Computational power, simulations and widespread cynicism have given us the ability to identify, measure, modify and manage expectations and outcomes. We test, refine and resubmit. We control the variables, normalize the outliers (both human and quantitative), weight the impacts and build a strategy around the optimal outcome.
Brand and reputation are linked. In many cases, they are dependent on each other. When you are a celebrity - and value that status in every sense of the word - then ups and downs are part of your life. In fact, as the quote below suggests, some cyclicality and variation are good for business. They build attention. And providing the opportunity to grant redemption enables one of our favorite passtimes.
No likes a goody-two-shoes. Give us your tired, your failed, your besmirched and your humiliated; the wretched refuse of our public relations culture. Let us hold their futures in our hands and feel good about ourselves for forgiving their manifold trespasses. Which then enables us to forgive ourselves.
As the following article explains, Lance Armstrong has embarked on his campaign of resurrection. His brand and his wealth are inextricably tied both to his athletic prowess and, perhaps more importantly now, to his charitable good works. He is a cancer survivor and has raised almost half a billion dollars to support oncological research. That's his gambit - and the key to his future. When he retired several years ago he was already too old to compete in cycling, so no loss there. But he has to turn the liar/cheat thing around. The only way to do it is to his admit his fallibility, acknowledge his moral weakness - and throw himself at our mercy. Which we, the public, will almost certainly grant.
There will be some eye-rolling about roping Oprah into this (speaking of brands that could use some rebuilding)and some outrage that he wants what amounts to a quickie revival. But the 24/7 communications culture demands fuel. Ratings are only as good as their last uptick. So the entire media industry doesnt just enable this because it has lost its moral compass: it's future depends on such fables because the audience demands them. Interestingly, Oprah's initial comments suggested that he had not delivered the fulsome confession she thought appropriate; but sticking with that narrative might have turned people off and damaged the ratings, so her expression of unease was quickly walked back. She now says he confessed - and they will both ride that to the bank.
Are we too cynical? No, we are realists. We dont expect too much from our heroes anymore. We know they, like us, are fallible. We accept the bravado because we like the brand. The confession cost-benefit equation is all benefit. And we'll pay for access to it. JL
Matt Seaton comments in The Guardian:
"I cant help thinking that the cheats win on the way up and the way down."The public relations strategy of drip-by-drip leaking has been expertly executed.
First, there was the New York Times' scoop about Armstrong's contacts with Usada to reduce his lifetime ban (disclosure: my sceptical response has proven 100% wrong). Then, we learned about the Oprah appearance, and it became ever harder to imagine what they would have to talk about for 90 minutes if Armstrong continued his career-long practice of stonewalling doping accusations and destroying those who spoke the truth. On Monday, the day his Oprah show was being recorded, Armstrong met with staff at the cancer charity he founded but recently resigned from, and rendered a tearful, "choked up" apology to his former Livestrong colleagues. And finally, we learn via CBS that Armstrong may even be willing to testify himself against fellow cyclists on doping charges.
In short, this now looks like a carefully choreographed, slow-release PR plan – likely managed by Armstrong's long-time agent Bill Stapleton – to perform a 180-degree turn on all previously held positions: belligerent denial, self-righteous indignation and bullying belittling of accusers. Instead, we have Lance Armstrong the penitent sinner: the weepy, choked-up prodigal son, who is finally coming clean and seeks redemption. As is well-established, an audience with Oprah achieves that almost instantaneously: I can see her right now, reaching out and taking his hand as he shakes with emotion and talks about the pain of living the false life we all made him lead.
And from redemption to rehabilitation. Armstrong will leverage his confession to the maximum to get his lifetime ban reduced, to four years, perhaps less. He'll be back before we know it: a slightly grizzled and more wrinkled version of himself, glad-handing and fist-bumping on the triathlon circuit, getting back to fundraising for the Livestrong Foundation, making faux-humble speeches for fat fees on the after-dinner circuit, mopping up some handy corporate sponsorships, reconnecting with his Washington power-broker contacts, and – older and wiser – maybe even running for office himself, as was once mooted.
But this only stacks up because, for the second half of his life, Armstrong needs not to be permanently exiled from American public life: to be a viable celebrity brand is all his future. The costs are significant: he will almost certainly have to settle with SCA Promotions, but they will probably take a lot less than the $11m that headlines their suit. The Sunday Times wants to recover $500,000 in damages, plus another $1m in costs; but they'll take less.
But here's the thing: Armstrong's net worth is estimated to exceed $100m. These sums sting, but they don't really hurt him. And next to his post-rehabilitation earnings potential, they're chump change.
The only remaining obstacle is Floyd Landis' "whistleblower suit" under the False Claims Act. Also called a "qui tam" suit, most such civil legal actions fail – unless the US justice department chooses to join as a co-plaintiff, in which case the chances of success multiply dramatically. Landis' suit alleges that Lance Armstrong, in effect, defrauded US taxpayers who were, via the US Postal Service, the title sponsor of Armstrong's Tour de France-winning cycling teams from 1999-2003. That sponsorship was worth, reportedly, about $10m per year, making $50m in total.
If Armstrong was choking up and sobbing at his Livestrong Foundation encounter, it was far more likely because he had received word that senior officials in the justice department had recommended that the federal government join Landis' lawsuit, than for any show of true contrition. It must be a rattling prospect, even for Armstrong, that the US government would be coming after him, along with Landis, for potentially tens of millions of dollars – which, all the pre-publicity tells us to expect, Armstrong will confess he took under false pretences when he won by cheating.
As this latest turn in the Armstrong saga demonstrates, the disgraced cyclist is nothing if not well-advised: the combination of off-the-record briefing (Mark Fabiani, Bill Stapleton?) and official denial (attorney Tim Herman) was text-book stuff. No doubt, they have done their sums, too. So if Armstrong has already opened negotiations with Travis Tygart at Usada to get his ban reduced, then it's likely, as CBS reports, that there have been talks with the justice department about a deal to settle the qui tam suit.
The question of why the US justice department is piggybacking on Landis' suit now, when a US attorney in California inexplicably nixed a prosecution based on the federal grand jury investigation into precisely the same charges of fraud is now mainly of academic interest. In his book, The Secret Ride, Tyler Hamilton hinted strongly that Armstrong's political connections pulled strings. We do know that Armstrong lied repeatedly, even under oath, but thanks to the statute of limitations in one case (the suit against SCA in a 2005 lawsuit), and a wayward federal attorney in another, Armstrong has dodged a felony rap.
A criminal conviction, no; but civil damages he can afford. Armstrong will have done his math, and worked out where the percentage lies: it's with confession. The benefits outweigh the costs: he'll earn that rehabilitation, but he will come out ahead.
The irony of this day is that it also saw the retirement of the greatest female cyclist of her generation: former world and Olympic champion Nicole Cooke. In her statement, of great dignity but justified anger, she directly pointed to the damage Lance Armstrong's dope-cheating did to her career, and to the entire women's sport, by killing its sponsorship.
No comments:
Post a Comment