Target as Target
After fumbling its initial response to a massive data breach, Target Corp. has rebounded, according to experts in crisis management.
However, they said, the retailer still faces challenges in regaining consumer confidence, especially among people directly harmed by the cyber attack, which struck at the height of the holiday shopping season.
In late November and early December, malware lodged in the retailer’s point-of-sale system siphoned off account and personal information for up to 110 million customers. But Minneapolis-based Target is not the only company that may have been struck. Luxury retailer Neiman Marcus suffered a smaller breach, and news reports suggest at least six other retailers have been hit. These other companies likely are keeping a close eye on Target’s handling of the crisis.
Critics have focused, in part, on the company’s early communications. Target appeared initially to underestimate the gravity of the situation, crisis consultants said. For example, Target’s first message to customers apologized for the inconvenience.
“You don’t call something like this an inconvenience,” said Rich Klein, a crisis management consultant in New York City.
Subsequent messages from Target used stronger language, acknowledging customers’ stress and anxiety, he said. Messages also switched from assuming customer confidence to promising to regain it, Klein added, praising the change.
“I would still say it’s so much better to get it right the first time,” he said.
Still, he added, the company made good use of its Twitter feed and Facebook page. Facebook, for example, was used only to communicate about the breach, not to advertise sales, though it also acted as something of a lightning rod for complaints.
Consultants also panned the company’s decision to extend a 10 percent discount to shoppers during the weekend of Dec. 21, a few days after news of the breach first surfaced. While the discount was a nice gesture, it did not adequately address customer concerns and seemed to suggest the crisis had passed, consultants said.
In addition, the company has occasionally appeared to be behind the news, with information trickling out in the media before being revealed by Target, said Jeff Jubelirer, vice president of Philadelphia-based Bellevue Communications Group. “We should expect more from a retailer of that size and that reputation and that level of success.”
A key turning point came on Jan.13 when the company’s CEO, Gregg Steinhafel, appeared on CNBC, apologizing for the breach, reassuring customers and defending the company’s reaction:
Steinhafel should have been giving interviews in December, said Jonathan Bernstein, an independent crisis management consultant in Los Angeles. “They would have suffered less loss of sales and less impact on their stock value if they had been more assertive from the get-go.”
Other observers gave Target high marks for making a relatively quick disclosure of the breach and offering a free year of credit monitoring to customers. The four-day gap between discovery of the breach on Dec. 15 and public disclosure on Dec. 19 was faster than it’s been in other cases, said Alysa Hutnik, an attorney in the Washington, D.C. office of Kelley Drye.
“I haven’t done the math, but I think that would rate somewhere at the very top,” said Hutnik, who specializes in cyber security issues.
Another high point is the prominent role of Target’s CEO, Hutnik said. “He knows there’s work to be done to earn back customer trust, and it looks like he is taking that obligation seriously,” she said, noting that top executives rarely serve as public faces after a data breach.
Other positive steps include Target’s $5 million investment in cyber security education said Michael Soza, a partner in accounting and consulting firm BDO.
“This latest move … is really going on the offensive to show that they really are trying to get out in front of this thing and really attack what is not just a Target problem,” Soza said.
As long as no other damaging details leak out, most customers will remain loyal to the chain, said Daniel Korschun, an assistant professor of marketing at Drexel University in Philadelphia.
But the company will have to work harder to win back customers who suffered directly. They will be hard to find and hard to soothe, especially if they’ve had to spend hours on the phone undoing damage to their credit or bank accounts.
“Those are the ones where the trust has really been lost,” Korschun said.
“If By Compensation…”
In 1952, Noah Sweat, Jr. a lawmaker from the then-dry state of Mississippi found himself explaining his position on whiskey to an audience of pro- and anti-prohibitionists. His speech, known today as “if by whiskey,” cheered both sides.
“If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence… I am against it.”
“But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together … I am for it.”
General Motors CEO Mary Barra faced a similar challenge developing the company’s compensation strategy for victims of its faulty ignition switches.
Customers expected GM to fully compensate victims, and capital providers expected GM to protect assets from litigation and compensation funds: One of GM’s major stakeholders was bound to be disappointed.
Barra’s move was to leverage the reputation of Kenneth Feinberg to help restore GM’s reputation with both sides. Kenneth Feinberg’s reputation makes the “if by whiskey” approach to GM’s compensation strategy possible.
Feinberg has been pivotal in resolving many of our nation’s most challenging and widely known compensation matters.
GM customers and victims are warmed by Feinberg’s experience directing the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. Working pro bono, he spent three years meeting with families and calculating claim awards. Feinberg also handled compensation issues for the Virginia Tech shooting and the Boston Marathon bombing.
Barra’s move was to leverage the reputation of Kenneth Feinberg to help restore GM’s reputation with both sides.
GM’s stakeholders breathe easier knowing that Feinberg, as administrator of BP’s $20 billion fund to compensate victims of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, carefully manned the funding spigot.
Almost one year after the spill began, he had paid only 168,000 claimants out of more than 490,000 people who had filed. Feinberg explained then that 80 percent didn’t have proper documentation; the terms of the GM compensation plan similarly have strict documentation requirements.
Nor is he anti-corporatist. His firm accepted $850,000 a month from BP to administer the compensation fund, which led a New Orleans federal judge to order Feinberg to quit claiming independence from BP.
