Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress. Image: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
By Jon Michail
There’s a lot being said about Mark Zuckerberg right now, and as I have been an image consultant for over 29 years, I am not surprised that a lot of this talk centres on his clothing. There is a stark visual contrast between the whizz-kid billionaire in hoodie and jeans, and the sombre suited-up CEO appearing before Congress in Washington.
Zuckerberg used to epitomise the Silicon Valley “genius” – young, casually dressed, not necessarily socially savvy or a gifted public speaker, but brilliant in their field.
In 2010, we caught a glimpse of Zuckerberg in the transition stage. He rocked up to an interview at the Wall Street Journal’s D8 conference in his trademark casual style, even using questions about his hoodie to distract from the more gruelling subjects of Facebook’s privacy issues.
The problem was that Zuckerberg’s casual garb and poor public speaking skills no longer served him well. As Facebook grew and Zuckerberg found himself the billionaire CEO of a large and complex organisation it was no longer appropriate for him to carry on the way he had when he started the social media phenomenon as a dorm room project.
Brooke Bobb recently wrote for Vogue that Zuckerberg’s past choices in clothing, “were mostly orchestrated on his own terms and they were, by and large, markers of his position of power and his stronghold on the Internet itself. He and his signature laid-back look are the totems of social media.”
His business suit appearance before Congress was in sharp contrast, even to previous occasions when he had appeared in more formal attire.
“Today his sharp suit acts as a sort of visual death knell to that control. Zuckerberg and his business have gotten way too global and impactful for the hoodies, T-shirts, and flip-flops. Whether he likes it or not, he is a suit now, one who will face the ultimate test of corporate responsibility.”
I would even say that we can see in Zuckerberg’s appearance a reflection of a shift in society. Just as we did when Zuckerberg wore a tie to work every single day for one year back in 2009. At the end of the year, he wrote this on this personal Facebook page: “After the start of the recession in 2008, I wanted to signal to everyone at Facebook that this was a serious year for us… My tie was the symbol of how serious and important a year this was, and I wore it every day to show this.”
In times of economic uncertainty we often see this shift – people start dressing more formally as they are no longer secure enough in their positions to casually take them for granted. What we are seeing in the world now is not economic uncertainty, but general uncertainty. People don’t know who to trust.
At the heart of the Facebook scandal is the fear that privacy has been breached, elections tampered with, and fake news spread. If that’s not enough to cause uncertainty, I don’t know what is. In times of uncertainty (versus times of plenty) people seek comfort in clothing choices that present as professional, polished, and competent.
What’s your opinion – is Zuckerberg’s suit a visual marker of his growing responsibility, or merely a cloak? I’d love to hear your thoughts!
Jon Michail and his team at Image Group International partner with ambitious individuals to achieve breakthrough results with contrarian and disruptive ways to grow and monetise their personal and business brands. A veteran, multi-award winning coach and author with a Who’s Who clientele, Jon is the CEO and Founder of Image Group International, an Australian-based corporate and personal brand image advisory and coaching organisation that conducts transformational seminars, workshops and one-on-one coaching in over four continents. He is recognised as Australasia’s No. 1 Image Coach.
As usual Jon you are adept at signalling when the brand management missed the mark, (no pun intended), and you are right to ask the question.
All cynicism aside, there are a couple of things that are apparent from the transcripts and video clips that have been shown of his appearance before Congress, but firstly, a couple of points…
Firstly,
I want to point out that when he was caught on a hot mike telling Angela Merkel that he would censor FB to her specifications … he was still in the casual… but in more affluent items.
Secondly,
I believe any shift on his part would be around the sliding share price … where the REVENUE associated with the P&L is on the back of the privacy issues … it’s a pack of cards waiting to tumble. (previous behaviour is a good indicator of future behaviour as your artificial identified) I don’t think he is anywhere close to his ‘coming to Jesus moment’ as he is treating this as a frat prank gone bit sideways.
Thirdly,
Suit and tie – haircut and shave – as previous responses have identified … this is US Congress … the most inexperienced of PR minders would get this. It’s like a bright young thing being caught and charged going to court… If you want to get the bare minimum, at least look mildly contrite by conforming.
BUT… This is where it stops…
This boy is a light weight and dosen’t know what he dosen’t know.
He obviously is so removed from the way his primary product suite functions, and has so many idiots blowing smoke up his skirt – that the simple points put to him by Representatives Ben Ray Lujan, Anna Eshoo, Gary Peters, Dick Durbin, Ted Cruz etal of both a Technicno Legal, Basic Business, and UX concerns were clearly beyond him … Let alone having a hand on the Ethics and Morality of providing a conduit for First Amendment rights, in the US alone.
This is basic risk management and he has not only failed in managing the evolution of FB and it’s associated businesses … but he’s been called to account! He hasn’t come to terms with the fact that soft-cop bonhomie like..”my son likes insta but I’m a FB’er through and through” … may be the star-struck cult of personality of the bleeding heart liberals (so endemic in silicon valley) that he is used to in FB … but the rest of us want to know what’s going on and when and where this is going to stop.
Didn’t he have any clue of the type of questions he would be asked??
As an Australian, I was peeved to find that we have had our data harvested too for Cambridge Analytics etal … and as and when a class action starts here to deal with it – I’ll be in the top of the list to find out if my privacy has been breached.
Australians should be buckling up for the ride here – this is a big deal!
Although he will have 10 days to amend his testimony to Congress once the hearing is sorted … he’s done US (you and me) on toast – AND done his position- he’ll likely be rolled for the sake of the shareholders. Will there be a business left (that doesn’t mine data or potentially wiretap), that will be profitable??? Who knows, but I wouldn’t be buying FB share’s counter cyclically that’s fore sure.
Nice suit Mark – the shirt’s not a good fit and you should learn how to tie a decent knot, assuming you left your Iron man cuff-links in the box on your night stand …