• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team. Thanks!

How does a Charity sponsor a team?

Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Tangled Tango said:
Any ideas how this works? Does this mean people who have donated to the charity known as Livestrong are helping pay for Team Livestrong? Something ain´t right if that´s what is going on. Or perhaps the charity is Team Livestrong and the donations go to help the Team. Anyone know what´s going on here?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/trek-livestrong-coming-into-focus

Livestrong.com is FOR profit.

You are not the only person confused, it is intentional
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
Visit site
The title sponsor is Trek with numerous other sponsors: SRAM, Nike, Giro, Oakley, and Zipp to name a few. The Lance Armstrong Foundation is a partner, not a financial sponsor.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Tangled Tango said:
That is quite remarkable considering they call it a charity. I never heard of a for profit charity.

Livestrong.com is not a charity. It is a for profit website. The non-profit is the .org.

Easy mistake to make
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
Charities DO advertise. Many times spending 10,000 dollars on advertising can lead to 100,000 dollars in donations.

While I don't know exactly what the relationship is with the Lance Armstrong Foundation, many charity partners for sports teams that get their logos/names plastered everywhere don't actually recieve any money from the charity. Promoting the charity is often a "charitable donation". Often the sports team will get proceeds from the related team apparrell that has the charity on it... essentially profiting from the charity's name. Sometimes they'll give a small kick-back to the charity... sometimes not.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Livestrong.com is not a charity. It is a for profit website. The non-profit is the .org.

Easy mistake to make

While this is true... the charity (which is non-profit and IS associated with the U23 team) is the "Lance Armstrong Foundation".

While "Livestrong" is a slogan, it's NOT the name of the charity.

The .com is a commercial website. It's not much of one... there aren't any profit drivers on the site, so there's no way for it to actually earn anything aside from some minor advertising revenue. But it potentially could be commercial. It mainly has "health advice" which is unrelated to cancer.

The .org is a non-profit website. This is the only location you can make donations or purchase "livestrong" items. All profits do go to the charity.


People are confusing a website with the registered charity. There is no "livestrong" for profit corporation... there's just a http://www.livestrong.com website that is owned by a company that Lance has a stake in.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
I think the better way to look at this is as follows:

Lance Armstrong Foundation = Nike

"Livestrong" = "Just do it".

One is the name of the charity/company.

The other is a trademarked slogan.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
kurtinsc said:
While this is true... the charity (which is non-profit and IS associated with the U23 team) is the "Lance Armstrong Foundation".

While "Livestrong" is a slogan, it's NOT the name of the charity.

The .com is a commercial website. It's not much of one... there aren't any profit drivers on the site, so there's no way for it to actually earn anything aside from some minor advertising revenue. But it potentially could be commercial. It mainly has "health advice" which is unrelated to cancer.

The .org is a non-profit website. This is the only location you can make donations or purchase "livestrong" items. All profits do go to the charity.


People are confusing a website with the registered charity. There is no "livestrong" for profit corporation... there's just a http://www.livestrong.com website that is owned by a company that Lance has a stake in.

I would not be so quick to dismiss the .com. It is one of the top 1,500 websites in the US and it's traffic is growing fast. The .org, not so much.
 
Mar 17, 2009
157
0
0
Visit site
Tangled Tango said:
Any ideas how this works? Does this mean people who have donated to the charity known as Livestrong are helping pay for Team Livestrong? Something ain´t right if that´s what is going on. Or perhaps the charity is Team Livestrong and the donations go to help the Team. Anyone know what´s going on here?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/trek-livestrong-coming-into-focus

Why is that not right? All charities spend a portion of their donations on advertising/marketing. Spending that money on a cycling team is no different than buying TV or radio airtime or newsprint ads.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
I would not be so quick to dismiss the .com. It is one of the top 1,500 websites in the US and it's traffic is growing fast. The .org, not so much.

While true, advertising revenue from internet sites is rarely a major source of income. Even highly visited sites don't make enough to really matter in the grand scheme of things.

The significant capitalization on the "Livestrong" brand is through the merchandise and donations. Neither one of those is in any way connected to http://www.livestrong.com... only at http://www.livestrong.org.

And again... it's just a website. The company behind the .com is "Demand Media". The charity behind the .org is "The Lance Armstrong Foundation".

There is a website called http://www.eatmoresubs.com. The company is Sub Station II. A web address is... well it's just a web address.
 
I'm not sure what kind of distinction folks are making here. The article says that it is the charitable foundation that is sponsoring the team, which implies FINANCIAL sponsorship.

What was revealed was that the team would be sponsored by Armstrong's charity, Livestrong, and by Trek bicycles, with the director sportif position going to former Armstrong teammate Axel Merckx
 
Jun 21, 2009
847
0
0
Visit site
is it not the case that the lance armstrong foundation is one of the top charities when it comes to wasting donations before it gets put to use for the cause??

someone had a link to this table once, wouldn't mind seeing it again
imo laf = a fraud
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
workingclasshero said:
is it not the case that the lance armstrong foundation is one of the top charities when it comes to wasting donations before it gets put to use for the cause??

someone had a link to this table once, wouldn't mind seeing it again
imo laf = a fraud

For what it's worth, Charity Navigator has the LAF rated as a 3-star charity (out of 4). 77% of their raised moneys go to programs.

To compare... the American Cancer Society is also a 3-star charity. 72% of their revenue goes to programs.
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
Visit site
Publicus said:
I'm not sure what kind of distinction folks are making here. The article says that it is the charitable foundation that is sponsoring the team, which implies FINANCIAL sponsorship.

I've read elsewhere that the LAF would be "partnering" with the Trek sponsored team. That was a while back, so I'll have to search for that link.
 
