Today's AdAge features an article by Mathew Creamer, You Call This Transparency, that points out the challenges companies seem to be having getting transparent. He cites the claims of Lego, Sun and Microsoft's Channel 9 initiative and then points out the revealing memo-slip from a PR firm that documents their desire if not outright attempt to control the process of getting Fred Vogelstein from Wired to write on Microsoft.
We are confusing two things.
There is the idea of transparency where corporations, in this case, reveal more than they have in the past about their business, their bias and interests. I don't know anyone who would interpret 'radical transparency' except on a theoretical level with giving away trade property (oops, almost said "secrets"). In the process, they refrain from doing sneaky things. That doesn't mean that they stop "telling" their story. ideally, they would trade in some of that transactional "telling" for some conversation.
Then there is the notion of being a conversation company, a company interested in co-creation. Lego does that. P&G does that. Enterprise does that. I think 'radical listening' is a far more valuable commitment for a company than some theoretical openness. Listening is one part of conversation. Obviously, talking is the other. If you are open to conversation, you realize you cannot control what the other party says and may have to respond...on the fly. And there is a premium on genuineness and honesty in those responses.
Of course, these things are connected. If you are more attuned to telling people what is going on, you are more likely to listen and converse (as you are not afraid to let the cat out of the bag.)
Company X can have a deep appreciation for what their customers have to say and add to their product or services. They can even invite them in to help (i.e. co-creation). That same company doesn't have to open their doors to prove they have nothing to hide. That will be deomostrated in their actions.
Should the company who telegraphs they are listening and are open to conversation (Microsoft's Channel 9), be plotting old-school, Machiavellian PR strategies to "control" coverage. No.
This is a process. It will take a while. The ideals of openness and transparency and the business benefits of conversation and listening will continue to reveal themselves to more an dmore communications pros and business leaders.
link to original post