Facebook is trying to manage the impact to its reputation from being charged by former employees of discriminating against conservative media outlets and topics. As part of the corporate response Mark Zuckerberg is hosting a meeting (today) with conservative media commentators at the Facebook HQ. The charges and challenges are acute, hence Zuck’s charm offensive. Will it allay fears and what does it tell us about the world’s biggest social media brand and business’ role in politics.
1. Facebook Does Politics
Facebook has engaged in politics at a brand level before, facilitating ‘Townhall’ debates. However, Facebook is now in damage limitation mode. It is having ‘to do’ politics in a whole new way: it is having to prove political and Editorial neutrality. Strategists at Facebook believe that the tactic of inviting conservative commentators into the company HQ will help to correct any ‘misperceptions’ and allay fears of any institutional bias. It is unlikely to do either. The first-hand accounts of former employees are not easy to challenge and in this case remain credible. Which means claims to the contrary will feel incredible. Perhaps more challenging given Zuckerberg’s views, is that claims of neutrality will strike some as being inauthentic. So far Facebook’s response has been found wanting. On the one hand Zuckerberg declared a full investigation, on the other hand he denied any manipulation, or biasing of results existed at Facebook. Cue: charm offensive this week. Zuckerbeg and co. are in need of a solution to what looks like a homegrown problem. The answer may rest in either ‘decoupling’ Facebook from editorial content selection, or a much greater level of transparency, or a combination of the two. Just as Zuck feels it important to seek endorsement – or tacit support – from conservatives in the media, he may need to seek external involvement (endorsement) as to the impartiality of editorial judgement. For the last few years Facebook has been a brand corporate and political leaders wanted and needed to be associated with. Now the tables are turning.
2. Facebook Platform vs. Founder’s Politics
Zuckerberg walks a tight-rope. He promotes the brand as a platform - a utility - for users the world over. He does not talk of Facebook having a political world-view as this could corrupt the carefully mapped-out brand position. So the revelations are damaging first, because they challenge this important tenet of the Facebook brand and second, because they feel very intuitive; in that they reflect the prejudices of the Founder and therefore run through the DNA of the business. This tension is causing problems today and will continue to do so tomorrow. Zuckerberg and his peers represent more than a generation of brilliant maths-based entrepreneurs. The businesses they are building - and the brands - represent a whole lifestyle and value-system which is progressive and rooted and reflecting the liberal politics of their adopted home state of California. Nobody belives Zuckerberg and his peer group are without political passions and prejudices. This means businesses such as Facebook need robust and transparent corporate governance structures to insulate founders and management from such charges and act as a firewall for the brand and protect their integrity with consumers.
3. Politics vs. Business
If businesses become involved in a political issue or race, either by default or by design, it has the power to define a brand. This tells us two things: first politics can be toxic for business. Second, corporate brands are often ill-defined. Taking a political position can either galvanise, or polarize opinion. Wary of this, most brands and Boards either keep their counsel, or provide covert support. The rumour mill is rife with accounts of geeks from Silicon Valley providing support for Obama, in particular during the 2012 general election. But doing so in secret. (By 2012 Obama had become a divisive figure in the US. Although, probably not a patch on the heights messers Clinton and Trump can scale.) Business leaders sometimes see an opportunity to boost their ‘political capital’ by supporting a cause, person or a party. Mrs Thatcher was a beneficiary of ardent business support during the 1980s. And proving the point, so was Tony Blair in the 1990s, often from similar people. Equally, savvy politicians realise the benefit from positive brand association with, what I term, ‘political hero brands’. Watch the stampede for the ‘Snapchat generation’ in forthcoming US and UK elections.