts and what the wider world does and doesn’t know about them. I choose which of my thoughts to share, where, and how.
So, to answer your question of “where does the idea of transparency need to be nurtured inside a business for it to be real?” Where any change does: where it’s most likely to take hold–and be sustainable. Sometimes that’s on the front lines (for grass roots change), sometimes it’s at the top (for executive change). What will spark the change? A desire for it. If you want things to be different, you have to do them differently. In this new era, the advantage will go to those companies that have clarity about what that is, are consistent in their delivery, and can sustain internal and external communications that engage and empower others in those efforts.
It seems to me that calls for transparency are actually three different types of calls: calls for clarity, calls for consistency, and calls for communication. Confusion arises when we toss all of them together under one vague umbrella. But lack of each, separably and together, often underlies consumer calls for change.
We want to know what it is a company does, and what it stands for (clarity). We want to see it deliver on that in an expected, predictable way (consistency). And we want it to tell us what we want to know, when we want to know it (communication), even if sometimes that’s just to let us know we’re a valued customer, or that our complaint has been heard.
I don’t think we actually want companies to tell us everything all the time. We want to know what each company’s individual set of rules is. We don’t want to be surprised by their actions or their products. We want companies to live up to our expectations of them. And most importantly, we want to have enough information for us to know all of the above.
I may wish, for example, that Nike didn’t use sweatshop labor–but they don’t hide the fact that they do (they can’t). They admit they do, and at least in the last few years, have put programs in place to add educational training for their workers. It’s up to me as a consumer to decide if their clear and consistent use of of sweatshop labor is in line with my own set of values (it isn’t), and what I’ll do about it. Nike got in trouble when they weren’t clear on their stance and how it fit into their company values–and weren’t open or clear in their communications about it.
The question of “too much” is an individual one, both on the company and consumer level. I may want to live in blissful ignorance of how the products I use arrive at my door or in my hands. In that case, a company that consistently tells me all about itself would be sharing too much–but perhaps just enough to someone for whom that quality is important in the companies s/he buys from. We have to assume that Nike’s customers are either (a) okay with their general management and production practices or (b) don’t value that as an important component in their decision making.
How much I share as an individual is also a choice. You may easily be able to find out a lot about me without my active permission: you can find out where I live, where I went to school, that I have a child, what I do. But as I was reminded at a presentation I saw CT Moore (@gypsybandito) give, I have full control of my thoughts and what the wider world does and doesn’t know about them. I choose which of my thoughts to share, where, and how.
So, to answer your question of “where does the idea of transparency need to be nurtured inside a business for it to be real?” Where any change does: where it’s most likely to take hold–and be sustainable. Sometimes that’s on the front lines (for grass roots change), sometimes it’s at the top (for executive change). What will spark the change? A desire for it. If you want things to be different, you have to do them differently. In this new era, the advantage will go to those companies that have clarity about what that is, are consistent in their delivery, and can sustain internal and external communications that engage and empower others in those efforts.
Exactly. Social media isn’t really about marketing. It’s about changing the company/customer dynamic. The convergence between marketing and customer experience has begun, and it’s going to change everything about corporate cultures. Thanks for shining the light on the big picture.
Exactly. Social media isn’t really about marketing. It’s about changing the company/customer dynamic. The convergence between marketing and customer experience has begun, and it’s going to change everything about corporate cultures. Thanks for shining the light on the big picture.
Amber,
Agree with what you’ve said here. IMHO, transparency is an EFFECT of new technology – and people have to find ways to adapt to this — and they seem to be doing it by moblizing to use these new tools in positive ways — or merely throwing up the same, tired marketing crap we’ve seen for decades in new technology channels.
I wrote a couple of pieces on transparency and authenticity a few months ago. …taking about how brands and agencies try so hard to adapt they lose focus of what’s important.
http://livepath.blogspot.com/2009/07/are-we-transparent-uh-no.html
People like to stand on the soap box and tell people to be “HUMAN or “REAL” or “AUTHENTIC” but we all know that we’ve seen plenty of human, real, authentic garbage. Lots of brands out there being “real” to the best of their ability – the problem is — they aren’t “getting it.”
I think it’s more effective to think about being on task — engaging people in a good way — using the tools to drive better experience, business value and bottom line results using real people…and taking it one step at a time.
Amber,
Agree with what you’ve said here. IMHO, transparency is an EFFECT of new technology – and people have to find ways to adapt to this — and they seem to be doing it by moblizing to use these new tools in positive ways — or merely throwing up the same, tired marketing crap we’ve seen for decades in new technology channels.
I wrote a couple of pieces on transparency and authenticity a few months ago. …taking about how brands and agencies try so hard to adapt they lose focus of what’s important.
http://livepath.blogspot.com/2009/07/are-we-transparent-uh-no.html
People like to stand on the soap box and tell people to be “HUMAN or “REAL” or “AUTHENTIC” but we all know that we’ve seen plenty of human, real, authentic garbage. Lots of brands out there being “real” to the best of their ability – the problem is — they aren’t “getting it.”