May 8, 2009
133
0
0
Visit site
kurtinsc said:
For what it's worth, Charity Navigator has the LAF rated as a 3-star charity (out of 4). 77% of their raised moneys go to programs.

To compare... the American Cancer Society is also a 3-star charity. 72% of their revenue goes to programs.

That can't be right. If Armstrong is involved it has got to be evil and we should disparage it every chance we get. I bet Armstrong paid off Charity Navigator.

I do need to get me a StillerStrong headband though.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
JayZee said:
That can't be right. If Armstrong is involved it has got to be evil and we should disparage it every chance we get. I bet Armstrong paid off Charity Navigator.

I do need to get me a StillerStrong headband though.

I agree.

Just be sure to heap some scorn on the American Cancer Society too. Those guys suck even worse.

StillerStrong is the only way to go.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
kurtinsc said:
While true, advertising revenue from internet sites is rarely a major source of income. Even highly visited sites don't make enough to really matter in the grand scheme of things.

This is incorrect. Close to $20 billion will be spent on internet advertising this year. If you have page views you can make money, ask Perez Hilton. Demand Media are experts at developing value and driving traffic. While Armstrong's methods may be questionable he did partner with the right people if you want to build traffic......but who knows how long it will last? Demand does not want another Myspace so they now build their communities around brands instead of Spam.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
kurtinsc said:
77% of their raised moneys go to programs.

To compare... the American Cancer Society is also a 3-star charity. 72% of their revenue goes to programs.

"Programs" like developing the Armstrong brand.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
This is incorrect. Close to $20 billion will be spent on internet advertising this year. If you have page views you can make money, ask Perez Hilton. Demand Media are experts at developing value and driving traffic. While Armstrong's methods may be questionable he did partner with the right people if you want to build traffic......but who knows how long it will last? Demand does not want another Myspace so they now build their communities around brands instead of Spam.

I stand corrected. Things have changed somewhat in the 10 years I've been out of that particular line of business. :)

Interestingly enough... both Lance Armstrong (the individual) and the LAF own separate stakes in Demand Media as a result of the deal to produce the livestrong.com site.

So if you go click on an add at cracked.com... or trails.com, or golflink.com, or eHow.com or any of the other demand media properties... the LAF actually gets some money from that when dividends are paid out. Unfortunately they don't post ownership percentages... I'm curious as to how much the LAF owns and how much Lance owns personally.
 
I do know a couple of people who have had family members with cancer who got help from LAF, and they are solidly behind it believe me.
At the very least Livestrong.org, Livestrong.com, and the foundation itself are probably the very best things that Armstrong is doing.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
"Programs" like developing the Armstrong brand.

"Programs" is defined as money spent directly on things that support the stated mission of the charity.

Advertising the brand would not fit in this.

LAF's mission is stated as:

"We provide the practical information and tools people with cancer need to live life on their own terms. We take aim at the gaps between what is known and what is done to prevent suffering and death due to cancer. We unite people to fight cancer and pursue an agenda focused on: prevention, access to screening and care, improvement of the quality of life for cancer survivors, and investment in research."

For comparison, the American Cancer Society's mission is:

"A nationwide community-based voluntary health organization dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by preventing cancer, saving lives, and diminishing suffering from cancer, through research, education, advocacy, and service."

Charity Navigator is a pretty non-biased way to evaluate charities when giving. It's what I tend to use personally (and no, I don't donate to the LAF). But the site did steer me from donating to the American Diabetes Association in favor of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Though now I'm struggling with their not funding some reseach I support while the Iacocca Foundation (which has a worse rating) does fund that line of research.

But that's neither here nor there. The point is the LAF is a pretty decent charity at delivering dollars toward their stated goals.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
kurtinsc said:
"Programs" is defined as money spent directly on things that support the stated mission of the charity.

Advertising the brand would not fit in this.

LAF's mission is stated as:

"We provide the practical information and tools people with cancer need to live life on their own terms. We take aim at the gaps between what is known and what is done to prevent suffering and death due to cancer. We unite people to fight cancer and pursue an agenda focused on: prevention, access to screening and care, improvement of the quality of life for cancer survivors, and investment in research."

For comparison, the American Cancer Society's mission is:

"A nationwide community-based voluntary health organization dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by preventing cancer, saving lives, and diminishing suffering from cancer, through research, education, advocacy, and service."

Charity Navigator is a pretty non-biased way to evaluate charities when giving. It's what I tend to use personally (and no, I don't donate to the LAF). But the site did steer me from donating to the American Diabetes Association in favor of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Though now I'm struggling with their not funding some reseach I support while the Iacocca Foundation (which has a worse rating) does fund that line of research.

But that's neither here nor there. The point is the LAF is a pretty decent charity at delivering dollars toward their stated goals.

If their stated goals were enhancing the Armstrong brand then yes they are doing a good job.

Most of us would say that paying for a car to drive in front of the Tour of California race with a loud speaker yelling for people to "Get Ready to Cheer for Lance!" is not a good use of program funds.....Raising awareness of Armstrong, yes. Cancer? No so much.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
kurtinsc said:
I stand corrected. Things have changed somewhat in the 10 years I've been out of that particular line of business. :)

Interestingly enough... both Lance Armstrong (the individual) and the LAF own separate stakes in Demand Media as a result of the deal to produce the livestrong.com site.

So if you go click on an add at cracked.com... or trails.com, or golflink.com, or eHow.com or any of the other demand media properties... the LAF actually gets some money from that when dividends are paid out. Unfortunately they don't post ownership percentages... I'm curious as to how much the LAF owns and how much Lance owns personally.

It will be interesting to see how much the LAF's stake is in Demand. Supposedly they are going to file to go public in 2010 and will likely have to list them as beneficial owners.

FYI, LAF gets none of the advertising revenue, it all goes to demand.