The concept of need to
know had undergone a significant shift in the recent years. With the entire
world of information only a click away and social media platforms keeping
everyone constantly connected, people increasingly feel they need to know and
share everything. Aren’t they? Whether these are political opinions, product
reviews or photos of their own lives: people living completely out in the open!
As a result, transparency has become a salient topic in the field of pubic
relations and organizations are very conscious about this fact (Tapscott &Ticoll, 2003).
 |
| photo by mediaeffects.nl |
To
be or not to be transparent?
Public relations professional
Daisy de Jong described how the transparency of fashion brand H&M, about
the clothing production process in low- wage countries, was openly disapproved
by journalists of the Guardian (read whole blog here). Therefore, she
wonders whether transparency is (eventually) beneficial for organizations or
not. Since she did not make a conclusion about that, I will! Curious? Read
below!
Misconception
There is a common misconception out there about
transparency. Often organizations see it as a tool to be used when owning up to
a mistake or righting a wrong, but this is very short sighted. Being
transparent, from an ethical perspective, is required for running a business.
Trough transparency (thus, making information accessible), organizations show
that they take accountability for their actions, can be trusted and are
legitimate (Singer, 2007; Bentele and Seidenglanz, 2008; Zerfass, 2008). Customers will be far more forgiving of mistakes if an
organization has a history of being open and honest all the time.
Commercial
perspective
Instead of being afraid of
transparency, organizations should embrace it to improve their service and
increase the level of loyalty of their customers. In this way transparency can
be seen as a marketing strategy which contributes better reputations. As Daisy
de Jong already reported, providing information about the CSR activities
improves the positive attitudes of customers towards an organization
(Bhaduriand Ha- Brookshire, 2015). In the case of H&M, the information may
did affect journalists’ attitudes negatively, but the sales numbers did not
decrease right? And according to Coombs (2007), diminishing the crisis is
always better for your reputation than denying. But, being transparent can
backfires. So, maybe it is better to find a middle ground between revealing and
concealing information.
 |
| Transparency pays off- photo by xbrl.org |
The
middle ground
Selective transparency should
be the solution! PR had always been about control and power of communication,
so is transparency. Organizations should keep the control by choosing what todisclose and which information to withheld, while keeping in mind how is what they doing affecting others and the organization itself. In this way
transparency as a strategy is more about creating a sense of transparency by providing the public and media some
information that they want to know, rather than being fully transparent (read: too
much information providing may lead to distrust). The fact that an organizationis communicating openly is more important, than the quantity and quality of theinformation itself. Hereby, it is very important that the provided information
is aligned with the information needs of the public (read: we do not want to
know anything).
 |
| The middle ground- photo by Coeberg & Cohen (2009 |
Thus concluded, the best option is applying selective
transparency in organizations’ communication. This is the best way to show that
your organization can be trusted, is legitimate and has control of the
communication which is aligned with the needs of their public.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Naomi Vonk, 23 years old, is a MSc Corporate
Communication student at the University of Amsterdam. Has done several
internships, including a PR internship at Microsoft Advertising. Particularly
in crisis communication and social media. Guilty pleasures: white chocolate and
Pinterest.
No comments:
Post a Comment