Larry D. Lauer

Information transparency sounds like a wonderful idea. After all, what could be wrong with making everything public?

There are at least two problems: (1) This new media era of “Big Data” can overwhelm and confuse, and (2), people tend to hear only what they want. Too many are just waiting to prepare aggressive counter attacks, and with all available data in hand they can support almost any argument.

Philosophically I actually support the idea of transparency. However, especially when it comes to sensitive issues and crises, making all the data public too often becomes counter-productive. Flooding a new media environment with “big” data can create “media circuses,” where media outlets compete with each other for new facts that can gain them the upper hand and keep the story hot. Even a good “side story” can fulfill this competitive need.

Experiences teaches that in the case of institutions, and even some individuals, it is better to limit communication to those facts that explain exactly what actually happened. Assuming your brand identity is already well established, your strategy should be to release exactly what happened, what you are doing about it, and how this reinforces your basic values.

Transparency is a great idea. But in our digital technology age releasing everything can actually  generate confusing clutter, add to misunderstanding, and give adversaries all they need to support almost any opposing ideology.