Major corporations make big promises to potential customers. Beer companies sell refreshment. Insurance companies offer protection. Facebook, the social media network used by an astounding 68 percent of American adults, peddles a warmer, fuzzier concept: togetherness.
But what happens when a company runs afoul of its own mission statement? It either owns up to those failings by improving the product or it risks losing customers and relevance. Thats where Facebook is right now: a company that needs to fix its reputation in a hurry or invite government intrusion.
In the past few years, a series of scandals involving Facebook has raised questions about the companys commitment to caring for its own customers. During the 2016 election campaign, Russian trolls invaded the newsfeeds of Facebook users, planting fake political postings and ads to influence voters. In another politically connected fiasco, Facebook grossly mishandled its own privacy protection guidelines by allowing a company called Cambridge Analytica to harvest personal information from millions of users. Like the Russians, that firm apparently sought to promote Donald Trumps campaign.
A New York Times report from a few days ago looked at Facebooks inner workings and concluded that founder Mark Zuckerberg and Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg seemed more worried about containing damaging revelations than protecting users. The Times report opened with an unflattering anecdote about Sandberg: She was seething at revelations of Russian-linked activity, but not out of concern for users she was upset that another executive briefed board members, allowing them to give Sandberg and Zuckerberg an unexpected grilling. You threw us under the bus, she charged.
As corporate intrigues go, thats run-of-the-mill stuff. But Facebook doesnt sell itself as another faceless tech giant. The company says its mission is to bring the world closer together. Its customers are friends who share intimate stories and photos and wish each other a happy birthday.
Beneath the surface, of course, Facebook exists to sell that data to advertisers. Its a publicly traded company worth about $400 billion. Yet scandals have taken a toll: The stock is off by about 35 percent since July, when Facebook was worth more $600 billion. A $200 billion hit? For investors, thats a disaster.
There are now questions about whether Zuckerberg should remain chairman and CEO, while members of Congress threaten regulatory action. And about the companys pitch for togetherness? Rishad Tobaccowala, a prominent advertising industry executive, says forget it. Now we know Facebook will do whatever it takes to make money, he told the Times. They have absolutely no morals.
For Facebook users, this presents a conundrum: Stay or walk away. But for all consumers this is a useful moment. Shoppers learned long ago to be skeptical of advertiser claims. Does that detergent really make my whites brighter?
In the 21st century, the big promises are all about technological convenience. The reality is theres often a trade-off in terms of privacy lost to the tracking of behavior and the sale of data. Consumers are learning to protect themselves by doing research and making conscious decisions about which companies to trust.
Facebook knows it messed up by failing to look into dark corners, one former executive said. The company that promises togetherness routinely divides members of families when their news feeds are overrun by partisanship. Zuckerberg has apologized repeatedly.
The sorry emoji no longer suffices. Facebook needs to own up to its many failings by establishing specific ethical practices to regain users trust. The company needs to be honest and direct about how all personal data is used and sold. Security ought to be tighter. News feeds have to be valuable to users, not just advertisers.
If Zuckerberg cant manage this transition, perhaps Facebook should have a new chairman.
The rescue wont be easy. Regaining trust is harder than selling togetherness.
The Chicago Tribune