The “if by compensation” strategy is working, according to analysis published by Consensiv, the reputation controls company, based on reputation value metrics we use at Steel City Re.
The bump on the graph starts June 15th, the week Google Trends shows a steady uptake in searches for Kenneth Feinberg that accompanied an uptick in GM’s reputation metrics.
GM’s reputation premium, a measure of additional value arising from favorable stakeholder expectations, rose to the 46th percentile within its peer group, while the consensus trend, a measure of stakeholder surprise, showed an increase to 1.2 percent.
Reputation is about setting, meeting or beating expectations. Reputation restoration is about acknowledging fault, repairing the damage, and raising future standards.
Barra has been candid in exposing the faults.
Her challenge in repairing the damage was assuring customers and victims without frightening creditors and investors. By hiring Feinberg, Barra appears to have pleased both key stakeholder groups, boosting GM’s reputation.
Read all of Nir Kossovsky’s Risk Insider contributions.
5 & 5: Rewards and Risks of Cloud Computing
Cloud computing lowers costs, increases capacity and provides security that companies would be hard-pressed to deliver on their own. Utilizing the cloud allows companies to “rent” hardware and software as a service and store data on a series of servers with unlimited availability and space. But the risks loom large, such as unforgiving contracts, hidden fees and sophisticated criminal attacks.
ACE’s recently published whitepaper, “Cloud Computing: Is Your Company Weighing Both Benefits and Risks?”, focuses on educating risk managers about the risks and rewards of this ever-evolving technology. Key issues raised in the paper include:
5 benefits of cloud computing
1. Lower infrastructure costs
The days of investing in standalone servers are over. For far less investment, a company can store data in the cloud with much greater capacity. Cloud technology reduces or eliminates management costs associated with IT personnel, data storage and real estate. Cloud providers can also absorb the expenses of software upgrades, hardware upgrades and the replacement of obsolete network and security devices.
2. Capacity when you need it … not when you don’t
Cloud computing enables businesses to ramp up their capacity during peak times, then ramp back down during the year, rather than wastefully buying capacity they don’t need. Take the retail sector, for example. During the holiday season, online traffic increases substantially as consumers shop for gifts. Now, companies in the retail sector can pay for the capacity they need only when they need it.
3. Security and speed increase
Cloud providers invest big dollars in securing data with the latest technology — striving for cutting-edge speed and security. In fact, they provide redundancy data that’s replicated and encrypted so it can be delivered quickly and securely. Companies that utilize the cloud would find it difficult to get such results on their own.
4. Anything, anytime, anywhere
With cloud technology, companies can access data from anywhere, at any time. Take Dropbox for example. Its popularity has grown because people want to share large files that exceed the capacity of their email inboxes. Now it’s expanded the way we share data. As time goes on, other cloud companies will surely be looking to improve upon that technology.
5. Regulatory compliance comes more easily
The data security and technology that regulators require typically come standard from cloud providers. They routinely test their networks and systems. They provide data backups and power redundancy. Some even overtly assist customers with regulatory compliance such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) or Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS).
1. Cloud contracts are unforgiving
Typically, risk managers and legal departments create contracts that mitigate losses caused by service providers. But cloud providers decline such stringent contracts, saying they hinder their ability to keep prices down. Instead, cloud contracts don’t include traditional indemnification or limitations of liability, particularly pertaining to privacy and data security. If a cloud provider suffers a data breach of customer information or sustains a network outage, risk managers are less likely to have the same contractual protection they are accustomed to seeing from traditional service providers.
2. Control is lost
In the cloud, companies are often forced to give up control of data and network availability. This can make staying compliant with regulations a challenge. For example cloud providers use data warehouses located in multiple jurisdictions, often transferring data across servers globally. While a company would be compliant in one location, it could be non-compliant when that data is transferred to a different location — and worst of all, the company may have no idea that it even happened.
3. High-level security threats loom
Higher levels of security attract sophisticated hackers. While a data thief may not be interested in your company’s information by itself, a large collection of data is a prime target. Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) attacks by highly skilled criminals continue to increase — putting your data at increased risk.
4. Hidden costs can hurt
Nobody can dispute the up-front cost savings provided by the cloud. But moving from one cloud to another can be expensive. Plus, one cloud is often not enough because of congestion and outages. More cloud providers equals more cost. Also, regulatory compliance again becomes a challenge since you can never outsource the risk to a third party. That leaves the burden of conducting vendor due diligence in a company’s hands.
5. Data security is actually your responsibility
Yes, security in the cloud is often more sophisticated than what a company can provide on its own. However, many organizations fail to realize that it’s their responsibility to secure their data before sending it to the cloud. In fact, cloud providers often won’t ensure the security of the data in their clouds and, legally, most jurisdictions hold the data owner accountable for security.
Risk managers can’t just take cloud computing at face value. Yes, it’s a great alternative for cost, speed and security, but hidden fees and unexpected threats can make utilization much riskier than anticipated.
Managing the risks requires a deeper understanding of the technology, careful due diligence and constant vigilance — and ACE can help guide an organization through the process.
To learn more about how to manage cloud risks, read the ACE whitepaper: Cloud Computing: Is Your Company Weighing Both Benefits and Risks?