Add to favorites Examiner Bio

Defining Transparency

Social media has empowered consumers and pushed organizations to a new level of transparency in their communications with the public. But how do you determine whether your PR efforts are “transparency compliant” and how far do you need to go in order to accurately represent yourself online?

“Before long, it won't simply be the case that you shouldn't simply write or say anything you wouldn't want discovered in the New York Times or online. Instead, in an effort to attain the kind of transparency that is obligatory in a new era of citizen journalism, a new standard will emerge whereby organizations will be compelled not to do anything they wouldn't want discovered," writes Mark Hannah in the insightful article “Transparency as a Principle, not a Tactic.”  The organizations that will be truly successful in this environment are those that have integrated transparency as part of their organizational culture and not just their communications strategy”

While most PR professionals will quickly agree with the need for transparency and the importance of honesty and integrity, full disclosure does impede the delivery and receipt of important messages.  The same statement, based on the same study, released by both the National Pork Board and the CDC will be received differently.  A Tweet sent by a male, identified as the CEO of a reputable company, will be read differently than the same exact Tweet by a collegiate girl who goes by the name “sororitychick.”  This is certainly nothing new or suprising, but the challenge for PR professionals is to assure that the intended message is received.

Ironically, transparency, an effort to keep information truthful, can create blinders and even prevent the truth from being heard.  Every organization is subject to certain bias based upon their reputation and history and as public relations professionals we are often challenged to overcome the past and help shape a new perception. We focus on promoting the positive, rather than rehashing the problems of the past. When must historical information be disclosed upfront?

The use of photos versus logos to identify corporate bloggers raises additional issues. In a recent blog post I wrote for BurrellesLuce Fresh Ideas, I shared an experience tweeting with @journalistics, whose Twitter account has a cool "J" logo rather than a picture. Without a picture, I made incorrect assumptions, based on our tweets, that I was talking to a fellow mom. It wasn't until my new "girlfriend" sent me a Facebook invite, that I realized @journalistics was a man. I also was forced to realize that I do, unintentionally, speak differently when conversing with other women, rather then men.

When I shared my mistaken perception with @journalistics (otherwise known as Jeremy Porter), we had a good laugh, but also considered the issue of transparency, and whether pictures are necessary when a corporate voice is tweeting or blogging?  As he points out , "The goal for @journalistics is to build awareness for the blog, versus the professional (@jeremyporter)." Without a picture, we were able to connect purely based upon ideas. If the goal of transparency is honesty, are there times when withholding certain information is helpful in reaching this goal?

"In hindsight, companies don’t talk, people do," Jeremy wisely noted. While it may not be particularly relevant for @journalistics to reveal a photo, for a corporate voice aiming to a gender specific demographic, this could prove far more important.

As we strive to communicate our message to the public in this new era of transparency, is there ever a circumstance where it is okay not to disclose information? What information can remain private? What universal guidelines for transparency compliance should all organizations subscribe to? Please leave a comment and share your thoughts.