[ad_1]
The snowball that has developed since 2014 around Facebook's security protocols and which has meant the loss of more than $ 45 million for the company, has apparently been managed without any strategy communication that meets the basic rules of crisis management.
María Alejandra Almenar / @Mariale_Almenar
Facebook's reputation got a hit after another since the social network was linked to Russian interference in the North American elections for the fakes news
Faced with multiple accusations, the response of the giant Mark Zuckerberg was untimely and ineffective. So in addition to being outstanding the image of the company, as well as the ability of the company to handle the crisis and save the trust of users.
Crisis management is the process by which an organization faces an event of importance that could go to its own detriment. This concept has gained prominence through the emergence of social networks, and already has a generalized manual of guidelines to follow in communication strategies that Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg have "successfully" breached in some cases.
El Mea Culpa
According to communication experts, the first step in regaining control of the crisis is to publicly acknowledge responsibility for the mistakes made and to announce the strategy for correct them
. of disclosure of data from 50 million social network users, Facebook, instead of assuming its security flaws, transferred the blame to the same users for allowing access to their data after a consent granted to Aleksadr Kogan for a supposed psychological study (see Facebook in the Cambridge Analytica maze) and the same psychologist, claiming to feel "deceived" by the theft of his
The consequences of this escape led to the loss of 45 million of its market value during the same week of the crisis.
Immediate Appearance
Crisis management must not only be relevant and convincing. They must also be immediate to stop the snowball that triggers when a failure situation falls in the public domain.
Six days took Zuckerberg and his team to arrive at soft statements before CNN in which previously mentioned, shunned responsibilities and victimized by what happened
Anticipation of Crisis
Every company needs to have a crisis and audit committee capable of anticipating problems and generating a solution before they appear or become public. In the case of Facebook, the bomb that exploded in 2018 actually began to swell in 2014.
At that time, the first leaks of private data began, for which they announced a series of measures that would allow users to have more control over the information they share and with whom. However, the postponement of these measures has resulted in this scandal of amplitudes much larger than expected at the beginning.
Alone spokesperson
According to the Global Portal, "The head of the communication situation in which the company must be named before the crisis situation. choice will be to have the best communicator in the organization.He must have decision-making ability and have minimal responsibility in the business. "
Facebook handled this situation devoted erratically. He has appointed different spokespersons who have not always been most able to inform the public. The first to speak was Paul Grewal, vice president of litigation, then Alex Stamos – head of Facebook's security – who, in his attempt to defend the company on Twitter, made dubious statements to through this network. They have been eliminated.
The most appropriate people to address the public in this regard, are Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, director of Facebook operations; but his statements, apart from the imprecise ones, have always been delayed. The worst is that they always downplay both user complaints and the legal and economic consequences for the company.
Consistent Information
The statements of various Facebook spokespersons have had to be denied by themselves again and again, which shows that they have not a certain line or verticality in processing information for the public
Keep the sequence
Communication of a company must assume as an obligation to keep its users informed of progress in the resolution of the crisis. They must become, in fact, the first source consulted for news on this subject.
In this case, Facebook Security's home page shows no information and its spokespersons have used other means to disclose their impressions. Using social networks
Facebook does not use. The network has not used its communication power to disclose its version of events or to establish a position on the issue, allowing the crisis to shift to other ways and let the orphans to users who have developed a sense of relevance and loyalty to network
Solidarity with the customer
Network management has the rule of concentrating all measures on the client affected by the event. In this case, 270,000 people donated their data to Cambridge Analytica and more than 50 million people saw their privacy threatened. The measures taken by the network were to wash a small face, but were not meant to compensate in any way the affected people.
The conduct of Mark Zuckerberg in the various appearances before which he was exposed, reveals that his main concern is to save his skin and put on the table the legal shortcomings concerning the regulation on the use of personal data on the Internet (see Zuckerberg is going well in front of the EP) and the handling of this crisis is proof of it's that he knows very little about the business of which he is a precursor, either that he dominates it so much that he knows more than any other expert what to give of importance.
[ad_2]
Source link
