Radical Transparency

The concept of radical transparency was raised in the April 2007 issue of Wired magazine in an article by Clive Thomson called The See-Through CEO. Thompson claims "Secrecy is dying. It's probably already dead."

Collin Douma, who writes a popular blog called Radical Trust and is a group creative director at a major advertising agency, used the concept at a Toronto social media event to challenge the value of, and values behind, the well-viewed bridezilla YouTube clip that turned out to be a set piece for a shampoo company.

In Connected Conversation #3, host Boyd Neil encourages Collin to say what he really thinks about corporate transparency in using social media as a marketing or corporate positioning tool.

Published 25 April 2007 16:34 by Lisa Walker

Attachment(s): http://media.libsyn.com/media/connectedconversation/HK_Canada_Podcast_featuring_Colin_Douma.mp3

Comments

• 

  Comer, hablar, amar said:

  The Wired article is a bit too fairytale like. Secrecy in corporate strategies will allways be a key asset, although it is true that a new relationship paradigm is being stablished about the relations between business/institutions and clients/users/citizens.

  April 26, 2007 10:35
• 

  Brendan Hodgson said:

  Wired Magazine and now AdAge have piled into the rather amorphous issue of corporate 'transparency',

  May 2, 2007 18:55
• 

  Boyd Neil said:

  I am not sure that "amorphous" is the right word. "Ambivalent" is probably more accurate because it gets to the fact that for many companies transparency has upsides and downsides. The upside of being transparent is that it helps accrue reputation equity: The downside is having to tell more than you want or are used to revealing.

  The point, though, is that the court of public opinion is judging the absence of transparency harshly.

  May 2, 2007 20:32
• 

  Brendan Hodgson said:

  I agree with your last point wholeheartedly, Boyd. And while transparency does indeed breed trust and thus reputation equity, the question becomes where do you draw the line, particularly given the public's changing expectations in this area.

  As for the podcast, and your discussion with Collin... I have to disagree with the assertion that Bridezilla was 'astroturfing' or blatent misrepresentation by the brand behind it.

  Quite simply, I think we need to look at this campaign as more than its individual parts. If you view it as a standalone, I'd say it's a wasted effort. Manipulative? no. However, as I mentioned in an earlier exchange with David Jones, this video is simply a stage-setter to a broader campaign:

  (My response to David): I don't believe it does contravene any of the WOMMA ethics codes, given that it doesn't involve any actual endorsement - real or fake - of a product. It is a stage-setter, an attention-getter, but it makes no promises, offers no incentives or recommendations from unsuspecting third-parties, it doesn't tell anyone what to say, and I don't think it makes an endorsement even by implication... unlike the PSP flogs, for example... and doesn't impact society in a potentially harmful way... I would be disappointed if we became so cynical about creative marketing that interesting campaigns like this disappear for good.

  (Back to the present): Like Collin, Dave said he also felt had. But what does that matter? Does the crowd feel similarly duped? I haven't seen a reaction to suggest it has... and now the brand behind it has a memorable instance to which it can tie its message...

  As Ze Frank said, the best viral is the one where you "Dance like an idiot and don't sell anything." Did I feel duped? Not particularly... was I entertained, yes... will I remember it when the brand rolls out its campaign based on it... for sure.

  May 2, 2007 21:16