We all remember the terrorist attack in San Bernardino,
California, last year December. The attack consisted of a mass shooting and an
attempted bombing, which killed 14 people and 22 were seriously injured. Read
more about the tragedy here.
This terrorist attack resulted in a legal tussle between
Apple and the FBI over access to the iPhone used by one of the perpetrators,
Syed Farook. The federal judge asked Apple to unlock this particular iPhone,
which created the debate about encryption and data privacy. Read more facts here.
How did Apple react to this federal request? Did they
prevent reputational damage? And is the response aligned with the existing
public relations literature? Are you curious? Read below!
HANDLING THE CRISIS
Immediately after the FBI asked Apple to build a backdoor
entry mode for one iPhone, Apple opened up by releasing this open letter to Apple customers written by
CEO Tim Cook. In this letter the company’s
motives for opposing the court order were explained. Cooks also stated that they
have done everything that is both within their power and within the law to help
the FBI, but while they respect the FBI the request threatens data security and
the privacy of customers. Continually Cooks focused on Apple customers and
their security, instead of informing the public about difficult encryption and hacking processes.
According to this study, accurate responding during a crisis is crucial. The
response is aligned with Seeger (2007) which suggests a
company should communicate with honesty and openness during a crisis to minimize
the reputational risk, by sharing available information stakeholders do not
turn to other sources (see the letter). Apple showed their concerns about consumer’s
interest (it is about “you”- your iPhone,
your message, your health records, and your phone’s microphone) instead of
protecting their brand and its own reputation. Using such emotions helps to humanize the crisis
response and diminish the reputational risk.
THE CRISIS CONTINUES
Since Apple denied the request, the FBI found a third party who was able to break into
Farook’s phone and drop the
court case (FYI: a system hack at worlds most popular technology firm, is not very good for the firm’s image). After dropping the case, Apple gave all the credits to the government for handling the crisis in a right way. Later
on, they also mentioned that they would like to know how the third party got
into the iPhone in order to detect the vulnerabilities of its software, so they
can continue with bolstering the security of Apple consumers’ data. Which is
aligned with the secondary crisis response strategies.
CONCLUSION
In summary,
Apple handled their crisis communication successfully. They succeeded to
release the open letter timely, before the media could make up their own
stories. The open letter, singed by the CEO, makes the letter personal; honest
and shows that Apple takes their responsibility for
their words. Despite the fact that this case has proved that no iPhone is
impenetrable, I think most Apple fans are impressed (see tweets below) with the
way Apple stood up to its government on behalf of all the iPhone users to
protect their privacy. If all the fans are as loyal to their brand as Apple is
to their customers, they will stick to their iPhone. At least I do!
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Naomi Vonk, 23 years old, is a MSc
Corporate Communication student at the University of Amsterdam. Has done
several internships, including a PR internship at Microsoft Advertising.
Particularly in crisis communication and social media. Guilty pleasures: ice
cream and Pinterest
No comments:
Post a Comment