Skip to main content

Transparency & Secrecy Can Coexist

King Solomon said, "to everything there is a season" -- an appropriate place and time.

There are times when secrecy, aka privacy is good. During those times, transparency is not.

People need privacy -- solitude. To walk among the trees. To work out their feelings and thoughts.

Couples need privacy.

Families need privacy.

Religious communities need privacy.

Organizations need privacy.

Politicians need privacy.

There is no exception to this rule.

Privacy is not inherently suspicious. But it has become so. It is bad manners for example to refuse to be in a photo.

I was watching a crime show on TV. They were questioning a wide range of possible suspects. 

The policeman said, "Where were you on the night of the crime?" 

The suspect responded, "I was driving around in my car."

"And then what?" asked the policeman.

"I went to the diner," said the suspect.

"Do you have a receipt?"

"No!" and the suspect slammed his hand down on the table. Like, can't I even get a cup of coffee? (But we, the audience, were not supposed to be sure.)

Privacy is a "problem" nowadays. We as a society have ceased to respect it. In the most fundamental ways.

My kid won't go to the mall unless she is going with a friend. 

I am told that NOBODY does this. To be alone is to be weird.

We waaaaaayyyyy overvalue transparency. We know it is ridiculous the lengths to which this craze has gone. But we can't stop ourselves.

Imagine your computer were transparent to hackers - no firewall. Ridiculous right?

But we ask for all secrets, the secrets and the secret processes, that keep us safe to be revealed.

The issue is balance. Yes we need to know certain things. Yes we should hold people accountable to their promises and to the law.

No we do not need to know everything. Nor would we want to.

As George Orwell once said:

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

* All opinions my own.

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …