The blurred lines of Livestrong - the spin bike sham - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-21-10, 13:27
thehog's Avatar
thehog thehog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,140
Default The blurred lines of Livestrong - the spin bike sham

This caught my eye this morning along with the first comment on the Wired website. Now excuse my maths but I think the basic principle of my argument still applies....


http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/...ur-de-bedroom/

Great review of the new @livestrongfit spin bike in @wired !! http://tinyurl.com/34p6v2x - Lance Armstrong Twitter feed.
_

The article reads:

The Livestrong Limited Edition Indoor Cycle differs from all other stationary bikes in just one way: It looks totally bad-***.

The bike, which comes in the trademark yellow-and-black colorway, will cost $1,700, $1,000 of which goes to Livestrong, Lance Armstrong’s cancer charity. Just 500 will be made, and there are several Lance and cancer-themed design flourishes: the number 28 on the fork represents the “28 million people living with cancer,” and the “seven stars on the seat post represent Armstrong’s record-breaking seven Tour de France wins.”

- What interested me most was that $1000 of the $1700 price tag goes to Livestrong.

The first comment below the article says:

-“Stepping back - its a cool product. It's a cooler gesture to be donating more than half the cost to cancer research. It's even a fair price for such a good looking piece of equipment. - I'll lobby my health club to consider a few of these and do the right thing”

On the surface $1000 out of $1700 does seem very good. To the casual observer that’s $1000 straight from the purchase for “cancer research”. If I was going to buy a spin bike I might as well buy this one because well over “half” is going to charity and its a good cause. The fact that it has the “28” logo down the side of the bike means it’s a representation of “cancer suffers” - again reasserting the theme its for "cancer research".

But this is where the Livestrong lines become very blurred. The $1000 is going to Livestrong.com or Livestorng.org? How can anyone really tell if the $1000 if for the "for profit" or for the "non-profit" entity? I would assume the .org enity?

Now if true then of that $1000 we know that a rounded 80% goes into "Programs" with the remaining 19% into “Admin/Fundraising”. So now we're down to $800 of the $1000. If we look that total revenue or donations/grants for “Programs” in 2009 was $31,000,000 (rounded). Travel was $2,000,000 and salaries were $6,000,000 and legal bills were a staggering $9,000,000. So if I subtract those figures away from the $37,000,000 I’m left with $14million or 37% of the “Program Fees”.

Therefore for the $1000 Livestrong donation became $800 for Programs only and 37% of this is for “awareness” program which results in $296. The $296 could go anywhere.... We’ll never know if that goes to salaries or bonus awards or to awareness programs but not cancer reseach as the first poster lamely suggests. (Although I think the marketing idea was to create the that very impression)

Now it’s a smart way of marketing a $1700 bike. You think it’s being rolled into the charity but in reality the it’s just funding more of Livestrong expenses. My assumption would be the $700 component goes to Livestrong.com for the manufacturing and distribution of the bike. Having Lance send a twitter about it adds to the feel that’s its “all for cancer”.

Cheap and nasty marketing if you ask me.

And for the life of me when they say $1000 goes to Livestrong I do hope at least this is the "non profit" entity. A simple Google search means you can only buy it from the "http://www.livestrongfitness.com/product/ls28ic/" - Livestrong Fitness.com site which is obviously for profit with the byline: "Join the fight
With each purchase, $1,000 will be donated to LIVESTRONG® to improve the lives of people affected by cancer
" - its the (R) which worries me the most.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-21-10, 13:35
lean,mean,&green's Avatar
lean,mean,&green lean,mean,&green is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 736
Default

i prefer this one for msrp $1395 US



all kidding aside, it is certainly murky but i'm not sure we need a brand new thread on this.
__________________
"In great attempts it is even glorious to fail" -V Lombardi
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-21-10, 14:54
Cloxxki Cloxxki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,921
Default

I was *this* close to setting up exactly such a deal, just a different bike-related product, and offer Lance a deal he'd be crazy not to sign. Unless he loved cancer.
Where I would have gone wrong : trusting the money would actually go to the fight against cancer. Also, to not make a profit on the deal, and treat it only as charity and getting "free" publicity.
The product itself is now still unreleased, yet many stages of development further. It would have been a stunning product even without the LS colors and hype, but will be way better still. Not my design though, I just help out behind the scenes.
Did I (and my associates) ever get off lucky there...what a way to taint your image to start up that way. Sure we'd have made money on the tail of the deal, but still, dealing with Lance... I got great insights on this forum, thanks to all for that.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-21-10, 15:05
kurtinsc kurtinsc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,363
Default

The LAF may not be spending the money they recieve in the best manner... but I think the idea that the money would go to the ".com" instead of the ".org" is a bit conspiracy theory-ish.

The LAF owns all rights to the livestrong name. They recieved payment from demand media to let them use the 'livestrong.com' website... but demand does NOT own the livestrong name. They can only use "livestrong.com".

They charity may not be well run... but 1000 dollars is going to the charity.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-21-10, 15:23
BotanyBay's Avatar
BotanyBay BotanyBay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,897
Default

Someone please clear this up... I did a whois lookup and see that the owner of livestrong.com is kept private. Who owns it, Armstrong or the LAF?

Another question: Is "Livestrong" a registered for-profit corporation? Anything to back that notion up? Please forgive me for not being informed on this. It's been a busy week.

