EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - MAAS



INCLUDEPICTURE "" \* MERGEFORMATINET Marketing and Markets in a Digital WorldPGBM127Assignment TitleIndividual Case Study 3,500 wordsModul LeaderMuhammad AzamLecturerStudent NameStudent NumberDate of SubmissionTABLE OF CONTENTS TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u I.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGEREF _Toc41134071 \h 3II.BACKGROUND PAGEREF _Toc41134072 \h PANY BACKGROUND PAGEREF _Toc41134073 \h 32.MARKET BACKGROUND PAGEREF _Toc41134074 \h 4III.LITERATURE REVIEW PAGEREF _Toc41134075 \h 71.CONSUMER PRIVACY PAGEREF _Toc41134076 \h 72.CONSUMER TRUST PAGEREF _Toc41134077 \h 7IV.THE SITUATION AT THE START OF THE CASE PAGEREF _Toc41134078 \h 9V.THE CASE STUDY PAGEREF _Toc41134079 \h 91.THE FAILURE OF CONSUMER PRIVACY PROTECTION PAGEREF _Toc41134080 \h 92.CONSUMER TRUST PAGEREF _Toc41134081 \h 11VI.OUTCOME PAGEREF _Toc41134082 \h 131.THE NETWORK EFFECT (NE) PAGEREF _Toc41134083 \h 142.IMPLICATIONS TO FACEBOOK PAGEREF _Toc41134084 \h 14VII.CONCLUSION PAGEREF _Toc41134085 \h 15VIII.REFLECTION PAGEREF _Toc41134086 \h 15REFERENCES PAGEREF _Toc41134087 \h 18EXECUTIVE SUMMARYSheehan and Hoy (2000) stated that online consumer privacy has always been a notable marketing issue since the very beginning. In today’s digital world, technological and social forces ceaselessly challenge marketers to manage the big data properly, in which consumer privacy is placed at the core. Based on the scandalous data breach of Facebook 2018, this paper aims to scrutinize the interrelationship of customer privacy and the marketing outcome in the digital market. The findings display strong impacts on each other of the two indicators. However, by the influence of technological advances, the significance of improper consumer privacy protection on the business outcomes does not utterly follow the theoretical and empirical literature. BACKGROUND COMPANY BACKGROUND Founded in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook is a technology and social media company that offers free social networking services. The core concept of Facebook is to help connect the world as a whole, as it urges people to share and communicate more on a highly-participatory online platform (Carlson 2010; Kirkpatrick 2011). The unique selling point of Facebook is the network effect, as the platform is holding place for more than 2.45 billion monthly active users, making it the largest social network in the world (Aboulhosn 2020; Chavar 2018). 99% of Facebook’s revenue comes from utilizing users’ data to place compatible targeted advertisements. However, the scandal of data breach in 2018 remains a controversial topic about whether advertising or trading personal data is Facebook’s main monetization (Naughton 2017; Trefis Team 2019). Since the beginning, the platform was founded on Zuckerberg’s core philosophy of radical transparency. This theory holds that by the fear of embarrassment, people will behave in a better courtesy when they are more transparent online, or in other words, sharing more intimate yet authentic information (Kirkpatrick 2011; Foer 2017). Following this envision, Zuckerberg tries to enhance Facebook’s exposure to information, such as design more tools to unveil customers’ insights, while keeping the policy controls in place (Kirkpatrick 2011). However, the drawback of this philosophy is neglected by the founder and therefore, leads to the largest data breach of Facebook’s history in 2018. In fact, privacy remains Facebook’s unsolved problem since its introduction of New Feed in 2006 until now (Sanders & Patterson 2019). MARKET BACKGROUNDWith the thrive of technology advances, social media is no doubt changing the world and reforming the marketing industry (Sheth 2018). According to a recent research of WeAreSocial (2019), 45% of the world population are active social media users, and the number continues to grow healthily at 10% per year. Although Facebook remains the leader in the industry with the most usage (Figure 1), it is no longer the most popular platform among teenagers (Figure 2) (Perrin and Anderson 2019). Figure 1. Most widely used social media (Statista 2020) INCLUDEPICTURE "" \* MERGEFORMATINET Figure 2. Social media popularity among teenagers (Pew Research Center 2019).In details, both researches from Pew Research Centers (2018) and We Are Social (2019) show that while the usage of social media keeps thriving in Asia, it turns out to be negative in developed countries (Figure 3). This is due to the fact that consumer confidence is dropping since the misuse Facebook data in 2018, especially young audiences mostly show negative points of view towards social media (Figure 4) (Pew Research Center 2018, Gilberstadt 2020). According