turd ferguson wrote:I'm still going to disagree. IMO the brand is irretrievably tainted by its association with him even if his face isn't on it. By tainted, I mean people look at it and their first thought is "cheater". His downfall has been far, far too public. Nobody is going to buy this brand. Its done as a brand.
I could be wrong, I've been wrong lots of times before. Tiger Woods has somehow managed to save his brand, I just don't see it happening here. Just my opinion as someone who follows brands and branding.
I see your point, re: the big picture ... time will tell, in regards to the effect on the impact of the decrease/increase in the funds that the Livestrong Foundation receives ....
As for me, I like the Nike Brand, and supported the Livestrong philosophy ... and, not likely to change anytime soon ... as for Lance Armstrong ... never really had any definite views on the guy, one way or another ... was in awe in his TdF achievements, even if he may have doped along with the other top contenders, from what we have been hearing about now ... no different than the Seoul Olympics 100m Finals, the MBL Steroid Scandal era, etc ... At least Vince McMahon and the WWE have marketed themselves as Sports Entertainment ....
eta: On the other hand, wonder if there will be a huge sell-off on Livestrong schwag in the near future ??