In further reflecting on the Susan G. Komen Foundation communications mishap and resulting fallout  in relation to the attempted disassociation from Planned Parenthood, I think it is a mistake for the founder or even the executive director to be the face of the organization.    Ms. Brinker have been the face of the brand?  Is it strategic to have the founder be the face of organization?  Is such an action clearly representative of the mission of the organization?  Does it truly represent its stakeholders to have one face and one voice of the organization? Is this is winning strategy?  Not necessarily.

Nancy Brinker the founder fights to stay involved with the organization, perhaps to the detriment of the organization.

Let’s look at the  example of the LiveStrong Foundation and its continuing struggle to separate itself from its founder Lance Armstrong.

The 2016 USA Today article “Livestrong Adjusts to Live Without Armstrong” notes of the organization’s insistence to stand on its own divorcing itself from its founder Lance Armstrong.  And more interestingly, Armstrong wanted the name “Livestrong” back.

This highlights the risks associated with a nonprofit’s brand being tied mainly to a sole person may it be a founder or a celebrity spokesperson.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2016/05/04/livestrong-cancer-lance-armstrong-donations/83619386/