In the video, Shel Holtz, author of Tactical Transparency, defines transparency. He says organizations shouldn’t expose every internal secret (particularly for legal reasons) in order to be transparent to their audiences, but they should disclose information about business goals and practices, and allow audience members to have access to all of the internal employees.
The key to fostering positive consumer relations is constant interaction between the customers and the employees.
Many companies are being forced into transparency. Consumers no longer call up a company’s customer service department if they’re unhappy–that message would only reach one person. They are instead going online to blast the company in front of thousands of other consumers. How should companies respond? Companies should join in on the conversation and explain to consumers why the service or product was less than mediocre, and work to rebuild a connection with angry consumers.
Dan Rather, formerly of 60 Minutes, made the mistake of closing the doors on his audience during the investigation on Former President Bush’s military service. If he had opened up lines of communication and updated viewers on the investigation, he could’ve kept from angering so many people. His lack of transparency cost him his job.
Dell on the other hand was forced into transparency after its outraged consumers created an angry network of blogs. Dell joined in on the conversation and created Direct2Dell and Ideastorm, which have been a huge success in rebuilding postive customer relations.
I found Holtz’s own personal story the most interesting. After a neglectful customer service experience with Park ‘n Fly, he wrote a blog post to complain to his readers. An administrative assistant from the company joined in on his conversation to apologize. What’s most important is that the Park ‘n Fly employee sent the message directly to Holtz, without checking the message with management first. By opening up free lines of communication between employees (lower and higher level) and consumers, Park ‘n Fly managed to uphold its relationship with Holtz.
The video’s central message is that companies should give their consumers a glimpse inside the organization to build a trustworthy relationship with them.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 7, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Nicole Fiorella
Hey Lindsey,
I think this a great video. Shel Holtz really knows what he is talking about and understands the importance of tactical transparency. It really is important when developing a corporate blog or any blog for that matter. How will people respect bloggers if they are not open? It is the same as having a relationship with someone who always has their guard up, you never really get to know them and you always question what they say and do. If people dislike this form of “real-life” relationships, then why would they find it acceptable on the internet? If anything people need to be more open on the internet because the chances of actually sitting down and getting to know the blogger without the use of a computer is highly unlikely.
This website on tactical transparency that provides tips, reviews, and case studies on corporations and social networks that implement tactical transparency. It is a good source for companies to check out if they have questions or want to learn from the prosperity of one another. http://www.tacticaltransparency.com/
March 7, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Mandy Smoot
Lindsey,
I agree, I do not think that companies should expose every piece of information with their stakeholders. Some things just need to be kept secret. However, it is still important for companies to build levels of trust with stakeholders by being authentic and transparent. Disclosing information on business objectives and new products are relevant in building connections with audiences because after all you want them to have easy access and the opportunity to provide feedback. The rewards of transparency are often immediate because transparency creates clarity with real two-way conversations. You should participate in conversations whether audience feedback is positive or negative. By choosing to ignore negative feedback you anger audience members by showing them you simply don’t care about the needs and wants. Response shows that you do care, and as a result helps build levels of trusts.
March 18, 2009 at 12:48 am
Lindsey Monroe
Mandy,
I’m glad you brought up the idea of negative vs. positive comments. Dell, for instance, was faced with thousands of negative comments. However, after a solid bit of time the company finally joined the conversation and spoke with angered customers. It can take time and money, but will benefit a company in the long run. Increasing the bottom line rarely ever comes easily, but corporations who listen to negative comments and change their operations based on that feedback will truly benefit in the long run.