In 2018, Mark Zuckerberg showed the world how a constant stream of errors 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. Their 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 closer together.” A brand is basically a promise designed to create a bond of trust with customers. Facebook users provide personal data in the expectation and confidence that Facebook’s promise to build this community would be fulfilled with full privacy protection. However, Zuckerberg’s actions in 2018 have created the perception that he has chosen profits over people, a misalignment viewed negatively by the public that is tarnishing Facebook’s brand reputation.

Overall, the branding risks of social media companies like Facebook have become more perplexing as users around the world have become aware of cybersecurity issues and the ease with which their data is exposed. private. The 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer found that trust in social media is only 41% globally. With this confidence on the decline, consumers intend to want 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 deceptive performance last year has 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 address this. It seemed like there was a privacy or fake news scandal every month of 2018. Some highlights:

• March: The world learned that Facebook exposed the 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: By 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 did not believe it in light of the sad reality of these data breaches.

• July: When Zuckerberg was asked why he wouldn’t ban an extreme conspiracy theory guy like Alex Jones, he dug a deeper hole by mentioning Holocaust deniers as an example of fake news he wouldn’t reject. This explanation caused Facebook to suffer the largest stock sell-off in US history, a $ 119 billion drop 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 grant access to personal data to other technology companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Spotify.

This disturbing practice of making promises but not keeping them has spooked users, as well as Congress, which is calling for greater oversight and stringent privacy laws. Zuckerberg may not have blatantly lied, but he was not truthful and his statements were often misleading, even misleading. Since then, Facebook has recognized that it cannot maximize privacy and profits at the same time.

So what can we learn from this constant stream of brand risk scandals? Some suggestions:

1. Preparedness: Facebook clearly underestimated its ability to control access to private data and the adverse reaction of consumers when these data breaches were exposed. A detailed assessment of such vulnerabilities would have led to a more observant company culture and stricter controls throughout.

2. Time 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 guilt (“I am responsible for …), he should have been more specific.

3. Apologize convincingly: A direct and sincere apology can be a credible gesture of humility as a first step in restoring trust, something that Zuckerberg never adequately conveyed.

4. Proactive Redemption – Perhaps the most important and detailed corrective action needs to be outlined to convince users that these problems will never happen again. These preventative steps represent a promise that must be kept, something Facebook did not do.

Social media is a powerful, engaging, and enjoyable communication tool, but success will only be achieved if users trust the brand behind it. It’s not just what a brand says; more important is what it does. This defines the integrity and trust of a brand.