Is there any data that would support this claim?
I just don't believe it. This is the worse version of a technical failure. Admitting a technical failure would therefore be automatically better then a hack.
I really doubt that's the way the general public views this (and they're the ones that matter when it comes to what companies are willing to admit)
If they say they had a technical error the perception would be that it's their fault.
If they say that they've been hacked the perception would be that it's because someone else did something bad, so they're the victims.
I think this is terrible, but I fear that it's the truth
If you'd come up to them and gave them a technical reason they don't even understand, it couldn't be worse. This is Germany here. People do have a genetically build in respect for people who talk a version of the language they don't comprehend since they must be a authority.
How is a technical failure worse than a hack? One implies incompetence on your part, the other that you were attacked.
How could you still overestimate this in such a ridiculous way? The general public will install a Virus Scanner and expect it to protect them. If it doesn't, they will call support and write snail mail. This is Germany man and this is why a Hack is just the worst version of a technical failure. "You failed to prevent the hack. You have not been protected or your protection sucks. Go install Avira next time!"