Corporate reputations across most sectors have deteriorated in recent years, but the tech industry has proved almost immune to reputational damage. Recently, however, major concerns around data privacy, corporate tax and the use of online networks by terrorists have caused UK public and media sentiment to shift. These issues have also put the tech sector on a collision course with governments and regulators, both in the UK and across Europe. Drawing on new opinion research from Brunswick Insight, this presentation examines why trust in tech companies is falling in the UK, and provides a basis for designing strategies to rebuild it. We also look at the practical implications of a damaged reputation as the sector faces up to new challenges and a more hostile environment. For more information please contact: Amanda Duckworth: www.brunswickgroup.com/people/directory/amanda-duckworth/ Chris Blundell: www.brunswickgroup.com/people/directory/chris-blundell/ Phil Riggins: www.brunswickgroup.com/people/directory/phil-riggins/

1. This presentation explores how US technology companies can understand and manage their
corporate reputation in the UK.
It explores the broad issue of trust and favourability, and explores in detail the issues that are
driving levels of trust and support.
0

2. 1

3. US technology firms have enjoyed a strong run of support lasting over 10 years in the UK. The
context is still very supportive – 9 out of 10 people would still support US firms setting up
operations in the UK.
2

4. However, we are seeing an emerging change in media and public sentiment towards technology
companies. This is a public debate about two things:
1. Change – fundamental changes are taking place in society, who is responsible and
accountable for the impact they have?
2. Power – we are seeing direct confrontations between global companies and democratic
governments
3

5. A major survey released at Davos showed that trust in technology companies had fallen for the
first time in a decade.
Davos become a focal point for this discussion, and crystallised a number of issues into a general
concern. This was not a turning point, but rather a case of the issue reaching critical mass, and
becoming a mainstream conversation.
4

6. We are exploring what is behind the fall in trust.
When asking people what words they associate with technology firms, the top 3 words from a
randomised list are ‘Successful’, ‘Aggressive’ and ‘Greedy’. The public like the products and
admire the success, but they are also somewhat fearful of that success.
The list also features strongly ‘Exploitative’, and ‘Too Powerful’, as well as ‘Dynamic’ and
‘Creative’. It shows a real ambivalence towards the power that technology companies hold.
There is a sense that people are unsure how the companies will behave, and don’t feel they
have any leverage against them. These concerns are based in starting to see behaviour they
don’t like, as we will see later.
5

7. As we look further down the list we see that ‘Exploitative’, ‘Invasive’, ‘Untrustworthy’ and
‘Secretive’ score 2x or 3x higher than ‘Responsible’ and ‘Trustworthy’. Three times as many
people think the industry is exploitative than responsible. ‘Exciting’ also scores low.
We are starting to see the legacy of instances where trust was not kept, and moving from a
starting point of trust to not trusting, raising the burden of proof.
Tactically, this is a barrier to adoption – people pressing ‘Allow’, and ‘OK‘,and installing services.
Strategically it is creating an environment where people who don’t feel they have the power to
compel companies to stop doing something they don’t like, will support higher authorities who
can.
We are seeing this in real actions, such as Right to be Forgotten, and the Data Retention
Directive.
6

8. Here we have ranked some major companies against each other, to get a sense of relative
values.
Curiously, the random inclusion of non‐American company, Samsung, saw that company rank
highest. We don’t have enough data to draw strong conclusions from that.
Broadly speaking, longevity and simplicity of business model translate into trust, and newer, less
clear business models are distrusted.
The methodology split respondents into three categories – all those who give each company a
score of 6 or above out 10 (and therefore tend to trust them), all those who give the company a
score of 4 or below (those who tend to distrust them), and those who give the company a trust
rating of 5 (i.e., they’re neutral)
7

9. We ran the same study with the level of understanding of each company. Online business
models are clearly not well understood (despite familiarity with the name).
8

10. And here we have combined the two – understanding and trust – and there is a clear
correlation.
Lower understanding of the way the business operates = lower levels of trust in that business to
behave responsibly
To understand the chart, for example, 55% of those who know a lot or a fair amount about
PayPal strongly trust it, compared to just 27% of those who know a little/nothing at all.
Therefore better understanding delivers a 2x uplift in trust.
People are three times more likely to strongly trust facebook or Uber to behave responsibly if
they understand how they go about their business.
9

11. So what is driving the decline in trust?
There are three lead issues – tax, privacy and national security.
The rest of the presentation looks at these issues in detail, as well as can be done to address
them.
10

12. 11

13. Respondents were given an open question with no prompts as to the drawbacks of technology
companies, and this word cloud represents all answers – an overwhelming focus on tax. This is
the dominant single issue affecting the reputation of US technology companies today.
This issue is not new, it has been going on for several years, and is clearly not going away.
Conversely, it has taken root in the public’s consciousness and become an emblematic issue for
the tech sector
This is what is underpinning those earlier associations with Greedy and Too Powerful. It is seen
as disregarding the law that everyone else has to live by.
12