to We Are Social (2019), rebuilding trust with consumers after the scandal is the most prioritized challenge of digital marketers. Figure 3. Social media usage across regions. (We Are Social 2019).Figure 4. Teenagers’ mixed view on social media effect. (Pew Research Center 2018).LITERATURE REVIEWCONSUMER PRIVACY DefinitionThroughout the time, the terms privacy has been diversely defined by many academics on different level. However, to the consumers in the business context, privacy is viewed as the protection and proper use of personal data of consumers. At the corporate level, privacy refers to the application of laws and regulations, as well as standards and actions by which information of individual is well managed (Pearson and Benameur 2010).Core principlesAccording to Sheehan and Hoy (2000), online consumer privacy has always been a significant marketing issue and therefore, it urged the Federal Trade Commission to set 5 core principles of online privacy to protect consumers. First, the consumers have the right to be noticed about the firms’ data practices. Second, consumers have the choice to which data to be collected, shared, and used. Third, consumers have the access to their data collection and storage. Fourth, the company must enforce proper steps to ensure the integrity and security of information collected. Fifth, there must be enforcement mechanisms, to ensure compliance in data protection. Roles in marketing According to Martin and Murphy (2017), data privacy could be viewed as a business strategy in the new technological environment. Findings show that the proper conduct of data privacy encourages the willingness of consumers to accept the usage of their information for marketing purposes. In reverse, firms have larger access to a richer database and therefore, form a tightened targeting strategy, which could perform as a competitive advantage over competitors (Culnan and Armstrong 1999).CONSUMER TRUSTDefinitionWang et al (2016) affirmed that trust is the most persuasive determinant that affects the users’ behavior towards social media platform. As cited in Punyatoya (2019), trust is defined as a psychological state when an individual accepts the vulnerability based on positive expectation of another. Core dimensionsAlthough there were a number of studies argued about the dimensions of trust, this report would persist on integrity, ability, and benevolence, as they are mentioned by most of scholars (Wang et al 2016). According to Wang et al (2016), first, integrity is the honesty of the organization to keep their core philosophy and commitment to do what is right. Second, ability is the belief in the firms’ methods and expertise to implement its commitment. Last, benevolence is the confidence that firms do not only care about its own benefit but also care about the interests of individual. Roles in marketingTrust plays a vital role in consumers’ post-purchase intention and reducing the risk of social interaction. First, the study of Kim (2010) suggested that trust has an indirect impact on the consumers’ behavior post-purchase stage (Figure 5). The more consumers trust the organization, the higher their satisfaction with the services and products of the organization are, and in return, the satisfied attitudes would lead to the positive future behavioral intentions. Second, Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998)?proved that trust would enhance the consumer confidence in the control over risk, and lower the concerns over risk perceptions. Figure 5. Post-purchase stage determinants. (Kim, 2010).Wu et al (2012) and Martin and Murphy (2017) agreed that privacy concern and consumer trust has a tight relationship, in which trust enhances the consumers’ willingness to uncover, accept advertisements, and increase marketing click-through. THE SITUATION AT THE START OF THE CASEThe challenge of Facebook began in 2013 when a Cambridge academic Aleksandr Koran created an app called “thisisyourdigitallife” on this platform, offering personality quizzes (Lapowsky 2018). However, this data collection did not harvest from the users only but all of their friend-list are exposed as well, without the consent of users. 