16
Lance Armstrong and Livestrong: Crisis management between brand and persona
Emily Lupu
Dr. Ted Gournelos
Department of Communications
11/25/2013
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the steps taken during crisis management by athletes and their respective organizations. In the case of Lance Armstrong, years of allegations and attacks ended with a much-prolonged nationally televised interview. The implications of an athlete’s negative publicity during a crisis are also investigated, as an athlete’s personal identity is inherently connected to the brand identity of their respective organization. Armstrong did not execute effective crisis management, as years of denial had tarnished his credibility and overall likeability. The conclusion that can be made is that during crisis management, the best move is to come clean immediately after the scandal surfaces. Moreover, an inadequate use of social media after a crisis has negative effects, especially when social media dominates sports public relations. Armstrong’s organization Livestrong, on the other hand, executed effective crisis management by separating itself from its founder and reiterating its philanthropic mission. Livestrong used social media to pivot and share their mission, turning crisis into opportunity. Crisis management is most effective when carried out ethically, as this establishes credibility, trust, and respect among the targeted publics.
The public image of an athlete and its corporate sponsor is closely linked. For this reason, there have been numerous incidents where an athlete has drawn negative attention from a crisis, affecting not only their personal and professional image, but also the respect and credibility of its respective organization. After two years of criminal investigation by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) that was fueled by accusations of doping and trafficking drugs based on blood samples from 2009-2010, as well as testimonies from witnesses, Armstrong finally admitted the truth. Yet, Armstrong had defiantly and repeatedly denied all allegations each year following up to the 2013 confession. After USADA provided concrete evidence of Armstrong’s accusation, UCI announced on October 22, 2012 that Armstrong was stripped of all titles, including his Tour de France titles, and was banned from cycling for life. This crisis impacted not only Armstrong, but also the organization that he founded, Livestrong. The personal brand identity of an athlete and the brand identity of its respective organization are connected, thus image restoration is applied to the individual at fault and to the organization that embodies the ideals, morals, and behavior of the athlete it supports. Moreover, ethics are important when dealing with crisis management. Besides the fact that doping is illegal in sports, the reputation of Armstrong and Livestrong is based on philanthropy and the honorable fight against cancer, inevitably making the crisis seem more offensive. Crisis communication should be carried out ethically in order to establish credibility and trust. The fact Armstrong denied allegations for years, instead of coming out with the truth, was absolutely unethical. Moreover, his seemingly unremorseful demeanor and failure to disclose information led to an unsuccessful attempt at crisis management. Livestrong was ethical in their crisis communication strategies when dealing with the scandal.
In order to fully understand how crisis communications impacts athletes and their organization, it is important to examine the steps that are taken from a public relations standpoint in restoring the image of both the athlete, and the organization. The first issue at stake is the individual athlete and crisis. As a community engaged concept, sports is at the heart of the United States, uniting people as well as triggering emotions from ardent fans or anger from competition. The sports industry is one of the largest industries. Because of its popularity, the athletes who are the faces of an organization are under constant watch, calling for constant public relations. Whether personal or professional, an athlete’s actions are exposed to the public. Athletes are often put on a pedestal, representing a hero-like symbol to loyal fans. This is why it is so important to maintain a positive public image, as any negative publicity affects not only the athlete, but the sponsors and organizations that support them. As cited in Benoit and Hanzcor (1994), “as sports have become an increasingly important part of the American fabric, athletes are often called upon to defend themselves [in a crisis]” (Blaney et al. 2013). From an ethical stance, athletes are expected to be honest with the public and the sponsors/organization they are linked to. Although Armstrong eventually came out and told the truth in an interview, his cold demeanor, and history of denial proved to be an unsuccessful attempt at crisis communication. When applying Benoit’s IRT (Image Restoration Theory) to athletes, Benoit asserts: “A damaged image can cost an individual or a corporation millions of dollars, which is why it is imperative to understand key image repair strategies” (Benoit as cited in Blaney 2013). In order to effectively apply this theory, Benoit states that “First, the accused must be held responsible for an action. Second, the act must be considered offensive” (Benoit as cited in Blaney 2013). After these two qualifications are met, the communications discourse is evaluated through five broad categories of image repair strategies. Armstrong executed certain image repair strategies, while neglecting others.
The second issue at hand is when the crisis expands on an industry level because athletes and their organizations have a shared brand identity that is inherently tied to their public relations and ultimate success. The effect that negative celebrity attention has on the organization that supports them has been studied for some time. Unfortunately for organizations that decide to accept celebrity endorsements, or align themselves closely with an individual who embodies the company’s brand identity, a crisis can deeply affect credibility and success:
To date, scholars have focused on the range of positive outcomes emanating from successful sponsorship scenarios, such as links with successful endorsers. Less attention has been paid to understanding possible negative outcomes, which may result from instances where endorsers are linked with unfavorable actions. In the face of rapid technological advancements and increased media dedicated to celebrity endorsers, a greater understanding of the possible negative outcomes becomes a necessity” (Doyle et al. 2013)
Similarly, as stated in Repairing the Athlete’s Image: Studies in Sports Image Restoration, “However, when negative publicity becomes associated with a represented group or person, practitioners must implement a communication strategy designed to salvage the image of their clients” (Blaney et al. 2013). The image of a public figure such as Lance Armstrong would inevitably affect the image of Livestrong, unless Livestrong handled their crisis communication effectively. Livestrong, while not condemning Lance prior to concrete evidence, began to separate itself from the brand identity that was encompassed by Armstrong’s persona. Instead of focusing on the crisis, Livestrong used the crisis to reiterate the organization’s mission. In this way, they turned an obstacle into an opportunity, as Smith states, “Organizations under attack may use public attention generated by a crisis to explain their values and demonstrate their quality” (2013).
