Mark: married, minted and misleading…?

For a company dogged by criticism over its approach to customer privacy, Facebook, and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg, have done a remarkably good job of keeping their own affairs private. Last weekend it was announced that Mr Zuckerberg had got married, not through a bland corporate press release, a glossy magazine shoot or a heartfelt doorstep press conference, but through a simple ‘married Priscilla Chan’ update on his own Facebook page. The announcement, at least as far the outside world was concerned, came entirely out of the blue. Normally, even the best laid and most secretive of celebrity wedding plans are scuppered by a loose-tongued ‘friend’…(it seems Mark Zuckerberg’s friends are rather closer to him than most of those acquired through his social networking site.)

Since then, snippets of information have been provided, along with a small number of photos. More importantly, alongside the numerous ‘likes’ of his update were a series of blogs and comments pointing out the irony of such a secretive announcement.

From a communications perspective, Zuckerberg’s update seems a savvy, if slightly pithy, PR stunt. By dropping his marriage bombshell on Facebook, Zuckerberg instantly started a conversation on the subject on the very same platform. That is not to suggest this was his only motive of course, but it’s handy side-effect.

The problem for Zuckerberg is that by communicating in this way he blurs the lines between public and private realms. He is simultaneously saying he wants to update the public about his private life (and therefore validating their right to know), while making it clear that he expects to be able to do this when he chooses and on his own terms. It’s a difficult message to tell your customers ‘I care about your privacy, but I care more about mine.’

Zuckerberg is no longer a guy who set up a successful company, or even a reluctant spokesperson for this company. He’s a brand. As accidental as the signature hoody may be, Zuckerberg is now a physical embodiment of his company. When he steadfastly refuses to wear a suit, it’s an indication of the ethos of Facebook. When he speaks, he speaks for Facebook.

While a CEO of a major company can use Facebook to provide a more human face and voice to an organisation, this is not so easy for Zuckerberg. His organisation already has a human face. So far, Zuckerberg has effectively used his own Facebook profile as a powerful marketing tool for his business, without having to personalise it to the point of invading his own privacy. But walking this tightrope is likely to get more and more difficult.

Social media has become a medium through which we provide increasingly personal information to wider and wider audiences. But the public is also becoming increasingly switched on to how such platforms work. At some point, there is a danger this spills over into a wider refusal to provide information on Facebook. After all, if Facebook’s own CEO is happy to restrict such information under a cloak of secrecy, why shouldn’t other users?

Should Mark Zuckerberg worry? Perhaps. At the moment he has around 19 billion reasons to feel like he’s getting it more right than wrong.

Note: We at Linstock Towers are rightly impressed by Facebook’s meteoric rise, and long may it continue. (he can read this, right?).

John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com