评论
打印
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.
联想是全球最大个人电脑厂商，在消费者中的口碑一直颇为正面。实际上，企业信誉咨询机构Reputation Institute最近还将联想评为全球声誉最好的公司之一。而现在，联想的声誉遭到了冲击。消费者曾相信把数据放在联想电脑里很安全；现在，这种信任也受到了质疑。
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?
作为消费者，我们把自己交给公司，相信他们将按承诺提供产品和服务，不会占我们的便宜。然而，随着隐私问题越来越让人担心，我们还能相信谁呢？
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，我和同事麦克唐奈指出，声誉良好的公司可以从“光环效应”中受益，即使它们被指控做了坏事。不过一旦违法行为被证实，“光环效应”就会变成“光环负担”。换句话说，面对不利证据，声誉好的公司受到的打击将超过声誉不那么好的公司。大家可以回忆一下去年零售商塔吉特客户数据泄露时的情景。数据泄露前，大多数消费者对该公司印象良好，而且毫无保留地向后者透露自己的个人信息。然而，一旦事实证明是塔吉特松懈的政策造成了数据泄露，消费者对该公司的评价就一落千丈。声誉突然变成了塔吉特的负担。如果塔吉特的“罪行”不是那么明朗，该公司的声誉可能会让消费者的矛头指向别处。
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.
在自己的产品中安装流氓软件，这种不明智行为让联想受到公众指责，这一点儿也不奇怪。此前联想一直在努力为自己打造良好声誉，而且已经赢得了顾客的信任。但流氓软件问题立刻给该公司带来了信誉风险。联想曾将声誉视为最重要的财产，现在它却成了负担，因为消费者、分析师、投资者以及Lizard Squad等黑客团体都为联想辜负了别人信任而将矛头指向这家公司。
And seriously, what were they thinking?
那么，联想当初到底是怎么想的呢？
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.
尽管外人不可能得知联想电脑预装该软件的原因，但大家都可以自己推断。这项决定看起来非常不可思议，这只会让消费者对联想的评价下降得更厉害。在估算联想的“光环负担”时应该考虑到这一点。
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，联想应该担心的是本次流氓软件事件的长期影响。为了重建沟通渠道，该公司应该让自己的隐私政策及其产品中预装了哪些软件变得更透明。曾把自己最私密的生活细节存储在联想电脑上的人当然会重新考虑该公司是否配得上这样的信任。现在，我们的很大一部分个人和职业生涯都要依赖电脑和移动设备，在这样一个时代，我们可不能信任一家不守信誉的公司。
