About a month ago I wrote about how companies should embrace transparency as a way of doing business.
AdAge writer Matthew Creamer has a interesting perspective on how some larger companies (most notably Microsoft) has used the illusion of transparency as a PR tactic.
The article presents an interesting conflict between companies truly embracing transparency, those faking it and those that choose secrecy, using Google and Apple as examples.
“Until companies fully accept that they are living in glass houses, they will continue to retreat each time a stone is thrown their way.”
I do think that companies are trying to use transparency as part of the business strategy-of-the-month club, but it seems like only out of desperation to change a perspective or in coordination with brand building, in a very reactive manner.
What I don’t think they realize is that transparency is becoming a necessity in business. It needs to be proactively embraced into corporate culture. In other words, once you start assuming that bad news will go public every time you make a mistake, you start changing the way you make decisions.
Some people call it ethics.
I definitely agree that authentic transparency is becoming a necessity. There has to be a point where a company draws the line for their business and clients. What can people speak openly about? What subjects/specifics are off limits? How much should you speak about learning from a job or specific strategies the business uses for success? When do you admit a mistake?
Where does Blue Flavor draw it?
Okay, if you ran Microsoft, would you tell your 71,000 employees to just tell any reporter anything about anything they are working on or overheard in the hallway that day? If you really embrace genuine transparency, you would.
Your article seems to imply this would be a smart move.
I think you need to think some more about this topic.
Travis Good points. I think the line depends on the company and the services you are offering to customers. Confidentiality and secrecy are obviously a very important part of modern business.
I think companies need to strongly look at their confidentiality policies and be very explicit about what is a secret and what is not.
Having personally gotten myself in trouble a few times for being too transparent as an employee, I know it would have been helpful to know where the line was.
At Blue Flavor, we are pretty open with our knowledge and past experiences. We encourage everyone to share their thoughts and ideas openly.
But I can’t say we don’t have secrets. There have been clients and projects that we are contractually obligated to not talk about. And of course we never share any information about one client with another unless it is public information.
As far as talking about mistakes, we often craft a blog post or article stating a problem we encountered and how we solved it. Often pointing out a lot of the false assumptions or mistakes we made along the way.
Carl Great comment. This post and the AdAge article is discussing companies that are saying they are embracing transparency but are attempting to use it as an empty promise to their customers.
Frankly I don’t think transparency should be used a PR or marketing tactic. I believe that transparency should be baked into the culture of the company.
But I also believe that people publishing information that they clearly know to be a secret should be accountable and take responsibility for actions.
Transparency should work both ways.
Brian, Perhaps I’m just reading this differently being married to someone who worked in Press Relations for three high tech companies (Novell, Sun, and AMD.)
Look, the PR agency did not manipulate nor did it ever try to manipulate the interviewer. Wired approached Microsoft.
The PR agency did two things: (a) prepare interviewees with anticipated questions and (b) sample responses that support overall corporate messaging. That’s what they’re supposed to do.
I think you have a problem with (b) above and see it as something nontransparent when that isn’t the case. The interviewee is free to respond as he or she wishes. There’s no doctoring of responses, just standard pre-interview prep going on here.
Hmmmm. I noticed that Blue Flavor is selling “Body By Wii” t-shirts.
I believe “Wii” is a trademark of Nintendo Inc. Is Blue Flavor using the trademark with permission, or engaging in trademark infringement — ie profiting from the trademark of another company?
Transparent response is fully expected.
Steve W - yes, it was Brian’s final ethics comment that prompted me to challenge Blue Favor’s level of transparency.
Keith, what can I say? You’ve owned up to your inadvertent IP infringement. There is also an ethics issue here; keep looking. Blue Favor nonetheless scores high marks for transparency.
jmassy, I don’t think you have cause to make such claims. But, if you feel differently, I encourage you to give me a call at +1 206 545-0210. I’d be happy to hear out your concerns.
Why can’t we buy Wii shirts anymore? Is it because of this thread? Whoah…I thought they were cool too. Oh well.
Neil, I have no idea if it is a coincidence or not, but shortly after this post and the ensuing comments Nintendo did request that we remove the shirts.