Experts: Lance Armstrong likely finished as endorser

USATODAY

As Lance Armstrong's sponsors consider how to react to the cyclist being dropped by two major sponsors and stepping down as head of his Livestrong foundation, experts say it likely means one thing: Armstrong's endorsement career is over.

On Wednesday afternoon, hours after Nike announced it had cut ties with Armstrong, Anheuser-Busch, which used the cyclist to pitch Michelob, said in a statement that "we have decided not to renew our relationship with Lance Armstrong."

That was followed by Honey Stinger, a Colorado company that markets energy foods, which announced it was "in the process of removing Lance Armstrong's image and endorsement from our product packaging."

Expect more to follow.

"The only possible (endorsement) avenue I see for him now is something related to fighting cancer," says Bob Dorfman, an executive vice president at the San Francisco ad agency Baker Street Advertising. "He fought that battle and inspired a lot of people. Maybe you could somehow isolate that. Is there a shot at anything else? No way. ... The first thing you want in an endorser is somebody who is sincere. Obviously, that's not Lance anymore."

On Wednesday, Livestrong, the foundation to support cancer patients that Armstrong founded after his own battle with the disease, announced the cyclist is stepping down as chairman but would remain involved in foundation events.

Nike made its announcement after reviewing the evidence against Armstrong in the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's case file and concluding that Nike had been 'misled' by the cyclist for more than 10 years.

Armstrong's problem going forward? Credibility.

David Carter, a Los Angeles-based sports marketing consultant, suggests any attempt to salvage Armstrong's image with advertisers needs to start with an apology and admission of some wrongdoing. "Until he comes clean, it will be difficult for anybody to use him. ... If he can't be the face of his own organization, how can he be the face of anybody else's?"

That doesn't mean his existing sponsors will publicly drop him. They may just stop using him.

"Sponsors could ask themselves whether they should just quit featuring him, or should they drop him publicly to protect their brand? There is a shrinking pool of consumers who'd have a problem with him being dropped. But I'd guess a lot of companies would just like this to drift away."

Sports marketer: No comeback for Armstrong Lance Armstrong stepped down as Livestrong chairman and Nike severed ties with the famed cyclist as the fallout from the doping scandal continues. (Oct. 17)

Nike, which famously gave $25,000 to the Tonya Harding Defense Fund in 1994, can be public and decisive in its responses to controversies involving its athlete-endorsers -- but most companies aren't.

When contacted by USA TODAY Sports on Wednesday, several of Armstrong's sponsors either didn't immediately return calls or didn't have immediate responses regarding their current position on Armstrong.

Johnson Health Tech, in a statement, says it "plans to continue its support of Livestrong and its mission to unite, inspire and empower people" -- but makes no mention of Armstrong individually.

One sponsor -- RadioShack -- seemed to take the approach of saying little about the cyclist. The company said it has "no current obligations" to Armstrong from an endorsement deal it signed in July 2009, but would disclose nothing else about the relationship.

RadioShack says it continues to work with Livestrong. "Concerning the Foundation, we continue to be proud of what we've accomplished with our customers in generating more than $16 million to date in the fight against cancer," the company said.

Sponsors probably shouldn't worry about offending many consumers by dropping Armstrong publicly. Armstrong's image, according to the Davie Brown Index, which uses a pool of 4.5 million consumers to evaluate celebrity marketability, had already taken a huge dive even before Nike's move.

As of Oct. 12, says the index, Armstrong had 98% national name awareness. But among the 3,000 celebrities ranked, his appeal to consumers had fallen to No. 2,064 on that list.

At present, says the survey, Armstrong's ranking as someone consumers aspire to be like is on a level with Ivanka Trump; his trustworthiness is on par with Hugh Grant; his endorsement potential is comparable to Fred Willard; and his influence is at about the same level as Khloe Kardashian.