14. When put into context with other issues, Tax still leads by 10 percentage points.
7 out of 10 people say they’re very concerned about companies in the tech sector avoiding tax –
it’s the most concerning aspect of all their corporate behaviour.
Although led by big companies, it affects the atmosphere for everyone.
13

15. Tax is a good example of the media leading and reinforcing an issue – it is the only way the
public see it, and the media is outspoken and strongly critical.
The media coverage reinforces the sense of an imbalanced relationship, and one side not playing
by the rules. The context is critical, during a national debate over the cost of living, and how to
balance the national budget, often through taxation on the public.
14

16. Which is driving a Government response. Very clear and pointed, and targeted at this industry.
There is a clear statement of intent, in response to the media criticism.
This is the power struggle we talked about – technology companies are defying the
Governments single greatest authority, to raise funds via taxation.
15

17. And it is supported by public opinion.
As we know, ideas that poll well tend to happen.
This is the environment we referred to earlier – where people are outraged and don’t feel
empowered to act, they support government intervention.
16

18. The government is not looking to judge companies on the letter of the law, they are holding
them to a standard of morality and responsible behaviour.
17

19. 18

20. Privacy generates very high levels of concern overall.
Concerns broadly reflect how much information is collected, what it is used for without their
knowledge, and what risks there are when companies lose people’s data.
Lack of data privacy was defined in the question as follows: “Lack of data privacy: Companies
gathering and sharing personal information about me without my knowledge and
permission."
19

21. Privacy is where the rubber hits the road on the lack of trust. Only 6% of people trust internet
companies to use their data appropriately, whereas 54% distrust.
Use of data is a direct line to monetisation and competitive advantage. This is where we see
overall reputation issues come together to present real business challenges.
20

22. Marc Benioff said that the only real answer is total disclosure, and people agree that is
necessary.
But it is also not sufficient. People don’t read existing T+Cs, and other sectors, like energy, have
not seen benefits from radical transparency.
The challenge is to address the underlying lack of understanding in accessible ways.
21

23. 22

24. This is the issue that has risen most strongly lately, and also where the biggest change has
occurred.
23

25. The murder of soldier Lee Rigby fundamentally changed the debate on surveillance in the UK.
After the Snowden revelations, support for Government surveillance programs fell dramatically,
pushing the Government and security services into a defensive position – data clearly showed
that the public were angry that the authorities appeared to them to have abused a position of
trust and “gone too far” with surveillance. This incident, followed more recently by the Charlie
Hebdo killings, have dramatically demonstrated why surveillance is important, and has allowed
the security services once to argue strongly in favour of their need to be able to intercept
communications.
The Government is demanding action from the tech industry. It regards encrypted
communication as the single largest national security threat facing the country today. Note,
again, the argument is based in morality and social obligation, not technical capability. This is
part of the broader argument highlighted by the Financial Times over who is ‘responsible’ to the
public, in this case for public safety.
24

26. The government regards the ability to intercept communications as a red line on which it will not
compromise. Again, there is commitment to decisive action from the Government. Whatever
form it takes, that action will be related to encryption and oversight, so will ultimately be
relevant for any service that includes chat, messaging, document exchange or collaboration tools
with an element of encryption.
25

27. Again, this position is backed up by public support.
This is the data point that has moved the most in the past six months. Support for government
surveillance after Snowden was running at around 40% (YouGov data). It has since jumped
almost 30 percentage points to an overwhelming majority consensus. This is again an illustration
of the atmosphere of consent for intervention.
26

28. Importantly, that consent to surveillance is willingly given now at the expense of personal
privacy. The majority favours government interception even at the cost of their own privacy.
This also has a financial cost for the technology companies involved.
We note that this support splits along party lines, with the significant minority of 31% mostly
made up of traditional left wing voters, not part of the major parties and without legislative
influence.
27

29. There are three main axes on which reputation is built. The data in the presentation allows us to
explore effective ways of addressing these issues through communications and messaging,
building relationships with stakeholders, and taking concrete action.
The closing point is to remind ourselves that communication can only achieve so much. The
issues discussed in this presentation are fundamental operational or corporate issues, that need
to be resolved at source. A good reputation is built on real actions and behaviour. To change the
direction of current debates, the technology industry will need to engage with the substance of
the issues it faces.
28

30. Thank you. Do call us any time.
29

31. The survey focuses on media attentives – those most likely to see, hear or read quality news
sources on a daily basis.
Notes on age profile: It's a broad age range across UK adults, broadly in line with the
population profile overall though with slightly fewer younger people as they consume
less news, esp from these sources. Among media attentive it splits out roughly as
follows:
18‐34: 20%
35‐44: 20%
45‐55: 20%
55‐64: 20%
65+: 20%
30