Social media is all the rage these days, and with good reason. With people flocking in droves to sites like Facebook and Twitter, and spending lots of time on them, companies are seeking ways to become part of the conversations taking place that are relevant to their industry.
Unfortunately, social media is also creating new “rules.” One of the thorniest stems from the idea of transparency. Oddly, social media is being held to a higher standard than other widely used communications tactics. And it’s making a lot of companies shy away from the benefits of social media, for fear of “breaking the rules.” Still, transparency is now the new black (according to Jim Mitchem).
The idea behind transparency is a good one: Companies shouldn’t lie or use social media to send out information under false pretenses (like fake blogs). It’s hard to argue with that. There are lots of examples of organizations that tried to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes and failed. The backlash against poorly executed efforts can be swift and merciless.
But the social media waters are getting murky in places. A great example is blogs. Many social media purists argue that blogs are inauthentic and non-transparent unless posts are written by the actual person whose name appears on the post. The same goes for tweets and other forms of communication.
Here’s where social media may be over-reaching. Compare a blog post to a press release, or a corporate speech. Both are traditional, acceptable communications tools. Both are also authentic and transparent in the sense that they represent both the individual’s and company’s voice and have been vetted and approved by company representatives.
Yet with a press release, there is not a “disclaimer” stating exactly who wrote the release and what their interests are. Perhaps the only clue is a contact’s name or the company listed on the masthead, PDF or email.
Similarly, when you hear a speech, your first reaction is not, “Wait, I’m not listening because this person didn’t write it!” We all know intuitively that many executives, up to the Commander in Chief of the United States, do not write their own speeches (and President Obama admitted he’s never sent his own tweets, either). That doesn’t make them less valuable. And certainly, any executive—up to the president—will put their own input into any speech they give. It’s the speechwriter’s job to frame their positions as closely as possible, but ultimately he or she must rely on the person’s close scrutiny and edits.
The problem with social media is that, because of the high moral ground of transparency, many companies stop short of using effective tools like blogs, unless the actual person whose name appears on a post writes it. The rationale typically is, “Since so-and-so doesn’t have time to blog, we just won’t have one.”
It’s unfortunate to avoid using social media for fear of an angry mob berating or boycotting your company. Clearly, blatantly fake efforts don’t sit most with the majority of us and should be avoided. But there are ways to balance the need for communicating while maintaining transparency.
For example, if some “person on high” can’t or won’t participate, go beyond them! Empower others inside or outside who can use social media on behalf of the organization. If your CEO doesn’t have the time to blog, and you’re uncomfortable posting on his or her behalf, then find someone else—a passionate champion (like Robert Scoble when he put blogging and social media on the map at Microsoft) or perhaps a team of people.
If you do take the approach of writing on behalf of someone, post a disclaimer or create a link to a page that explains that the blog articles (or tweets) may come from several sources. Identify them by name in the interest of full disclosure. On Twitter, some companies are linking to their team, putting the names in a custom background image or even using the convention of posting with each person’s initials (^bu).
The main point is to find ways to actually use social media and not to make excuses why you can’t. Don’t let the Transparency Police scare you away.
Photo credit: D. Sharon Pruitt
December 11th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Yea, I think I'm with you on this one. Like everything does, social media has gone quite a bit too far and is starting to swing the pendulum back the other way. Transparency is a good model but everything in balance.
December 11th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Transparency is openness. That's all it is. Who creates the ads for the Super Bowl, C-level people at the company? No. So we have traditional thinking that says it's ok to have other people who are more qualified to do a brand's mass communications – communicate for them. Only until now, there's only been one-way dialogue – from brand to constituency. Social Media's offers the opportunity for open dialogue. And that dialogue itself is the transparency. I still believe most brands are probably best served by letting communicators do the communicating (traditional-think), but now the dialogue is interactive instead of one-way. I'm all for brands hiring people. That's not necessarily a transparency issue as much as a good business decision. Transparency is the openness to dialogue itself.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
“Transparency is a good model”–that seems correct. It's more of an ideal, really, and something companies should strive for. But for a lot of reasons, most will never be fully transparent.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
I appreciate both Becca's and Jim's comments about the role of “traditional” media and communicators. What really fascinates me is this idea that suddenly, with the advent of social media, companies must now be transparent. “We the people” now have a tremendous say-so, and we're holding those in power accountable. So Jim is right in a keen sense, that at this point the dialogue itself is the transparency. That might be the best we can hope for. Many communicators have longed for and crusaded for openness for hundreds of years, and it's a constant tug-of-war between legal, management and other factions who have institutions' “best interests” at heart. And in fact, sometimes the right thing to do is not to disclose every single thing that happens. This is a whole other argument surrounding transparency that should be debated in the coming year.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Transparency is openness. That's all it is. Who creates the ads for the Super Bowl, C-level people at the company? No. So we have traditional thinking that says it's ok to have other people who are more qualified to do a brand's mass communications – communicate for them. Only until now, there's only been one-way dialogue – from brand to constituency. Social Media's offers the opportunity for open dialogue. And that dialogue itself is the transparency. I still believe most brands are probably best served by letting communicators do the communicating (traditional-think), but now the dialogue is interactive instead of one-way. I'm all for brands hiring people. That's not necessarily a transparency issue as much as a good business decision. Transparency is the openness to dialogue itself.
December 12th, 2009 at 2:47 am
“Transparency is a good model”–that seems correct. It's more of an ideal, really, and something companies should strive for. But for a lot of reasons, most will never be fully transparent.
December 12th, 2009 at 3:03 am
I appreciate both Becca's and Jim's comments about the role of “traditional” media and communicators. What really fascinates me is this idea that suddenly, with the advent of social media, companies must now be transparent. “We the people” now have a tremendous say-so, and we're holding those in power accountable. So Jim is right in a keen sense, that at this point the dialogue itself is the transparency. That might be the best we can hope for. Many communicators have longed for and crusaded for openness for hundreds of years, and it's a constant tug-of-war between legal, management and other factions who have institutions' “best interests” at heart. And in fact, sometimes the right thing to do is not to disclose every single thing that happens. This is a whole other argument surrounding transparency that should be debated in the coming year.