I chose the article “Livestrong Offers Lesson in Mitigating Celebrity Risks” by Rodd Zolkos. To determine if this was scholarly I researched the text that it was published in. Business Insurance is a recognized magazine published for executives in the business industry to educate fellow industry members on risks and management strategies. Zolkos’ article was peer edited by fellow business scholars which makes it a credible, scholarly source.
This article addresses how the fiasco created by Lance Armstrong shows the risks of having celebrities endorse non-profits. Zolkos states that many organizations use their celebrity allies to get their cause in the public eye but often start to separate themselves after they’ve created a name for their organization. It is necessary for the non-profit to build up a successful support staff and board of members so they can survive a potential fall from grace by their celebrity endorser.
The article gives insight into how non-profits can avoid losing their organization because of the dangers of enlisted celebrity help. It does create a successful message by showing how playing on the audiences emotions can be detrimental to the success of the organization. The goal is to attract support through a popular celebrity but if they become unpopular to the public this could be negative to the organization.
Do you believe celebrities have a negative or positive impact on organizations they endorse?
For the most part, I believe that celebrities have a positive impact on organizations. However, there are exceptions such as the Livestrong case.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, it depends on the celebrity that is endorsing the company. Of course most companies that have a celebrity endorsement are always wanting the celebrity to have values or morals that align with the organizations. Usually this is a positive impact, but in recent stories, such as the case with Lance Armstrong, it can have a widely negative impact.
ReplyDelete