The Streisand Effect: Trying To Hide Something Creates The Opposite Effect
In 2005, a pilot and a photographer flew over several locations on the California coast to obtain quality aerial photographs. The intentions of both were to publish some of those images on a specialized website, but chance meant that among the photographs there were some in which he appeared. the house of the famous singer Barbra Streisand
Up to this point everything is more or less normal, but what happened after is not so normal anymore. The singer, upon learning of the publication of those images, demanded their removal from the Internet portal, since she interpreted the movement as a violation of her privacy. As a consequence, information that if nothing had been done would have gone completely unnoticed under the waves of information that shake the network of networks every day became viral; Hundreds of thousands of people found out where Barbra Streisand lived, even without intending to.
This anecdote served to name a type of phenomenon that is actually more common than it seems. It’s about the Streisand effect currently very well known in the field of Social Psychology and disciplines linked to communication.
The Streisand effect is, fundamentally, an Internet phenomenon What happens when a person or organization tries to keep information hidden and, precisely for this reason, what they are trying to keep away from the focus begins to become known, either by attracting the attention of the media in the first place or by going viral through personal accounts of usurers who “spread” that news.
That is to say, the Streisand effect is a consequence of forgetting that what we do with the information is in turn another type of information that can attract more attention than the one with which it all started. Thus, the second makes the first gain interest and its popularity spreads, especially through the Internet, a medium in which news flies.
Its effect for marketing
This fact is something that is of special interest to both famous people and companies that want to maintain a good image. The latter, for example, frequently receive complaints from dissatisfied users and, given this, they sometimes choose to eliminate evidence of those complaints. In turn, this can backfire whether due to complaint videos published by those affected, comments that are shared on Facebook walls, etc.
Furthermore, on the Internet there are many people who are interested in discovering these injustices, no matter how small, and they dedicate time and a minimum of effort to making more people aware of these types of situations.
Thus, many companies are betting more on transparency not necessary for ethical aspects of their work, but to prevent the Streisand effect even if it is of low intensity (for example, with a local reach that leads to information spreading throughout a city)..
Much of what goes into building a strong brand image It can be ruined if from one day to the next certain information goes viral and discredits the entire organization, so it is worth investing in preventing these situations, for example, hiring a community manager who is in charge of mediating with dissatisfied customers without restricting their freedom of expression.
The Streisand effect can be understood from two concepts: reverse psychology and infoxication
Reverse psychology is the phenomenon by which individuals begin to feel more attracted to an option when it has been prohibited, or when the possibility of seeing it has been prohibited. It is, in fact, something that is sometimes used to educate young children. The idea is that, whether it is necessary to impose a prohibition on choosing that option then the prohibited content must have some kind of interest, one that we would not have had to think about if someone had not appeared to limit our range of possible actions.
On the other hand, infoxication is the phenomenon of a progressive production and accumulation of irrelevant information in which all types of news sink that, based on certain objective criteria, can be understood to be useful.
By default, the publication of a news item causes it to be quickly forgotten unless it is disseminated from the beginning by a medium with a wide audience reach. However, On an irrelevant news it is possible to build a more relevant one , for example, trying to keep it hidden. This causes this information to be “refloated” and breaks that natural progression that would lead it to go completely unnoticed and forgotten in a few days.