270,000 users had installed the app, however, it was until 2018 that over 87 million users were confirmed to being harvested personal data inappropriately. Later, through investigation, Kogan has been accused of dealing this huge amount of data to Cambridge Analytica – a consulting company that offers services to firms and political parties who want to change the consumer behavior –to manipulate the 2016 US presidential election (Stahl 2018). Doubts about Facebook’s privacy also emerged during this period of time, when Trump’s campaign team invested heavily in Facebook ads with the help of Cambridge Analytica (Meredith 2018). In March 2018, Christopher Wiley – a former co-founder of Cambridge Analytica – unveiled the misuse of data to the news. The whistleblower reported that this company had gone against every rules (Rosenberg et al 2018), taken the massive amount of data from Kogan to build millions of US voters profiles, including their personalities and political behaviors, in order to penetrate them with personalized political ads (Cadwalladr and Graham-Harrison 2018). This scandalous data breach has forced Facebook to face both financial and marketing challenges. It also raises the controversial topic about the interrelation between online consumer privacy and the role of marketers in the digital world, which will be scrutinized in the next part of the report. THE CASE STUDY THE FAILURE OF CONSUMER PRIVACY PROTECTIONAs mentioned, the core philosophy of Facebook is radical transparency, which forces an individual to use only one and authentic identity to begin sharing personal information on the platform. At first, this terms of policy seem to assure Facebook’s integrity and make the dissenters vulnerable to government spying (Rohrer 2012). However, while the users kept sharing more but their transparency remained unchecked, together with the slack of privacy policy, Facebook has ran into the biggest data breach in the history. This report will examine the failure of Facebook’s privacy policy and draw conclusion on the roles of marketers to protect consumer privacy in the new technological environment. Theoretically, Facebook has violated all 5 core principles of the FTC and therefore, failed to ensure the responsibility of protecting privacy at a corporate level. Facebook could not warrant its users the right of being noticed about data practices. According to Dodds (2020), the company had already been aware of the breach almost one year before the scandal happened. The loophole was warned by the stealing digital tokens (i.g. to verify accounts without needing the passwords), which exposed the name, phone numbers, and email of 29 million accounts and confidential information of 14 million users. Subsequently, the lawsuit document from hacked victims reveals that Facebook has chosen to neglect this vulnerability by the fear that it would cause technical issue and damage revenues. Facebook did not provide its users enough access to control the collection, usage, and dissemination of their own confidential data. As an example, the inappropriate exploitation of Kogan in 2015 had no consent from the users and their friends, and that massive amount of data has been disseminated and misused for the purpose of political advertising. Moreover, the commitment of Zuckerberg before Congress during the testimony seemed to be deceitful, when the founder vaguely affirmed that control over personal data is the fundament of the services (Business Today 2018). However, the result turned out to be much more complicated, since users can hardly control the data after they posted it publicly (Haselton 2018). Facebook-ers are not aware about their choices on which data to be collected, shared, and used. A report by Singer (2018) argued that Facebook meticulously tracks every details of online behavior, including biometrical facial data of both users and non-users without their agreements. The purpose of this tracking extends far beyond the targeted advertisements, but to learn and predict about the future behavior and intention of users with the aid of artificial intelligent. Recently, even after the FTC regulations on Facebook privacy, users still have weakening control over their privacy, since the regulations do not limit the power of the social media platform to collect, share, and use; as well as there is no public transparency document about the implement of data management (Eadiccico 2019). Evidently, the company did not follow the order or have action to prevent the breach to happen. The report of Eadicicco (2019) highlighted Facebook’s series of misconduct against the FTC order. The notable detail is that Facebook has given third parties too much access to users’ data, such as no permission requested, prolonged data exploitation even after the ban of external developers to access user's friends' data, and no instrument to review the authenticity of entities. Additionally, Facebook has been questioned about its privacy since the launch of New Feeds in 2006 until now, however, no strict movement is highlighted. It is universally accepted that the enforcement mechanisms were implemented quite late (i.g. three years after the US presidential election). After the breach, Facebook was fined $5 billion fine by FTC and imposed by new restrictions. Generally, the restrictions of FTC