-----------

Domain name: livestrong.com

Registrant Contact:
Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
Whois Agent ()

Fax:
PMB 368, 14150 NE 20th St - F1
C/O livestrong.com
Bellevue, WA 98007
US

Administrative Contact:
Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
Whois Agent (kspqmcqw@whoisprivacyprotect.com)
+1.4252740657
Fax: +1.4259744730
PMB 368, 14150 NE 20th St - F1
C/O livestrong.com
Bellevue, WA 98007
US

Technical Contact:
Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
Whois Agent (kspqmcqw@whoisprivacyprotect.com)
+1.4252740657
Fax: +1.4259744730
PMB 368, 14150 NE 20th St - F1
C/O livestrong.com
Bellevue, WA 98007
US

Status: Locked

Name Servers:
aus1.akam.net
eur2.akam.net
eur4.akam.net
ns1-242.akam.net
ns1-35.akam.net
use4.akam.net
usw1.akam.net
usw5.akam.net

Creation date: 12 Jul 2002 17:00:40
Expiration date: 12 Jul 2013 17:00:00
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-21-10, 15:27
BotanyBay's Avatar
BotanyBay BotanyBay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
The first comment below the article says:

-“Stepping back - its a cool product. It's a cooler gesture to be donating more than half the cost to cancer research. It's even a fair price for such a good looking piece of equipment. - I'll lobby my health club to consider a few of these and do the right thing”
And what a brilliant first comment it is! Almost as if written by the PR firm that succeeded in getting Wired to write the blurb in the first place. And notice the suggestive selling that was cleverly woven into the item.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-21-10, 15:30
Fausto's Schnauzer's Avatar
Fausto's Schnauzer Fausto's Schnauzer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Out on the fringe
Posts: 314
Default Not good bikes...

I've been a Spin instructor for almost 11 years. I've also been the bike maintenance guy at one of the clubs where I work, so I've seen first hand how the bike are built and engineered, what bikes last, how well they work, what the service issues are and how well they can be adjusted to match a rider's real-bike position.

For the money the Lemond is tough to beat. On the other hand the Lance bike are, to use the technical term, CRAP!

I suspect that the Uniballer only got into this market to spite Greg Lemond and that the Lance bikes are simply an existing bike rebranded in cancer-killing-yellow.
__________________
"There are going to be some days where the rider got lazy and did not bother to contaminate their penis in time."

Dave Stoller: "Everybody cheats. I just didn't know."


“If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. ” ― Joseph Goebbels
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-21-10, 17:07
kurtinsc kurtinsc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,363
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BotanyBay View Post
Someone please clear this up... I did a whois lookup and see that the owner of livestrong.com is kept private. Who owns it, Armstrong or the LAF?

Another question: Is "Livestrong" a registered for-profit corporation? Anything to back that notion up? Please forgive me for not being informed on this. It's been a busy week.
Livestrong.com is owned by demand media. They own a bunch of other websites like ehow.com and cracked.com.

In the deal to buy the rights to use the livestrong.com name, Demand gave the LAF and Lance each "significant" ownership stakes... Lance for providing content and advertising and the LAF to use the name (which they own the rights to). Nobody knows what "significant" is exactly or even if Lance's "significant" stake and the LAF's "significant" stake are equal.

Livestrong is a brand owned by the LAF. While Demand owns the domain livestrong.com and the right to reference that domain, they do not have the ability to use the brand on any products... at least not without putting the ".com" on the end of it.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-21-10, 17:17
BotanyBay's Avatar
BotanyBay BotanyBay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kurtinsc View Post
Livestrong.com is owned by demand media. They own a bunch of other websites like ehow.com and cracked.com.

In the deal to buy the rights to use the livestrong.com name, Demand gave the LAF and Lance each "significant" ownership stakes... Lance for providing content and advertising and the LAF to use the name (which they own the rights to). Nobody knows what "significant" is exactly or even if Lance's "significant" stake and the LAF's "significant" stake are equal.

Livestrong is a brand owned by the LAF. While Demand owns the domain livestrong.com and the right to reference that domain, they do not have the ability to use the brand on any products... at least not without putting the ".com" on the end of it.
Thanks. Sounds much like what Triad Digital Marketing does with Walmart.com (and many other big-traffic sites). They build and maintain the site, force vendors such as P&G and Johnson Wax to pay huge premiums to "be" on the site, and then hand-over huge checks to WalMart each month. They keep a little bit for themselves, which is actually a HUGE figure considering how much traffic Walmart.com gets. And most people assume there must be some web team sitting in Bentonville AR tooling around with the site each day. Nope. Walmart just tells them what they need done. The advertisers that sell product at Walmart not only pay for Triad and the site itself, but Walmart gets a huge revenue check each month.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-21-10, 17:30
Race Radio's Avatar
Race Radio Race Radio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10,180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fausto's Schnauzer View Post
I've been a Spin instructor for almost 11 years. I've also been the bike maintenance guy at one of the clubs where I work, so I've seen first hand how the bike are built and engineered, what bikes last, how well they work, what the service issues are and how well they can be adjusted to match a rider's real-bike position.

For the money the Lemond is tough to beat. On the other hand the Lance bike are, to use the technical term, CRAP!

I suspect that the Uniballer only got into this market to spite Greg Lemond and that the Lance bikes are simply an existing bike rebranded in cancer-killing-yellow.
Correct on both counts, the line is just re-branded crap that was rushed out to spite Lemond. No wonder they have had to recall some of the line

http://www.newsomelaw.com/blog/2010/...-safety-recall
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:49.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.