I think it’s more effective to think about being on task — engaging people in a good way — using the tools to drive better experience, business value and bottom line results using real people…and taking it one step at a time.
I think we often confuse transparency with accountability. It makes no difference what form of comms you are using – whether it’s email, social media or face-to-face – you want to be able to believe someone will deliver on what they promise. You place a small amount of trust in that person. And I guess that’s the point – we are shifting our frame of engagement from the “brand” to the “person behind the brand”. And if we can’t identify that person, we wonder what the brand and/or person is trying to hide.
I think we often confuse transparency with accountability. It makes no difference what form of comms you are using – whether it’s email, social media or face-to-face – you want to be able to believe someone will deliver on what they promise. You place a small amount of trust in that person. And I guess that’s the point – we are shifting our frame of engagement from the “brand” to the “person behind the brand”. And if we can’t identify that person, we wonder what the brand and/or person is trying to hide.
Hatehatehate the word “transparency” as it’s come to be used with regard to Social Media and the transformation of company/costumer relationships in the 21st century.
Transparency is all too often translated as “giving over control” or as lack of control by companies that have spent enough time avoiding legal liability or potentially damaging informational leaks to fear both of those concepts rightfully.
I think we get stuck with a lot of terms because they are easier to type than the longer, more accurate description.
It’s a good conversation that needs to be had – but I’m afraid the term will still be misused.
Hatehatehate the word “transparency” as it’s come to be used with regard to Social Media and the transformation of company/costumer relationships in the 21st century.
Transparency is all too often translated as “giving over control” or as lack of control by companies that have spent enough time avoiding legal liability or potentially damaging informational leaks to fear both of those concepts rightfully.
I think we get stuck with a lot of terms because they are easier to type than the longer, more accurate description.
It’s a good conversation that needs to be had – but I’m afraid the term will still be misused.
I have worked with and for many Fortune 500 companies at an executive level. I think most executives strive to be honest, but not necessarily transparent and they can’t be.
When you work for a corporation and participate in social media on behalf of that corporation, your words don’t just represent you. They represent your company, your brand, your employees. They are watched and recorded by investors, customers, competitors and the SEC. Having a voice that is conservative, guarded, and perhaps even reviewed and approved is a reality that won;t go away because the stakes are high.
One executive from GE told me, “You have to remember that no matter how casual the conversation about your company, it’s still a conversation about your company.”
Thanks for the great post, Amber.
@markwschaefer
I have worked with and for many Fortune 500 companies at an executive level. I think most executives strive to be honest, but not necessarily transparent and they can’t be.
When you work for a corporation and participate in social media on behalf of that corporation, your words don’t just represent you. They represent your company, your brand, your employees. They are watched and recorded by investors, customers, competitors and the SEC. Having a voice that is conservative, guarded, and perhaps even reviewed and approved is a reality that won;t go away because the stakes are high.
One executive from GE told me, “You have to remember that no matter how casual the conversation about your company, it’s still a conversation about your company.”
Thanks for the great post, Amber.
@markwschaefer
I agree with Mark Schaefer – the unfortunate reality is that we expect companies to be ‘transparent, engaged, [insert phrase here]’, similar to what we’d expect from individuals.
Unfortunately, companies are NOT individuals, and we tend to anthropomorphize them, thinking that the same behavior we expect of humans will naturally occur in businesses.
What I do believe has to happen is what some other comments have mentioned – expectation setting. As a community manager, a lot of what I end up doing is making sure that the mission/vision of an effort is clear, and setting clear and distinct boundaries on what we all expect within the community.
I think ‘transparent’ is a loaded word simply because it is interpreted differently by everyone. I think a much better way to think of this is ‘consistency’ – as a customer, what can I expect from your company in terms of ‘openness’, and will the company be consistent in how it applies that? I personally believe companies SHOULD be more ‘open’, but at least if the expectation is set clearly that a particular company won’t be as open, the consumer can make their own determination as to whether to continue doing business with that firm.
I agree with Mark Schaefer – the unfortunate reality is that we expect companies to be ‘transparent, engaged, [insert phrase here]’, similar to what we’d expect from individuals.
Unfortunately, companies are NOT individuals, and we tend to anthropomorphize them, thinking that the same behavior we expect of humans will naturally occur in businesses.
What I do believe has to happen is what some other comments have mentioned – expectation setting. As a community manager, a lot of what I end up doing is making sure that the mission/vision of an effort is clear, and setting clear and distinct boundaries on what we all expect within the community.
I think ‘transparent’ is a loaded word simply because it is interpreted differently by everyone. I think a much better way to think of this is ‘consistency’ – as a customer, what can I expect from your company in terms of ‘openness’, and will the company be consistent in how it applies that? I personally believe companies SHOULD be more ‘open’, but at least if the expectation is set clearly that a particular company won’t be as open, the consumer can make their own determination as to whether to continue doing business with that firm.
