The sordid tale of Lance Armstrong is unfolding right before our eyes across the web, social media and of course TV in addition to pretty much every other channel known to man.
Back in August of this year I wrote an article about Penn State and if their brand had received the death penalty. While obviously different on many fronts, there are some similarities between Penn State and Lance Armstrong when it comes to branding and there’s a lesson for all marketers and advertisers.
The opening two paragraphs of the aforementioned Penn State article fit like a glove when overlaid onto the Lance Armstrong saga:
“There are no shortage of definitions for the term “brand equity.” You probably have your favorite. This is one of mine, especially in the context of the Penn State brand: “A brand’s power derived from the goodwill and name recognition that it has earned over time, which translates into higher sales volume and higher profit margins against competing brands.”
The reason I like this particular definition when it is applied to the brand of Penn State is because of words like “goodwill” and “name recognition” and ‘earned over time.’”
Recommended for YouWebcast: A Week in the Life of an Agile Creative Team
Just replace “Lance Armstrong” for “Penn State” in the above sentences and there you go.
Mr. Armstrong has most assuredly achieved name recognition earned over time and he obviously has made himself and his brand a lot of money. He of course has also done a lot of good via his Livestrong Foundation.
I happen to think Livestrong is a separate entity all to itself and will continue on in its fight against cancer. In an article on CNN.com a cancer survivor put it perfectly: “The effect he had on the foundation was huge, but they both should be able to stand on their own. The foundation should not be held accountable for his deception.”
Separating The Person From The Foundation
But this is not about Livestrong, this is about Lance Armstrong, the personal brand.
Many have said that this whole incident is reminiscent of Tiger Woods’ fall from grace of a few years back but according to branding expert David Brier, it’s more along the lines of a certain former vice-president.
“Lance’s drop from grace is different than Tiger Woods’. It is much more similar to Al Gore’s recent hypocritical act of selling his viewer-starved Current TV cable network for $500 million to Al Jazeera,” said Brier.
The reason being, according to Brier, is “Lance professed a certain integrity that was part and parcel to ‘his brand’ as much as Al Gore, patriotism and environmental accountability seemed to be inseparable, until he sold his soul to Al Jazeera.”
For his part Brier has an idea where Armstrong and Gore could potentially benefit from a partnership “A possible solution might be for Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Gore to create a new PR consultancy named ‘Strong, Arm and Gore’ with the slogan of ‘Lots of stamina, no matter how hot it gets’ which I think sums it up very nicely.”
Then there is the issue of “clawbacks” whereby Lance would have to repay some of the millions of dollars he earned via sponsors now that he has admitted to using performance enhancing drugs.
Jeff Kravitz, a partner in the law firm Fox Rothschild LLP, says essentially if it’s not broken, don’t fix it. “Why publicly open a wound unless the business is hurting? says Kravitz. “Let it lie, let it die.”
Kravitz, who also blogs about sports law, thinks Armstrong can recover from a branding perspective “through charity and clarity.” He also believes a mea culpa would certainly help “Weasel words do not work, and presenting himself to the public with more sincerity is necessary.”
His advice to Armstrong, which would more than likely be contrary to what many lawyers would advise is to “keep it simple, honest and direct” adding that “the legalities will play out better if you tell the truth.”
As for brands who are considering establishing a partnership/sponsorship with a professional athlete, Kravitz suggests that it’s best for brands to “know the person you are considering working with; check around before you sign someone and remember that long term relationships can work out when you stick with people.”
Obviously this is all very fresh in our collective minds and the dust is far from settled. So trying to predict the future of the Lance Armstrong brand would be pointless.
As Americans we are a very forgiving society. As Kravitz said to me “If Michael Vick can have a second act, so can Mr. Armstrong.”
And while I agree with him to a degree, there are extenuating circumstances regarding Lance Armstrong most notably the fact that he was/is an international star – not just in the US but across the world, people know Lance Armstrong. Will those living in other parts of the world be as forgiving as Americans are more apt to be?
Another thing to consider is the fact that Armstrong, in his defiant best, actually sued and won judgments against those who dared question the veracity of his claims. How will society in general look at such a what-we-now-know-to-be terrible act of power and greed?
Will the Lance Armstrong personal brand survive?
I don’t know anymore than you do.
But I will be watching, that’s for sure.
(Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)