Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Hays
Principles of Public Relations
Helene Degross
5/21/2018
Facebook Case Study
The current public relations nightmare that Facebook is experiencing, and the subject of
this case study, is the Cambridge Analytica scandal involving the harvesting of millions of user’s
data. The scandal was a source of intrigue for nearly every news outlet in the world for multiple
weeks, making it one of the biggest scandals Facebook has been involved in since its creation in
but first an overview of the scandal and the key players involved is needed to properly
The beginning of the scandal can be traced back to 2013 and the creation of an app by
Aleksandr Kogan. This app, called “ThisisyourDigitalLife”, was designed as a personality quiz on
Facebook. Over 300,000 Facebook users interacted with Kogan’s app, which allowed him to
access their profile data. Not only that, but it also allowed Kogan access to the data of said
user’s Facebook friends. In all, it is reported that Kogan gained access to millions of Facebook
Two years pass by and everything is calm, until 2015 when the story breaks that the firm
Cambridge Analytica is helping Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign by utilizing the data harvested
by Kogan’s app back in 2013. Facebook claimed they’d banned Kogan’s app, and that the data
had been deleted. In 2018 the big story, and the main focus of this case study, broke. It is
revealed that the data harvested by Kogan’s app had indeed not been deleted, and was used by
Cambridge Analytica to help President Trump’s presidential campaign. The information came
from whistleblower Christopher Wylie, who was a former employee of the Cambridge Analytica
firm. Wylie claimed that the data of some 50 million users had been used to profile and target
voters, saying the information was used to create psychographic profiles of users in order to
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO, finally responded 5 days after the initial story broke
with a statement on his Facebook page, saying “We have a responsibility to protect your data,
and if we can't then we don't deserve to serve you. I've been working to understand exactly
what happened and how to make sure this doesn't happen again." In the following days
Zuckerberg would take out ads in multiple newspapers so he could issue a longer and more
detailed apology. On April 10th, about 3 weeks after the story broke, Zuckerberg testifies in
front of congress.
This story has a lot of variables and different players, and some of it is still playing out
today. This was undeniably a crisis for Facebook, so it garners a look into how well they handled
it. Crisis management, or the process by which a firm handles a sudden emergency situation,
begins before the crisis ever even happens. This is called issues management, which is when a
firm stays informed on issues as to prevent anything from spiraling out of control and into a full
blown crisis. Facebook did not do very well with this aspect of crisis management. They did not
anticipate emerging issues, even though the signs were there the whole time. More should
have been done when it was revealed that Kogan’s data was being used in Cruz’s presidential
campaign. Facebook should have done more to make sure that data used by Cambridge
Analytica was actually deleted. If this had been done, then the whole mess with Trump’s
Facebook was unable to stop the problem before it began, so they found themselves in
the midst of a crisis. This is where crisis communication comes into play. The story came out on
March 17, and it wasn’t until March 21st that CEO Mark Zuckerberg finally responded—almost
five days after the initial story. This made it look as if Facebook was withholding information,
which is a major violation of crisis management. This span of a few days allowed the media to
formulate their own stories and left the public confused and misinformed on the situation,
which only put Facebook in an even worse light. The quicker a firm can respond following an
While they were late to respond, they at least responded with one voice. In a crisis
situation it is essential to not keep all channels of communication open. By funneling all the
information into one voice it prevents miscommunication within the company and makes the
message they are trying to convey much easier. Facebook did have just one spokesperson, that
one person was the CEO, which is often times not a good choice for a spokesperson. The
circumstances are a little different in Facebook’s case though, as Mark Zuckerberg is such a
prominent figure that the public may have felt cheated if anyone but Zuckerberg had
responded.
Facebook did pretty good in keeping consumer relations positive, as Zuckerberg was
very apparent in his apologies that Facebook had made a mistake and was doing their best to
fix the problem. The company also took out advertorials in multiple major newspapers and
magazines in the U.S. and UK to further explain themselves to the media and the public, and to
On April 10th, Mark Zuckerberg testified in front of Congress. This alone was a positive
move in Facebook’s handling of this crisis. The simple fact that Zuckerberg was able and willing
to go in front of a panel and be interrogated about the crises was a huge step in the right
direction for the company. This is a perfect example of output, outtake, and outcome. The
company got coverage from the testimony, and it was obvious the correct demographic
reacted as the outcome was that Facebook stocks rose 4.5 percent during the time Zuckerberg
was testifying. So, even though having your CEO testify in front of congress may not be a good
thing, this ended up being great publicity for the company. On the other hand, Zuckerberg did
refuse to go in front of Parliament when they first summoned him. Even though Zuckerberg
later accepted the invitation, it still made the CEO look like he was guilty of something.
All in all, the public relations department of Facebook did a pretty good job in
controlling this situation. Although there wasn’t much evidence of any research having been
done to prevent the problem from happening—the company still did a good job of recovering.
As far as is known, there was no lying, or spin, involved in the handling of the crisis. They may
have withheld some information at first, but never lied. The company’s ethics are still intact
after this crisis because they were so honest and open during their explanations of the incident.
This open honesty also helped proved that Zuckerberg was not a robber baron, as it seemed he
was genuinely sympathetic about the Facebook users who were impacted by the incident.
Facebook is projected to make a full recovery from this crisis, which is probably the
biggest indicator of the effectiveness of the public relations department. The whole thing has
been made into a bit of a joke by the younger audience, especially the congress testimony,
which helped take attention off of the real issue at hand. The company also just recently posted
record breaking first quarter earnings, which proves that the crisis didn’t impact the company
nearly as much as it could have. While some mistakes were made, the overall performance of
Facebook’s public relations department was good in that the company will be able to move on