First off, I have come to *loathe* the term “transparency”, at least with regard to social media and business (put it on a list with the expressions “be human”, “join the conversation”, and so on and so forth) simply because it’s become something that people just SAY. It’s a buzz word that people (bloggers, consumers, corporations … whomever) toss around because they think it’s what they’re SUPPOSED to say. Except they either have no idea what it means or have no intention of actually doing it (or both).
For the purposes of this post, however, when I think of companies and transparency, what I am looking for, and what I encourage from my clients, isn’t a look into the inner workings and secret rooms of their businesses, but a willingness to actually LISTEN to people that are talking to and about them. Being transparent and honest doesn’t mean giving away the keys to the kingdom.
Corporations have to consider their images. The people representing them in social media (or any media) must always be mindful of the company’s image and how their commentary will play within the company, with consumers, with shareholders. It is possible to do this, but also come across as more than a corporate automaton.
First off, I have come to *loathe* the term “transparency”, at least with regard to social media and business (put it on a list with the expressions “be human”, “join the conversation”, and so on and so forth) simply because it’s become something that people just SAY. It’s a buzz word that people (bloggers, consumers, corporations … whomever) toss around because they think it’s what they’re SUPPOSED to say. Except they either have no idea what it means or have no intention of actually doing it (or both).
For the purposes of this post, however, when I think of companies and transparency, what I am looking for, and what I encourage from my clients, isn’t a look into the inner workings and secret rooms of their businesses, but a willingness to actually LISTEN to people that are talking to and about them. Being transparent and honest doesn’t mean giving away the keys to the kingdom.
Corporations have to consider their images. The people representing them in social media (or any media) must always be mindful of the company’s image and how their commentary will play within the company, with consumers, with shareholders. It is possible to do this, but also come across as more than a corporate automaton.
For me, transparency is not about telling everything, but rather, not hiding anything – which means that if there are important facts I’ve left out of the conversation I’ve failed the transparency test.
Not to imply that this is an easy call in all cases, but by asking the question, “Have I omitted any relevant data?”, and putting myself in the receiver’s shoes, I can push myself to increasing the level of transparency.
For me, transparency is not about telling everything, but rather, not hiding anything – which means that if there are important facts I’ve left out of the conversation I’ve failed the transparency test.
Not to imply that this is an easy call in all cases, but by asking the question, “Have I omitted any relevant data?”, and putting myself in the receiver’s shoes, I can push myself to increasing the level of transparency.
Great post and great comments by all. I especially agree with Tamsen, Mark Schaefer, and Melissa DelGaudio. Social media is a tool for communication and collaboration. It has given a much louder voice to the consumer, and what consumers are demanding is to be heard and responded to by companies. They want the response to be honest and straight-forward. As it’s been said, transparency doesn’t mean opening up the entire business to the world. No one can reasonably expect that. But what they do want is a no BS answer to questions posed. For a long time we’ve gotten either the opposite or worse, silence.
Great post and great comments by all. I especially agree with Tamsen, Mark Schaefer, and Melissa DelGaudio. Social media is a tool for communication and collaboration. It has given a much louder voice to the consumer, and what consumers are demanding is to be heard and responded to by companies. They want the response to be honest and straight-forward. As it’s been said, transparency doesn’t mean opening up the entire business to the world. No one can reasonably expect that. But what they do want is a no BS answer to questions posed. For a long time we’ve gotten either the opposite or worse, silence.
Amber,
I truly believe in transparency but I also agree with you that transparency does not mean revealing anything confidential. People are looking for partners they can trust. That is for me the critical aspect of transperency: no more lies, no more mind games…
Social media offers an opportunity to reveal more, to offer a more personal interface to customers, partners, anyone. Companies can decide to ignore it of course. But I would argue that those that figure out how to leverage it to get closer to their audience can gain tremendous benefits.
Being transparent is about honesty.
In this article about social media and transparency, I develop this aspect further.
Thanks,
Carole-Ann
http://twitter.com/cmatignon
.-= Carole-Ann Matignon´s last blog ..Social Media New Order: Be Nice, Be True =-.
Amber,
I truly believe in transparency but I also agree with you that transparency does not mean revealing anything confidential. People are looking for partners they can trust. That is for me the critical aspect of transperency: no more lies, no more mind games…
Social media offers an opportunity to reveal more, to offer a more personal interface to customers, partners, anyone. Companies can decide to ignore it of course. But I would argue that those that figure out how to leverage it to get closer to their audience can gain tremendous benefits.
Being transparent is about honesty.
In this article about social media and transparency, I develop this aspect further.
Thanks,
Carole-Ann
http://twitter.com/cmatignon
.-= Carole-Ann Matignon´s last blog ..Social Media New Order: Be Nice, Be True =-.