Superfish事件对联想的影响 人们会原谅和忘记它吗

本文摘要: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 com


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.误解是全球仅次于个人电脑厂商,在消费者中的口碑仍然极为正面。实质上,企业信誉咨询机构Reputation Institute最近还将误解选为全球声誉最差的公司之一。

而现在,误解的声誉遭了冲击。消费者曾坚信把数据放到误解电脑里很安全性;现在,这种信任也受到了批评。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?作为消费者,我们把自己转交公司,坚信他们将按允诺获取产品和服务,会占到我们的低廉。然而,随着隐私问题更加让人担忧,我们还能坚信谁呢?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,我和同事麦克唐奈认为,声誉较好的公司可以从“光环效应”中获益,即使它们被指控做到了坏事。




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.在自己的产品中加装流氓软件,这种不明智不道德让误解受到公众谴责,这一点儿也不怪异。此前误解仍然在希望为自己打造出较好声誉,而且早已夺得了顾客的信任。但流氓软件问题马上给该公司带给了信誉风险。

误解曾将声誉视作最重要的财产,现在它却出了开销,因为消费者、分析师、投资者以及Lizard Squad等黑客团体都为误解明白了别人信任而将矛头指向这家公司。And seriously, what were they thinking?那么,误解当初究竟是怎么想要的呢?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.尽管外人不有可能获知误解电脑笔记本电脑该软件的原因,但大家都可以自己推测。


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.今后,误解应当担忧的是本次流氓软件事件的长年影响。为了修复交流渠道,该公司应当让自己的隐私政策及其产品中笔记本电脑了哪些软件显得更加半透明。