(Est. 1997) “The LIVESTRONG Foundation fights to improve the lives of people affected by cancer now. Created in 1997, the Foundation is known for providing free cancer support services and advocating for policies that improve access to care and quality of life. Known for its powerful brand - LIVESTRONG - the Foundation has become a symbol of hope and inspiration around the world. Since its inception, the Foundation has served 2.5 million people affected by the disease and raised more than $500 million to support cancer survivors. One of America’s top non-profit organizations, the Foundation has been recognized by industry leaders including Charity Navigator, the National Health Council and the Better Business Bureau for its excellent governance, high standards and transparency.”
“We’re more than a wristband,” Livestrong President and CEO Greg Lee told a crowd of about 200 gathered for the event. A few minutes earlier, Gloria Gaynor’s 1970s hit single “I Will Survive” pumped out of the speakers.
Livestrong’s trademark yellow wristbands were once worn by celebrities and politicians the world over. Donations and commercial ties to athletic apparel company Nike brought in tens of millions annually.
But those days are gone. The wristbands are rarely seen anymore, and Nike ended its Livestrong clothing line years ago.
Images (opinion after)
Livestrong is in a very difficult position where it has one of the most recognizable nonprofit logos that could easily last, literally, forever. Unfortunately that identity is very strongly associated with Lance Armstrong, whose fall from grace after the revelation/confirmation that he used performance-enhancing drugs during all those wins has completely tainted both the organization and in turn the identity. All this to say that it’s understandable that they would want to move on and leave behind such a strong brand. What’s not understandable though is why they would downgrade so precipitously to such a bad, generic logo. The icon with the overlapping dotted rings is, ironically, pointless… sure it probably does stand for collaboration but there is no real meaningful interpretation to be derived there. The wordmark is so sad, in a geometric sans serif that has been pruned of its stems for no evident reason and has way more letter spacing than is needed or warranted. In application, on the website, they extend the use of the dots as lines and backgrounds that feel so dated, like something out of the 1980s or 90s but none of either decade’s good traits. There is also the use of Archer, which is a lovely type family, but feels so out of place here. Overall, this is bad and the downgrade is compounded by how good the previous identity was.