Having said that, luckily there are exceptions!

Spin that’s spun out of control: I live in a community of 14,000. Our Community Services District board of directors spent $500,000 on a PR consultant last year (with an unknown sum to be expended after July) to help it navigate through a highly controversial sewer project that’s proposed for the middle of town. Unfortunately, the role of the communications consultant has been to uphold the board’s defacto no-’contentiousness’(civic/civil questions)-allowed policy. The board’s votes are consistently 5-0, with no discussion (among themselves, much less involving the public). The CSD lands itself on the front page and editorial pages of the county’s leading newspaper on a regular basis for out-and-out Brown Act violations and similar questionable actions. It inundates the community with pounds of glossy newsletters, brochures and other communications collateral, with no acknowledgement of citizen concerns or questions. Their most democratic tool — televised meetings that are carried live and replayed — is painful to watch. Often lasting till midnight or later. Usually placing public comment at 11 p.m. or later. The CSD and staff (and pr consultant) routinely do not respond to journalists’ calls or queries, much less the public’s. They have turned down opportunities to hold or in any way participate in facilitated community workshops and forums.

In this case, communication probably cannot be resusitated without the election of a fresh voice or two.

But suggestions or resources would be appreciated.

It strikes me that the promise and problem with facts is that they can be checked now and in the future. If a company says x, their credibility is on the line if x turns out not to be true and the company is perceived as knowing that beforehand. So stating facts will probably cause resistance on that basis alone. Facts require responsibility and ownership.

Your point that employees (and investors, suppliers, and others tied to the company, for that matter) get their facts and information from many sources also is well spoken. I would argue that, while companies cannot control this information, they can direct the tone of the “conversation” by being transparent and proactive. The corollary is politics where contrary facts can be dug up and published but politicians still manage to spin their version and often set the terms of the debate. For me the key word is “debate” which implies a conversation among views argued as equals until people determine their relative values.

Here’s an interesting example to consider: Wal Mart’s recent TV campaign with local people and employees talking up how much Wal Mart benefits their communities is a clever bit of propaganda to wash out news of their legal troubles with over working and underpaying employees, and the negative impact of their pricing power on employee salaries. No one appears to have the money, time, or interest to join Wal Mart in the “debate” about what the facts are and how to interpret them (it may be Wal Mart’s positives outweigh their negatives). There are limits (and reasons for limits) to what a company will say and how it’s critics, employees, suppliers, and others will respond in a conversation.

I’d also suggest that old line, button down corporations are more likely to be less transparent than companies that fly by the seat of their pants. The more fluid and responsive a company, the more facts matter because business decisions are often made on the facts in a decentralized (empowered) fashion to seize market opportunities. Big companies are slower and so facts matter in a different way for them.

Excellent points, Amy. Thanks for illuminating some interesting issues.