I don't subscribe but I've always enjoyed Esquire's writing style. The other night I was browsing the site, and this month they review 100 ideas, trends, thoughts, etc., that are top of mind at the moment.
One deals with a disturbing trend on the web. The link is here, and the opening paragraph says this:
Everyone's worried about NSA wiretapping and such. But really, that's not the invasion of privacy that's going to affect our lives. Instead, it's user-generated spying and gossip. That's what is going to make America into the equivalent of a small-minded small town.
Some of this, I would theorize, is due to our fascination with celebrity. You don't think there's a fascination with celebrity? Turn on your TV and tune into Entertainment Tonight, Hollywood Insider, etc. Stroll into your grocery store and glance at a copy of People and its clones. How about that paparazzi? And whoa!! Is Suri Cruise real or not?
I digress. One of the words of the moment is transparency. Everyone is calling for more transparency -- in government, in business, in regulation, in nearly everything. You're hard-pressed to argue against it, aren't you? That's a no-win position.
But like anything, there's good and bad. The Web has given us unparalleled abilities to communicate and share data, which begets user "empowerment," which begets the application of new pressures to institutions, which begets a little more honesty from them (good), which further emboldens users (not necessarily bad), which sometimes spills over into a sort of mob rule (bad).
Putting a magnifying glass over institutions with public responsibility is useful and necessary. I'm all for it. However, the need for privacy -- I don't mean secrecy as much as I do privacy -- is very rational and appropriate. To know that you're on stage and in view all the time (whether as a company, institution or individual) can lead to precisely the opposite desired outcome: inauthentic behavior.
Need an example? How about a politician? It's the rare office-seeker or -holder that behaves in public you or your neighbor do. Why? Because s/he knows continual judgment is being applied, in the most harsh manner, and the safest course of action for maintaining office is to speak in that unique language we hear on C-SPAN.
This is worth thinking about, don't you agree? Does anyone think 100% transparency is always a good thing? I'll probably get basted for this somewhere down the line, but I don't think it is. The ability to privately discuss, reflect and be creative is extraordinarily useful and important -- it enables out-of-the-limelight frank discussion, humor, venting of spleens, collaboration, you name it that grows our businesses, helps our relationships, advances our interests and just plain keeps things running.
And, finally, how does this relate to PR? Like this: Assume anything your company does will be known about, both good and bad. If you don't want it known, better not to do it at all. If you do something you try to keep private, do so knowing you may have to discuss it publicly later.