forced Facebook to show more transparency about the collection and sharing data with external developers, and limited the access of third parties to personal data (Gilbert 2019). However, Eadiccico (2019) argued that the restrictions remain relatively unclear regarding the methods to implement, hence, Facebook still holds significant power when it comes to data mining. Rust et al (2002) stated that it is the marketers’ role to offer some fundamental protection to consumers in order to prevent media deviancy. Based on the analysis of Facebook violations, this report concludes that it is not only the business’ responsibility to protect consumer data, but marketing also plays a significant role. In order to strengthen the relationship with customers and build more value, marketers must be in charge of privacy notice, displaying the corporate’s transparency, collecting data properly, and placing ads legitimately. CONSUMER TRUSTMartin and Murphy (2017) suggested that consumer trust can both acts as a vital determinant to information disclosure and strengthens the consumer-company relationship in privacy relevant context. This report will examine how Facebook lost trust from consumers and then highlight the impacts of privacy concern on consumer trust, and how it affects the brand eventually. Regarding the dimensions of trust including integrity, ability, and benevolence, Facebook has failed to meet all three aspects. First, the crime of data breach indicates that the firms cannot keep its core philosophy as radical transparency (Rohrer 2012). Zuckerberg also stated to the Congress that the right to control personal information is the elementary of the social media services, however, it turned out that users’ ability to control is very limited (Haselton 2018). Second, the company could not perform its ability to protect consumer data privacy and even violated the laws. Third, although Facebook announced that it put customer privacy at its core, the refusal to patch the loophole before the breach happened implies that Facebook has chosen benefits over consumer privacy. As a result, the data breach directly disrupted consumer trust and confidence in Facebook. A survey revealed that 91% of the US consumers feel that they have no control over their online data (Kelly 2018). Especially, trust has dramatically dropped by 66% after the Facebook’s breach (Figure 6) (Weisbaum 2018). Recent research by Pew Research Center implied that 74% of Americans show little or no confidence in the tech-companies in the upcoming 2020 presidential election. Consequently, the most prioritize challenge of marketers is to rebuild consumer trust in the near future (We Are Social 2019). INCLUDEPICTURE "" \* MERGEFORMATINET Figure 6. Losing consumer trust at Facebook (Weisbaum 2018).On the other hand, the willingness to disclose information on Facebook only experienced minor changes due to the decrease of trust. Theoretically, if consumers lose trust, there satisfaction with the brand would also be diminished and the intention to re-engage is ambiguous. However, surveys conducted after the data breach implied that although people are highly concerned about data privacy, only a minor of them would stop using or share less on Facebook (Beck 2018; Weisbaum 2018). In fact, despite a minor drop of 9% during the crime, the monthly active users on Facebook keeps thriving over the time (Figure 7). Figure 7. Number of Facebook monthly active users worldwide 2008-2019 (Statista 2019). In conclusion, consumer trust in relevant to privacy concern poses a significant impact on the marketing environment, as it manipulates the perceptions of consumer towards brands. Theoretically, it can also influence the consumers’ willingness to disclose intimate information, however, this theory stays ambiguously in the case of Facebook, mostly due to the powerful network effect. OUTCOME The outcome after Facebook’s biggest challenge since the day it was launched is controversial. However, this report confidently argued that the negative impacts only lasted shortly, on the other hand, Facebook has rebounded quickly after the crime thanks to the aid of network effect. After five-day silence, Zuckerberg posted the apology on his Facebook page, admitted Facebook’s misleading movements in the scandal with Cambridge Analytica and promised about future policy changes (Wong 2018). As a result, the market value of Facebook instantly plummeted by 19% (Neate 2018) and the platform lost 9% of its active users (Weisbaum 2018). The company was then fined $5 billion because of law violations and must enforce a number of restrictions by FTC (Gilbert 2019). Paradoxically, as mentioned, Facebook overcame difficulties quickly after the crime (Zantal-Wiener 2018; Beck 2018; Madrigal 