Is transparency enough when our behaviour is being influenced/manipulated?

There are big ethical questions to be answered around the use of big date and behaviour experiments.
Following the revelation that the dating agency OKCupid had experimented with putting the "wrong" people together last month, the OKCupid founder has stated "If you use the Internet you're the subject of hundreds of experiments at any given time, on every site. That's how websites work".  And yet OK Cupid's users have complained about the lack of transparency and abuse of trust. They clearly don't quite see it in the same way.

So, if an Internet site/brand is transparent about the fact that they are using your data to increase their sales is this sufficient to satisfy consumers and keep/regain their trust?. Behavioural expert Steve Martin has stated that if brands add value and act transparently, consumers are less likely to feel deceived. However, this is not how everyone sees it. Following the Facebook manipulation of data earlier in the summer a US senator has asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate.

The three key tenants of this website have been the 3 Ts, that transparency and fair treatment help to build trust and boost value. What is perhaps missing in the arguments above is the fair treatment aspect. Being transparent is not enough on its own, it is also a question of being fair, and fairness in this context has to be what consumers consider is fair; this means asking them and taking proper note of their feedback and concerns. Without this the already poor levels of trust and confidence in business is going to dip further and that's not in anyone's interest.

Ultra-transparency the key to fair treatment?

The Financial Conduct Authority is now starting to scrutinise the value for money aspect of financial products and services. A key question is "how do customers know they are getting value for money" and basically not being ripped off ie how do they know they are being treated fairly?.

 If you took an "ultra-transparent" approach this would mean providing customers with clear details of product terms, conditions, exclusions, costs, commission, margins and claims levels etc etc. It could include the rates of pay and contracts for staff (zero hours etc) and suppliers.  If any organisation feels "uncomfortable" about revealing these areas to customers then maybe they need to review what they do so that there is clear justification for their practices?

And how does ultra-transparency translate when it comes to "big data". How comfortable are we as consumers to know that,for example, the debit card expenditure at Boots is being used by the insurance sector to predict health issues and set our premium levels. We can only make a choice, assess fair treatment and vote with our feet as consumers if we know about it- interesting times ahead.

More transparency from pharmaceuticals

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has recently announced that it would no longer pay doctors to promote its products at speaking engagements or give financial support to health care professionals attending medical events. Its sales force will also not receive individual sales targets. This is part of the overall industry's move to greater transparency. These initiatives demonstrate that some big companies are now responding to the competitive advantage that better ethical conduct brings i.e. being more open and clear about what you do helps to build trust from your stakeholders which in turn boosts value.

Fitness First making a strength out of transparent "housekeeping".

Over the last few years a number of gym chains have been heavily criticised about their inflexible terms and conditions. This has resulted in some customers being locked into unsustainable payments as their personal circumstances changed and the media attention has damaged the reputation of major firms in this sector.

In "Marketing" magazine last week, Fitness First's marketing director explained why his gym chain is undergoing a £70m re-brand. Its ambition is to become a member-led business. It is interesting within this that he stated "We wanted to be completely transparent. We proactively contacted the Office of Fair Trading to approve our terms and conditions, and we had them certified by the Plain English Society. These types of things are housekeeping, which everyone should have in order, but not everyone does".

A very valid response to this could be "big deal" but it does at least help to demonstrate that one of the many benefits and arguments for everyday business ethics is that transparency and fair treatment do help to keep the Regulator or Government off your back.  While you wouldn't expect "housekeeping"  to be much of a competitive advantage, Fitness First is at least realising the benefits of being proactive in improving customers outcomes. Even if this is because it is cheaper than dealing with an OFT investigation, the move is at least in the right direction.

Ofgen: The importance of profit transparency in building consumer confidence

This week Ofgen published its report following the commissioning of the accountancy firm BDO's independent analysis of the big 6 energy companies 2012 performance. BDO reported that disclosure was better than the previous year but that there was still need for more disclosure.

Ofgen seems determined to promote better information on profitability by improving transparency with a view to rebuilding consumers confidence and trust.

While there is no right or wrong profit margin as such, understanding fully the profits a company makes is important in building confidence and trust. The figures revealed that there had been a 17% increase in profits on average in the domestic supply market.

Being able to scrutinise the figures easily simply means that consumers can chose whether to change supplier and, probably more important in a market still essentially stitched up by the big 6, whether the margins are sufficient to attract new entrants who could possibly provide more competitive alternatives.

Transparency and fair treatment of stakeholders are essential in any market to build confidence, trust andsustainable value.

Transparency is key: yet again

Apart from Ed Davey the Energy Minister today calling for the energy companies to "stop treating customers like cash cows," there is also a call for more transparency into the real cost of the green levy and its impact on pricing.

And the National Audit Office (NAO) is also calling for the private sector companies (e.g. Serco, G4 etc), on big contracts to the public sector, to be more transparent about their profits and performance. The NAO also wants the public sector to demand more from their suppliers ensuring they have such things as Whistleblowing policies in place before they are granted public sector money.

These examples show the importance of moving to more transparent and open business practices as a way of building trust with multiple stakeholders leading to better and more cost effective business relationships.

An easy way to contact the Chief Executive

Customers with genuine grievances or complaints about companies, which they find are not being addressed seriously or adequately by the relevant customer services teams, may often experience real difficulty getting through the "gate-keepers" to the top team. E mail addresses and phone numbers  are frustratingly not public or easily available.

An organisation has set up a website to help facilitate the process to give customers access to the CEO. It can be found at www.ceoemail.com.

In today's connected world keeping secrets is just no longer possible. It would probably be much more effective for businesses to be actively more transparent so that customers' grievances and anger is dissipated rather than fuelled by deliberately obscuring the contact details they need. Make it easy to complain,address their needs and move on.