DISQUS

Peter_Himler · 1 year ago

You are right. The term "full disclosure" has achieved trend status among communications professionals much the same way "authentic communications" has. As you know, FD is a term that has migrated from the halls of the SEC, where it was born as a regulatory guarantee that a company's material news reached all stakeholders equitably, to the non-IR areas of a PR practice. In so doing its meaning has morphed.

In my mind, full disclosure in communications is an aspirational concept, i.e., an ideal that signals a company's desire to do the right thing, to behave ethically and candidly. So for example, as GM hit the skids and chairman Bob Lutz openly blogs about it, he makes a reasonable attempt to disclose what's actually happening. It's an earnestness that was mostly missing in stakeholder communications prior to the age of RSS. Another storied example, albeit dated, may be J&J's decision to allow "60 Minutes" in on its internal deliberations during the Tylenol crisis.

Conversely, when Exxon Mobil spends tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising to tout its environmental initiatives, while at the same time funding its industry trade association to thwart efforts to cure America's addiction to fossil fuels, this would be considered the antithesis of full-disclosure, if not outright hypocrisy.

To me, it matters little whether an enterprise actually achieves "full" disclosure about its motivations, so long as its leadership recognizes the value in doing so. Also, in an age where reputations can be built and broken by the groundswell, the consequences for not opening the corporate kimona are too great to ignore.

maxkalehoff · 1 year ago

WOW! Well said, Peter! The key word you mentioned is recognition -- of the
concept and value. I would say the second most important element is an
effort to live up to the aspiration and, in the process, do far more good
than harm.

Peter Kim · 1 year ago

I propose adding the phrase "to be honest" into the same category.

kate · 1 year ago

reminds me of research showing that use of negations (no, not, never) is a sign of inhibition and constraint...

maxkalehoff · 1 year ago

Kate, there's a large, much-needed body of research on the lexicon and
persuasive techniques of the research industry! We should start a running
list of instances and create sort of a lay person's guide to reading between
the lines and deciphering agenda, ambiguity, misinterpretation and
falsehoods. Carl Bialik <http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/> at the WSJ.com
writes a column series dedicated to demystifying research and statistics,
but I don't believe he's ever tackled this most basic issue of semantics.