2018). Chavar (2018) explained this paradox by the phenomenon of network effect. THE NETWORK EFFECT (NE)The network effect is a phenomenon happens when the value of a good or service is strengthened as the number of customers or participants increases (Banton 2019). The cause of the phenomenon is divided into two types. First, direct NE is the increase in users leads directly to the increase of value. Second, indirect NE happens when the increased usage of goods pushes the production of complementary goods and in return, leverages the value of the original product. NE is powerful to the corporate because it creates massive value with low cost of maintenance, builds strong competitive advantage, and mitigates the risk of weakening connection in the future (Jorgensen 2015; Kim and Lee 2011). IMPLICATIONS TO FACEBOOKIn depth, Facebook has successfully built a powerful network effect, including both direct and indirect NE. First, the direct network effect lies in the massive number of active users on this platform. This phenomenon enhances the need to socialize, when all of the friends are on Facebook, one individual cannot leave this platform. As Beck (2018) stated, the need to be connected is too enormous that privacy damaging trust only acts as a chilling effect. Second, the indirect network effect refers to the interconnected third-parties apps, which tighten the barrier for one individual to leave Facebook. These external developers and apps form a system that allows users to access to wider parts on the Internet conveniently, which empowers the reliance of people on Facebook (Romano 2018). This report construes the fact that it was the network effect that saved Facebook. Putting the case study in another context without the needs to connect and socialize, nor the support of other complementary services, nor not the social media environment, it could certainly be concluded that business failure will happen. Uber’s failure after its data breach could be a conspicuous example. The breach happens in the context of service marketing since 2016, wrecked Uber from the leader in the market down to a minor player (Isaac 2019). To conclude, a strong network effect in the digital age could partly help the organization to overcome privacy difficulties, as it lowers the concern over social risk in the future. CONCLUSIONIn conclusion, the report has scrutinized Facebook’s data breach challenge in order to study the interrelationship between consumer privacy and marketing in the digital age. Two theories have been investigated, including consumer privacy and consumer trust to enlighten the two-way impacts between two indicators. First, the theory of consumer privacy suggests that digital marketers play an important role in protecting the fundamental privacy rights for consumers. As when the privacy is assured, consumers will increase the openness of their intimate information, which can provide marketers helpful resources to leverage the targeting strategy and create competitive advantages against rivals. The case of Facebook also highlights the key tasks of marketers to reinforce the CSR of data protection and create more safety values for consumers, including privacy notice, deliver transparency, collecting data properly, and placing ads legitimately. Second, the theory of consumer trust in the privacy-related context could simultaneously boost the relationship between consumers-firms and the willingness to share data. Privacy concern directly manipulates the consumer trust, alters their perception and consumer confidence in a brand. If a brand loses trust due to privacy concerns, it is significantly hard to re-engage customers because they will consider other safer options. However, in the case of Facebook, the challenge to rebuild trust seems to be mitigated thanks to the strong network effect. This phenomenon is too powerful that it intensifies the reliance of users on Facebook and blocks them from leaving the platform despite privacy damage. Therefore, it could be concluded that while there is a strong interrelationship between privacy, consumer trust and marketing outcomes, forming a tightened network effect could help relieving the perception of privacy risk in the future. REFLECTIONAfter weeks scrutinizing the course PGBM127, I have gradually developed a panoramic view of the new marketing concepts and implications in the digital transformation age. Moreover, I am also aware of some new key drivers that will affect the marketers in the near future based on the theories that the course has provided. Firstly, I acknowledge the fact that the implications of marketing change rapidly in different contexts and not always are the same as in theories. For example, the case study of Facebook shows that although