Superfish事件對聯想的影響 人們會原諒和忘記它嗎

Lenovo, the world’s largest vendor of personal computers, is a company that has been able to create a positive reputation with customers; it was, in fact, recently ranked by the Reputation Institute as one of the world’s Most reputable companies. Now, its reputation has come under fire, and the trust that customers once had in Lenovo as a safe place to store their data is in question.

聯想是全球最大個人電腦廠商，在消費者中的口碑一直頗爲正面。實際上，企業信譽諮詢機構Reputation Institute最近還將聯想評爲全球聲譽最好的公司之一。而現在，聯想的聲譽遭到了衝擊。消費者曾相信把數據放在聯想電腦裏很安全；現在，這種信任也受到了質疑。

As customers, we put our lives in the hands of impersonal companies who we trust will deliver the products and services they claim without seeking unfair advantages over us. But as privacy becomes a bigger concern, who can we trust?

作爲消費者，我們把自己交給公司，相信他們將按承諾提供產品和服務，不會佔我們的便宜。然而，隨着隱私問題越來越讓人擔心，我們還能相信誰呢？

In recent research that I’ve conducted, my colleague, Mae McDonnell, and I show that companies with positive reputations benefit from a “halo effect,” even when they have been accused of wrongdoing. However, when a company is proven guilty of a transgression, the halo effect turns into a “halo tax.”” In other words, companies with good reputations are punished more severely than companies with weaker reputations when the evidence of their wrong doing is stacked against them. Consider the data breach at Target TGT 0.62% last year. Prior to the breach, consumers largely had a positive view of the company and trusted them implicitly with their private information, but once it became clear that Target’s lax policies were responsible for the breach, consumers’ judgments became much harsher. Their reputation suddenly became a liability. If there had been more ambiguity about Target’s guilt, the company’s reputation might have led consumers to place the blame elsewhere.

在最近的研究中，我和同事麥克唐奈指出，聲譽良好的公司可以從“光環效應”中受益，即使它們被指控做了壞事。不過一旦違法行爲被證實，“光環效應”就會變成“光環負擔”。換句話說，面對不利證據，聲譽好的公司受到的打擊將超過聲譽不那麼好的公司。大家可以回憶一下去年零售商塔吉特客戶數據泄露時的情景。數據泄露前，大多數消費者對該公司印象良好，而且毫無保留地向後者透露自己的個人信息。然而，一旦事實證明是塔吉特鬆懈的政策造成了數據泄露，消費者對該公司的評價就一落千丈。聲譽突然變成了塔吉特的負擔。如果塔吉特的“罪行”不是那麼明朗，該公司的聲譽可能會讓消費者的矛頭指向別處。

It’s no wonder that Lenovo is being publicly shamed for its unwise choice to install malware on computers. Lenovo has worked hard to build a positive reputation. They had earned the trust of their customers, but the scandal over malware installation on their computers has suddenly put that reputation at risk. The reputation they once counted as their greatest asset is now a liability as customers, analysts, investors, and hacktivist groups like Lizard Squad turn against them for this violation of trust.

在自己的產品中安裝流氓軟件，這種不明智行爲讓聯想受到公衆指責，這一點兒也不奇怪。此前聯想一直在努力爲自己打造良好聲譽，而且已經贏得了顧客的信任。但流氓軟件問題立刻給該公司帶來了信譽風險。聯想曾將聲譽視爲最重要的財產，現在它卻成了負擔，因爲消費者、分析師、投資者以及Lizard Squad等黑客團體都爲聯想辜負了別人信任而將矛頭指向這家公司。

And seriously, what were they thinking?

那麼，聯想當初到底是怎麼想的呢？

Although it’s impossible for outsiders to know what led Lenovo to install the software, people can and will draw their own conclusions. The fact that the company’s decision seems so inconceivable will only make customers’ judgments against the company that much harsher. Count that towards the halo tax on Lenovo.

儘管外人不可能得知聯想電腦預裝該軟件的原因，但大家都可以自己推斷。這項決定看起來非常不可思議，這隻會讓消費者對聯想的評價下降得更厲害。在估算聯想的“光環負擔”時應該考慮到這一點。

Moving forward, Lenovo should be concerned about the long-term implications of this scandal. To rebuild bridges, the company should be more transparent about their privacy policies and the types of software they prepackage with their PCs. People who have placed the details of the most personal aspects of their lives on Lenovo computers will certainly think twice about whether Lenovo deserves that trust. In an era where people live much of their personal and professional lives through their computers and mobile devices, we can’t afford to put our trust in a company whose reputation doesn’t merit it.

今後，聯想應該擔心的是本次流氓軟件事件的長期影響。爲了重建溝通渠道，該公司應該讓自己的隱私政策及其產品中預裝了哪些軟件變得更透明。曾把自己最私密的生活細節存儲在聯想電腦上的人當然會重新考慮該公司是否配得上這樣的信任。現在，我們的很大一部分個人和職業生涯都要依賴電腦和移動設備，在這樣一個時代，我們可不能信任一家不守信譽的公司。