Keith – Wait… what was my story again? (Just kidding.)

Alex – Good point regarding pseudonyms.

Shel – David Patterson made a good decision to be forthright.

Diego – Excellent comment. I chose the LDS reference since it could be perceived as a negative, just as me being a Protestant Christian could be perceived as a negative.

I agree on the pseudonym issue. It’s fine to use a pseudonym, and I have considered doing that on my other blog.

Kevin – The “firewalling” idea is a good one. I’m not sure I’m a big enough name that I need to “protect” my markets. I could be wrong. As I’ve mentioned before, there is more money in keeping secrets than telling them.

Perry – Good point.

Travis – Yes, polarizing people can be a good thing for business. Although I wouldn’t see a past affiliation with porn as a positive thing.

I can’t see how being transparent about who you are can be anything but helpful. Unless someone is a child molester or involved in something abhorrent to “normal” folk it should only chase off the people you probably wouldn’t want to do business with anyway.

I think there is not a simple yes/no here. One of the things I learned from James Brausch was that he “firewalled” certain markets he was in from others. I’ve heard of other marketers protecting a given market or “niche” (I hate the “n” word) by keeping their involvement in them confidential.

Yet I also admire your stance on being authentically yourself. You risk rejection and damage to your business, or you may profit from it. Neither appear to be your motivation. Your motivation is being who you are, and that takes guts.

Mazal Tov!

First of all… thank you for showing the respect of using the proper name of the church that I attend. Not many outside my faith are willing to do that.

It cracked me up that you used that as an example of a “negative” thing that I disclose about myself.

Is being LDS worse than being a drug addict or homeless or having been arrested several times?

I’m in your boat on the transparency thing. I’m as transparent as I can possibly be given the constraints of the existence of evil people in this world. I also value privacy when it comes to family safety.

So… politics… religion… past offences that have been repented for… social beliefs… all of that stuff I try to be as transparent as possible.

Residential address, social security number, structure of asset protection measures, phone number, means of self protection in the home (if any), security measures, etc… That stuff I keep as private as possible.

I want to be as transparent as possible about who I am so that I attract others with the same values and repel those who are uncompatible with those values (so that we don’t both constantly feel uncomfortable with the conflicting values).

I want to be as private as possible about anything to do with personal or family safety including threats to liberty and property.

BTW, I think it’s ridiculous to postulate about whether choosing a new name for yourself is somehow immoral or unethical. Nobody has more right to name you than you yourself. I do see some argue that from time to time though. Odd ways of thinking that I’m sure you don’t share.

Using multiple names for privacy and segregation of your life is similarly obviously your right. It doesn’t matter if you believe it is a God given right or if you derive a theory of rights from natural law and the very nature of man. It’s undeniable either way.

It’s your choice to be transparent if you wish or to be private if you wish and to choose what areas of your life should be each. It’s not an ethical or moral question. It’s a question of what you want for you.

-Diego

Interesting that you bring up Spitzer. On my blog, I talked about how his successor David Patterson’s transparency about their extramarital affairs will keep this from ever being an issue that could torpedo him as governor.

Great post & a fantastic question. Transparency is generally good because it humanizes you to your prospects. Yet assuming a pen name may offer certain benefits. Brausch oftentimes goes as Diego Notre and claims this name converts better. I suspect David DiAngelo wouldn’t be who he is in the dating niche if he was Eben Pagan. And last I heard Michael Masterson was (were?) doing not too badly too.

Alex

Transparency is good for business Another advantage is you don’t have to worry about keeping your story straight. It’s easier to be consistent when you are telling the truth.

Ben makes a valid point also… you can take it too far. There is some information that should stay on the therapist’s couch.

Keith