the consumer trust plummeted due to the massive data breach, the platform still bounced back quickly thanks to its powerful network effect. Meanwhile, in theories, the loss of consumer trust will lead to the collapse of consumers’ evaluation post-purchase stage. Moreover, if data breach happens in traditional companies, it is certainly affirmed that it would severely damage the company’s success (e.g. Uber). Secondly, with the accelerating technological advances, marketing concepts stretches far beyond product concept to reach to social media marketing, mobile marketing, service marketing, etc. Each of the concept has different challenges for marketers and requires different methods to understand customer insights. One more notable implications that I recognize is that there is a shift from market-orientation to customer-orientation in the digital world, as social media empowers them the abilities to communicate directly to marketers. In depth, it is the consumers who set the new trends and needs, yet not the market anymore. In the new technological environment, consumers needs may vary from the needs of being connected, privacy protected, express themselves, etc. and they require marketers to listen and fulfill them. Thirdly, I have determined some key drivers that will affect the marketing trends in the short term. In the case of Facebook, technological forces are significantly highlighted, including consumer privacy and the use of social media marketing. First, as more data breaches happen from various companies to serve inappropriate purposes, consumer privacy is the most prioritized concern for marketers and the organization. According to Fauerback (n.d), data is now more valuable than oil, therefore, the misuse of data mining could lead to media deviancy and impact intimate contexts, such as the political election. Second, the misuse of social media marketing could lead to a business’ failure. As mentioned, social media significantly empowers consumers to have two-way communication with companies. Therefore, any misconduct on social media could be spread instantly and affect the organization’s reputation. Additionally, although not being stressed in the case study, social also acts as key determinants to drive hedonic motive in the marketing trends, including social concerns, beliefs, culture, etc. In the example of Facebook, it could be seen that while Asian users show little or no concern about the data breach, people in developed countries tend to decrease the usage of Facebook because they seriously value the political changes. REFERENCESAboulhosn, S 2020, 18 Facebook statistics every marketer should know in 2020, Sprout Social, 21 January, viewed 24 April 2020, < , C 2019, Network Effect, Investopedia, viewed 24 April 2020, < , J 2018, ‘People Are Changing the Way They Use Social Media’, The Atlantic, 7 June, viewed 25 April 2020, < , C, Poushter, J, and Chwe, H 2018, ‘Social Media Use Continues to Rise in Developing Countries but Plateaus Across Developed Ones’, Pew Reseach Center, 19 June, viewed 24 April 2020, < Today 2018, Facebook users have enough control over their data, says Mark Zuckerberg, Business Today, 12 April, viewed 24 April 2020, <, C and Graham-Harrison, E 2018, ‘Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach’, The Guardian, 17 March, viewd 25 April 2020, < , N 2010, ‘At last — the full story of how Facebook was founded’, Business Insider, 5 March, viewed 24 April 2020, <, A 2018, ‘Why you keep using Facebook, even if you hate it’, VOX, 11 April, viewed 24 April 2020, < , J 2018, ‘Why you keep using Facebook, even if you hate it’, VOX, 11 April, viewed 25 April 2020, < , A, & Mandler, J 2019, ‘Building relationships with the new media in a cyber landscape’,?Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 49-54, viewed 24 April 2020, < , L 2020, ‘Facebook was repeatedly warned of security flaw that led to biggest data breach in its history’, The Telegraph, 9 February, viewed 25 April 2020, <, L 2019, ‘Facebook still has incredible control over your data’, Business Insider, 26 July, viewed 25 April 2020, <, F 2017, ‘Facebook’s war on free will’, The Guardian, 19 September, viewed 24 April 2020, < , H 2020, ‘Few Americans are confident in tech companies to prevent misuse of their platforms in the 2020 election’, Pew Research Center, 24 February, viewed 24 April 2020, < ; Gilbert, B 2019, ‘Alongside a $5 billion fine, the US government just imposed a bunch of restrictions on what Facebook can and can't do: Here's the full list’, Business Insider, 24 July, viewed 25 April 2020, <, T 2018, ‘Zuckerberg says you control your Facebook info — but it’s much more complicated than he says’, CNBC, 11 April, viewed 25 April 2020, <, M 2019, ‘How Uber Got Lost’, The New York