Photo courtesy of Flickr member Paul Coster
Back in February, we talked about the difficulties that can arise with celebrity spokespersons.
Today, champion cyclist Lance Armstrong stepped down as head of the LIVESTRONG Foundation™, the foundation that he created to fight cancer. In the wake of reports by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency that allege doping by Armstrong and his team during the 1999-2005 period when they won the Tour de France seven times, Armstrong said his presence in the foundation was distracting from its mission.
In related news, Nike® dropped Armstrong from what used to be a multi-million dollar endorsement deal because of what the shoe company called “seemingly insurmountable evidence” against him.
Nike, like any wise investor, has diversified its portfolio of athlete-spokespersons and the loss of Armstrong, like the tarnished reputation of Tiger Woods before him, will likely not prove fatal to Nike’s brand. LIVESTRONG, on the other hand, has a tougher time ahead. Every yellow LIVESTRONG wristband is a reminder not just of the fight against cancer, but also of the embattled Armstrong.
As communicators, we should take a lesson from LIVESTRONG’s dilemma and remember that a celebrity’s fall from the pedestal can take an organization down with it.
What do you think LIVESTRONG should do? Should it take an active stance to distance itself from its founder, or simply ignore the past and start afresh as if nothing happened? Does it need to undergo a complete rebrand? Share your thoughts in the comment section of this post.
I don’t think a rebrand is required, but I do believe they need to put a lot of distance between themselves and Armstrong as the face of the organization. Moving forward, they should feature regular cancer survivors as the face and voice of the organization. While they can’t change the past or Armstrong’s significant role in it, they can create a more sustainable and crisis-proof course by integrating fully-vetted people who have benefited from LIVESTRONG programs and have cancer remission stories as the org’s next spokespersons. They can offer the same inspirational, “we can overcome cancer” message that Armstrong offered LIVESTRONG staff and supporters without the tarnish of Armstrong’s damaged reputation.
Certain organizations can go on after their founders/namesakes leave, and Susan G. Komen and Elizabeth Glaser are examples. The difference is that those people died of their illness before or during the start of their organization. Armstrong’s situation is different since he’s healthy but departing in disgrace, or at least, under controversy. It will be an interesting case study to see whether Livestrong’s supporters stay with the cause or abandon it as its leader did.