In my last post I wrote about the AIG situation. The issue was that AIG (and subsequently the government) is holding out information from the public and the company had some qualms about releasing internal information.  A commenter proposed a very interesting question: who benefits from transparency? As you can read each of my previous posts, with each transparency situation there is an element of who will benefit from the transparency moves the company is or isn’t making.

With Apple, investors worried that Steve Jobs illness would mean a new CEO, but Jobs did not initially want to disclose all of the details. The new Skittles.com ruffled more than a few feathers but completely transforming your homepage to social media sites helps…who exactly? Just being more transparent for the sake of transparency is like saying “more communication is always good”.  Just like with communication, the right kind of transparency is strategic and with purpose.

In the video below Rep. Peter Welch calls for more transparency in AIG dealings. The video is almost three minutes long, but pay attention to what he says from :35 in to 2:05 and 2:36 to the end. Mr. Welch clearly defines who more transparency will help in this case and gives a good reason: AIG is 80% taxpayer-owned and thus taxpayers have the right to know where their tax money is going and how it is spent.

In my opinion, it is imperative to define a public who will benefit from transparency and exactly why they will because simply calling for more transparency in not enough. So to AIG, which is more important: possible future clients or the taxpayers that fund you?