Post by millerma on Oct 9, 2014 22:12:17 GMT -5
For this week’s discussion on fundraising, I’ve chosen to focus on LIVESTRONG simply because it has one of the most interesting stories with regards to reputation and fundraising of any non-profit organization that I know of. Started in 1997 by Lance Armstrong, the LIVESTRONG Foundation’s goal has always been to empower and help give people living with cancer tools and support to make it through. What makes it an especially interesting case, however, is how the organization expanded fundraising through the celebrity of and adoration for it’s founder Lance Armstrong and what happened to the organization as his reputation went into free fall from the ultimate gold in non-profit fundraising to, essentially, brand poison when the doping scandal came to light.
What makes LIVESTRONG compelling is ultimately their response to the doping scandal that took down Lance Armstrong. In 2012, just after the scandal had broken- in the days before Armstrong admitted to doping- CEO Doug Ulman boasted that not only had the scandal not had a negative impact on their fundraising, it had had a positive one, with the organization raising over 2 million more than the previous year. However, after Armstrong admitted to doping and had officially stepped down from the board, it became obvious that the once extremely successful organization was definitely in decline and revenue dropped percipituously. However, in a more recent interview from Inc, Ulman discusses his commitment to rebranding LIVESTRONG and focusing on it’s core goals of helping people with cancer, in a way that is more humble than the organization had done before.
This article from a website dedicated to insights and advice about fundraising, FirstGiving, again reiterates the idea that distancing the LIVESTRONG brand from Lance Armstrong is central to saving the reputation of the brand but, more importantly, it touches on the fact that aligning oneself with a celebrity spokesperson is essentially an inherently risky thing to do. I would say this is even more so if the celebrity a non-profit organization chooses is in sports.
Oddly enough, even though it was a terrible scandal that rocked LIVESTRONG and nearly ruined the organization, I would personally consider LIVESTRONG’s rebranding to have been an example of a fundraising success. The organizations brand had been tied so incredibly directly with Lance Armstrong’s celebrity, the fact that they could maintain any reputation in the face of his utter demise is inherently a success. I think that the take away from this example in terms of our class is that non-profit fundraising efforts can definitely use celebrities but that they need to have a strong message and solid brand presence first and foremost, outside of any celebrity endorsements.
What makes LIVESTRONG compelling is ultimately their response to the doping scandal that took down Lance Armstrong. In 2012, just after the scandal had broken- in the days before Armstrong admitted to doping- CEO Doug Ulman boasted that not only had the scandal not had a negative impact on their fundraising, it had had a positive one, with the organization raising over 2 million more than the previous year. However, after Armstrong admitted to doping and had officially stepped down from the board, it became obvious that the once extremely successful organization was definitely in decline and revenue dropped percipituously. However, in a more recent interview from Inc, Ulman discusses his commitment to rebranding LIVESTRONG and focusing on it’s core goals of helping people with cancer, in a way that is more humble than the organization had done before.
This article from a website dedicated to insights and advice about fundraising, FirstGiving, again reiterates the idea that distancing the LIVESTRONG brand from Lance Armstrong is central to saving the reputation of the brand but, more importantly, it touches on the fact that aligning oneself with a celebrity spokesperson is essentially an inherently risky thing to do. I would say this is even more so if the celebrity a non-profit organization chooses is in sports.
Oddly enough, even though it was a terrible scandal that rocked LIVESTRONG and nearly ruined the organization, I would personally consider LIVESTRONG’s rebranding to have been an example of a fundraising success. The organizations brand had been tied so incredibly directly with Lance Armstrong’s celebrity, the fact that they could maintain any reputation in the face of his utter demise is inherently a success. I think that the take away from this example in terms of our class is that non-profit fundraising efforts can definitely use celebrities but that they need to have a strong message and solid brand presence first and foremost, outside of any celebrity endorsements.