In 2018, Mark Zuckerberg showed the world how a steady stream of blunders and insensitivity to consumer concerns about privacy and fake news has tragically damaged trust in the Facebook brand. The founder and CEO of Facebook essentially traded a core value, privacy, for profit. His performance last year provides a classic case study for all companies on how to manage brand risk, or at least what not to do.
Facebook’s new mission statement says it seeks to “give people the power to build community and bring the world together.” A brand is basically a promise designed to create a bond of trust with customers. Facebook users provide personal data with the expectation and confidence that Facebook’s promise to build this community will be fulfilled with full protection of privacy. However, Zuckerberg’s actions in 2018 created the perception that he chose profits over people, a mismatch viewed negatively by the public that is tarnishing the reputation of the Facebook brand.
In general, the brand risks of social media companies like Facebook have become more puzzling, as users around the world have become aware of cybersecurity issues and the ease with which their personalities can be exposed. private data. The 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer found that trust in social media is just 41% globally. With this trust on the decline, consumers have become hell-bent on wanting brands to push social media platforms to:
• Protect personal data – 71%
• Stop the spread of fake news – 70%
• Protect them from offensive content – 68%
Zuckerberg’s misleading performance last year undermined trust in Facebook and reminded many of his arrogant behavior portrayed in the movie “The Social Network.” It started early last year when it was revealed that a third party had gained access to the personal data of 87 million Facebook users in 2015, but the company did little to fix this problem. It seemed like there was a fake news or privacy scandal every month in 2018. Some highlights:
• March: The world learned that Facebook exposed private data of 50 million users to an academic researcher who sold it to analytics firm Cambridge Analytica. What bothered consumers the most was the fact that this data was used in Trump’s presidential ad campaign.
• April: Appearing before Congress, Zuckerberg tried to convince the world that Facebook “doesn’t sell data” to advertisers, condescendingly stating this 8 times. This may be technically true, but the public didn’t buy it in light of the sad reality of these data leaks.
• July: When Zuckerberg was asked why he wouldn’t ban an extreme conspiracy theorist guy like Alex Jones, he dug himself a deeper hole by mentioning Holocaust deniers as an example of fake news he wouldn’t eliminate. This explanation resulted in Facebook suffering the largest stock sell-off in US history, down $119 billion in one day, reflecting investors’ loss of faith in the brand.
• December: Despite Zuckerberg’s continued promises to add privacy controls, it was revealed that Facebook continued to give other tech companies such as Microsoft, Amazon and Spotify access to personal data.
This disturbing practice of making promises but not keeping them has spooked users, as well as Congress, which is calling for more oversight and tougher privacy laws. Zuckerberg may not have blatantly lied, but he was not truthful with the whole truth and his statements were often misleading, even misleading. Since then, Facebook has recognized that it can’t maximize privacy and profit at the same time.
So what can we learn from this constant stream of brand venture scandals? Some suggestions:
1. Preparation: Facebook clearly underestimated its ability to control access to private data and the backlash from consumers when these data breaches were exposed. A detailed assessment of such vulnerabilities would have led to a more observant company culture and tighter controls throughout.
2. Timing and Credibility of Responses: After each scandal, Facebook waited several days to officially respond. These delays allowed bad news to spread and fester, exacerbating the growing perception of deception. While Zuckerberg eventually admitted fault (“I am responsible for…”), he should have been more specific.
3. Apologize convincingly: A sincere and direct apology can be a believable gesture of humility as a first step in restoring trust, something Zuckerberg never adequately conveyed.
4. Proactive redemption: Perhaps most importantly, a detailed corrective action must be described to convince users that these problems will never happen again. These preventive steps represent a promise that must be kept, something that Facebook has not kept.
Social networks are a powerful, attractive and pleasant communication tool, but success will only be achieved if users trust the brand that supports them. It’s not just what a brand says; more important is what you do. This defines the integrity and trust of a brand.