Times, 23 August, viewed 25 April 2020, < , E 2015, The Power of Network Effects: Why they make such Valuable Companies, and how to Harness them, Evergreen, viewed 24 April 2020 < , M 2018, Most Americans Feel They've Lost Control Of Their Online Data, NPR, 10 April, viewed 25 April 2020, <, D 2010, ‘An investigation of the effect of online consumer trust on expectation, satisfaction, and post-expectation’, Information Systems and E-Business Management, 10(2), 219-240, viewed 24 April 2020, <, J and Lee, J 2011, ‘The Facebook Paths to Happiness: Effects of the Number of Facebook Friends and Self-Presentation on Subjective Well-Being’, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(6), 359-64, viewed 24 April 2020, <, D 2011, The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company That Is Connecting the World, Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York, viewed 24 April 2020, <; Lapowsky, I 2014, ‘Facebook Rolls Out Clearer Privacy Policy, But You Still Can't Control Your Data’, Wired, 13 November, viewed 25 April 2020, <, I 2018, ‘Facebook Exposed 87 Million Users to Cambridge Analytica’, Wired, 4 April, viewd 25 April 2020, <, A 2018, ‘Even Amid Scandal, Facebook Is Unstoppable’, The Atlantic, 1 May, viewed 25 April 2020, <, K, and Murphy, D 2017, ‘The role of data privacy in marketing’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(2), 135-155, viewed 24 April 2020, <, S 2018, ‘Facebook-Cambridge Analytica: A timeline of the data hijacking scandal’, CNBC, 10 April, viewed 25 April 2020, <, J and Ghoshal, S 1998, ‘Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage’, The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266, viewe 24 April 2020, < J 2017, ‘Why Facebook is in a hole over data mining’, The Guardian, 8 October, viewd 24 April 2020, < , R 2018, ‘Over $119bn wiped off Facebook's market cap after growth shock’, The Guardian, 26 July, viewed 25 April 2020, <, S and Benameur, A 2010, ‘Privacy, Security and Trust Issues Arising from Cloud Computing.’, 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science, conference, 693-702, viewed 24 April 2020, < , A, and Anderson, M 2019, ‘Share of U.S. adults using social media, including Facebook, is mostly unchanged since 2018’, Pew Research Center, 10 April, viewed 25 April 2020, < , P 2019, ‘Effects of cognitive and affective trust on online customer behavior’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 37(1), 80-96, viewed 24 April 2020, <, D and White, Gladys B 2012, Facebook's Radical Transparency: The Ethical Implications for Privacy in America, dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.Romano, A 2018, ‘How Facebook made it impossible to delete Facebook’, VOX, 20 December, viewed 25 April 2020, < , J and Patterson, D, 2019, ‘Facebook data privacy scandal: A cheat sheet’, TechRepublic, 24 July, viewed 24 April 2020, < , S and Verma, H 2018, ‘Social media marketing: Evolution and change’, in Social Media Marketing: Emerging Concepts and Applications, pp. 19-36, Springer Singapore.Sheehan, K, and Hoy, M 2000, ‘Dimensions of Privacy Concern among Online Consumers’, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 62-73, viewed 24 April 2020, < , N 2018, ‘What You Don’t Know About How Facebook Uses Your Data’, The New York Times, 11 April, viewed 25 April 2020, < 2019, Number of Facebook users worldwide 2008-2019, Statista, viewed 25 April 2020, < Team 2019, ‘How Have Industry Headwinds Affected Facebook’s Revenues?’, Forbes, 26 December, viewed 24 April 2020, < , Y, Min, Q, and Han, S 2016, ‘Understanding the effects of trust and risk on individual behavior toward social media platforms: A meta-analysis of the empirical evidence’, Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 34-44, viewed 24 April 2020, < Are Social 2019, Digital 2019, We Are Social, viewed 24 April 2020, < , H 2018, ‘Trust in Facebook has dropped by 66 percent since the Cambridge Analytica scandal’, NBC News, 19 April, viewed 25 April 2020, <, J 2018, ‘Mark Zuckerberg apologises for Facebook's 'mistakes' over Cambridge Analytica’, The Guardian, 22 March, viewed 25 April 2020, <, K, Huang, S, Yen, D, and Popova, I 2012, ‘The effect of online privacy policy on consumer privacy concern and trust’, Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 889-897, viewed 24 April 2020, < , S 2009, ‘Determinants of Online Privacy Concern and Its Influence on Privacy Protection Behaviors Among Young Adolescents’, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 43(3), 389-418, viewe 24 April 2020, <, A 2018, ‘60% of People Are Sticking With Facebook, Even After the Latest Data Breach [New Data]’, Hubspot, blogpost, 4 October, viewed 25 April 2020, <; ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download