There's a lot of talk in marketing and social media circles today about the concept of "transparency." I use the term myself -- usually when trying to explain the impact of digital and social media to my clients. These technologies tend to expose the soft underbellies of our companies, by providing customers with greater visibility and more intimate knowledge of our brands, employees, products, services and operations. As a result, we are forced to work in a more transparent manner to address customer needs across a spectrum of online and offline channels.
That makes a bit of sense, I hope.

The problem is, the way most people are using the word "transparent" in this medium today feels terribly inauthentic to me -- as if we will all become as clear as glass, someday. The truth is, while these new channels force us to be more transparent, we will always seek a degree of opacity. Call it a fig leaf to cover our nakedness; a closet for our skeletons; or an illusion of transparency.

Will we ever become truly transparent? I think not. We've all got some damage; some ugly we're trying to hide. We've all got things that need to be fixed. Stuff that perhaps it's better others do not see. Do we want everyone to know our business? Nope.

So when we use the term transparent, what we're really striving for is balance -- creating an acceptable level of honest visibility for customers, which makes us more real and more accessible to them. This helps customers understand our plight as we attempt to service their needs, while providing enough opacity to shield us from over exposure.

Sounds a bit like dating, to me.

What do you think?

I'm going to write a bit more about companies that fight transparency in my next post. Stay tuned.