The third and final imminent issue is the impact that the media (with an emphasis on social media) has on athletes during a crisis. In an age where social media dominates much of the public relations industry, it is useful to know how to effectively use social media as leverage during a crisis. In terms of public relations in sports, athletes are viewed as celebrities. This means that their successes and failures are under close watch and scrutiny. Athletes therefore, must take the appropriate moves when dealing with a crisis that could potentially tarnish their image for life, moreover the image of the organization they are linked to. When an athlete like Lance Armstrong is facing a crisis, every public relations move is documented, analyzed, and responded to immediately. Social media can either break you, or make you. Armstrong was not so successful with his use of social media, as he initially used it to lie. Livestrong, on the other hand, was successful at recognizing the importance of social media. As contended in the book Public Relations Cases, “Engaging the public through social media expands an organization’s reach during a crisis” (Hayes et al. 2013). Livestrong used social media to highlight the organization’s philanthropic mission.
The Lance Armstrong crisis was a complex situation because of the factors that contributed to the scandal prior to and after the crisis. Prior to confessing, Armstrong had used his website as a main source of communication with the public. In the light of all the allegations, Armstrong repeatedly made statements on his website, such as “I have never doped. These charges are baseless [and] motivated by spite” (BBC 2012). Additionally, he took to his Twitter to link statements that he made in response to charges. Devoted fans who followed the cyclist on Twitter unknowingly (or knowingly) stood by him and showed support; others did not. Armstrong spent most time using social media to refute allegations, and spent less time using it to apologize. In Armstrong’s case, social media led to his downfall, as after the doping scandal surfaced, and he admitted his guilt, social media served as a voice for angry fans, and supporters. However, Livestrong handled social media much more effectively. Four crisis management efforts will be analyzed to determine their success and ethical adherence: Armstrong’s interview with Oprah Winfrey, his Twitter, Livestrong’s blog, and Livestrong’s press release.
In sports public relations, the sharpest focus is on the fans of every sport, team, or athlete. After all, the fans are the ones who support the sport enterprise by buying tickets, gear, donations, and much more. Therefore, it is crucial for athletes in the spotlight to know how to relate well to fans and the general public. It is for this reason most athletes hire public relations professionals. As stated in the book Repairing the Athlete’s Image: Studies in Sports Image Restoration, “Media training, for example, is one of the single most important areas athletes, coaches, managers, and organization executives must master because they are the literal public faces of the sports and sports organizations for which they work” (Blaney et al. 2013). Moreover, “The epideictic character of sports public relations rests largely on two central public relations genres: press conferences and media interviews” (Blaney et al. 2013). Essentially, press conferences and media interviews are the two ways in which athletes have the opportunity for message dissemination that reaches the public firsthand: “Each interview a sports figure does extends an image repair effort through adaptation of multiple audiences...Interviews, then, become the fodder for the public record and what audiences may remember most about the sports figure and the controversy” (Blaney et al. 2013).
That being said, Lance Armstrong used one of the athlete’s crisis communication strategies by carrying out a two-part, 90-minute interview with Oprah Winfrey on January 4th, 2013. While it was arguably doomed from the start because of years of constant denial and dishonesty, it was still a means to come clean to the public. The fact that he chose Oprah Winfrey was indeed strategic, as she is a prominent figure/opinion leader, and millions of people would tune into her show. As expected, the interview stirred up negative reactions. When analyzing the interview using Benoit’s Image Restoration Theory, one could say that Armstrong adhered to most of the strategies. The Image Restoration Theory holds that athletes in sports public relations undertake either or all of five categories of strategies: denial, evasion of responsibility, reducing offensiveness of the act, corrective action and mortification. Unfortunately, Armstrong had lied for years, so his credibility was irrevocably damaged. In the interview, when asked if he and his team pulled one of the most sophisticated, professional, and successful doping program ever, Armstrong responded that although it was professional and smart, “to say that the program was bigger than the East German doping program in the 70’s and 80’s? That’s not true” (The Telegraph 2013). According to the IRT, this is an attempt to reduce the offensiveness of his act by comparing. Additionally, Armstrong stated that doping was a result of the pressure put on him to maintain the “mythic perfect story” (The Telegraph 2013) that was created around his persona: overcoming a disease, having a happy marriage and children, and winning the Tour de France seven times. This is an example of evasion of responsibility. While he does admit he is to blame, he still talked about external factors that influenced his behavior. An athlete should not do this unless his guilt is truly questionable, especially after lying for years, he should have stuck to accepting full responsibility. As the interview was split into two separate parts on two different days, it was important to relate to the fans and general public during the first night the interview aired. Instead, Armstrong came off and cold and unremorseful, proving that likeability is a huge factor in repairing your image in crisis relations/public relations. He only showed mortification (pathos) during the second part of the interview, when not as many people were tuning in. As a result, this crisis communication effort was not successful. As there were no prior press conferences that addressed the crisis, the viewers were struck with his confession, even though some people saw it coming.