How does a Charity sponsor a team?

[kurtinsc]

I happened to receive a gift certificate from "Radio shack", so a I went on Saturday to get something there-when I was checking out, the cashier asked me if I'd like to "donate" a dollar to the "Livestrong Charity".......
my imagination just went off thinking how much money LA is pocketing every time someone buys stuff at each store across the US?

Absolutely nothing.

Lance makes a ton of money, but unless you're buying from Mellow Johnnies, he's not making it off sales. He's making it off of being paid for advertising mostly... and he'll get the money regardless of whether you buy Nike or Trek or not.

He doesn't make anything off of donating to or purchasing of anything related to the brand "livestrong"

 

[Rex Hunter]

Guys, it's obvious that TFF just has a problem with how this charity is run. His criticism has nothing whatsoever to do with his hatred of Armstrong. If TFF knew things were being handled correctly then he wouldn't mind seeing a poster of Armstrong. He's not one of these shallow people that would diss a whole charity simply because he hates seeing a poster. Certainly not.

 

[kurtinsc]

Again, my opinions are based on what my opinions are base upon. Quite honestly, you are a liar if you say you don't base your opinions to some extent on human emotion, as that it is virtually impossible to do so without it. Its called being a human. In fact, your continuation of this argument, knowing full well that I will not change my opinion, says more than you obviously realize about your motivation. You can leave the check for the psychotherapy on the table when you leave.

Oh, and there are facts involved, you singled out one post which I added to my reasoning, but there are plenty of reasons that I donate to other charities and suggest others do the same when it comes to this topic. You can act all "adult" all you want, but generally honesty is a component of adulthood, and you seem to be missing that part Jr.

Of course opinions are based on emotion to some extent... but adults have to step back and realize when their opinion has left the realm of reason and gone into "insanely backing a view without any factual basis"... which is a large part of what fanhood is.

For example, I'm a fan of the University of Georgia athletics program. Based on that... I despise all things Georgia Tech related when it comes to sports. But if my son tells me he wants to go to GT, I can keep my opinions in check enough to support that decision... because Tech is an excellent school in several disciplines.

Similarly... I'm not a fan of Lance. I don't dislike him like I do with GT, but I accept that he's a doper, he's egotistical, he self promotes and he's a jerk. But I can divorce that from the LAF... which I view as a fine charity at providing services to those suffering from cancer.

At this point, I'm NOT arguing with you anymore. I'm trying to examine my own views and see if I'm missing some key facts and letting an internet exchange shape my views rather then the reality of the situation... or if I'm comfortable in viewing your stance as being based more on a personal dislike for a particular cyclist rather then anything actually resembling fact. So far I'm seeing lots of negative spin and little real information indicating that the LAF is a bad charity... but I'm still digging.

But I don't think I'm arguing. I certainly don't expect to change anyone's opinion now if the last 20 pages hasn't done so.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Absolutely nothing.

Lance makes a ton of money, but unless you're buying from Mellow Johnnies, he's not making it off sales. He's making it off of being paid for advertising mostly... and he'll get the money regardless of whether you buy Nike or Trek or not.

He doesn't make anything off of donating to or purchasing of anything related to the brand "livestrong"

Kurtinsc - Again you have mentioned that LA is "being paid for advertising" - is that an assumption or do you have details of that?

The arrangement is through Demand Media - which earns revenue through the Livestrong.com site - and Lance has equity in DM.

Hfer07 made a post earlier about being invited to donate $1 to the "Livestrong Charity" - this is my objection, it is not the LAF that is being promoted, it is the brand 'Livestrong'. People associate Livestrong as the charity and that ultimately is a source of revenue for LA.

 

[Anonymous]

Of course opinions are based on emotion to some extent... but adults have to step back and realize when their opinion has left the realm of reason and gone into "insanely backing a view without any factual basis"... which is a large part of what fanhood is.

For example, I'm a fan of the University of Georgia athletics program. Based on that... I despise all things Georgia Tech related when it comes to sports. But if my son tells me he wants to go to GT, I can keep my opinions in check enough to support that decision... because Tech is an excellent school in several disciplines.

Similarly... I'm not a fan of Lance. I don't dislike him like I do with GT, but I accept that he's a doper, he's egotistical, he self promotes and he's a jerk. But I can divorce that from the LAF... which I view as a fine charity at providing services to those suffering from cancer.

At this point, I'm NOT arguing with you anymore. I'm trying to examine my own views and see if I'm missing some key facts and letting an internet exchange shape my views rather then the reality of the situation... or if I'm comfortable in viewing your stance as being based more on a personal dislike for a particular cyclist rather then anything actually resembling fact. So far I'm seeing lots of negative spin and little real information indicating that the LAF is a bad charity... but I'm still digging.

But I don't think I'm arguing. I certainly don't expect to change anyone's opinion now if the last 20 pages hasn't done so.

I lived in Athens GA in the early 90's. In fact, that is where I started riding. I love GA Football.

As to emotion vs fact. The fact is that I won't donate to the LAF and my reasons for that center around my personal beliefs about Mr Armstrong and the charity. The conflict I see in the marketing of the Livestrong brand and cancer is that to me, they have taken it to the level of consumerism and regardless of how much money goes to good use, Nike and Mr Armstrong himself are profiting from other ventures and products. I also harken back to the early denials of his doping where he used his cancer as a weapon against his critics by making statements suggesting that his cancer prevented him from using doping products. 7 urine samples say different. His dishonesty throughout the years make me question his motives and ventures. If a used car salesman/preacher sold me a piece of crap car having been dishonest about it, when he comes to me saying his church needs money for X, then I will tell that man to walk away. If I am concerned with the issue he said he would address, then I will find another organization to donate to. That is all I am saying here. You want to send him money, fine. I won't and I would advise anyone else to look for other charities if they want to help cancer patients. Is the issue helping with people with cancer or is it to defend a person? If it is to help, then I can assure you there are many organizations that will do good things with their money. If my money will cause help to be given to cancer patients, then I want that hand to be one that I trust. I don't trust a thing that comes out of that man's mouth.

 

[Rex Hunter]

TFF, fair play for having the guts to admit that. Most people would be worried about what this says about them, but not you.

 

[hfer07]

Kurtinsc - Again you have mentioned that LA is "being paid for advertising" - is that an assumption or do you have details of that?

The arrangement is through Demand Media - which earns revenue through the Livestrong.com site - and Lance has equity in DM.

Hfer07 made a post earlier about being invited to donate $1 to the "Livestrong Charity" - this is my objection, it is not the LAF that is being promoted, it is the brand 'Livestrong'. People associate Livestrong as the charity and that ultimately is a source of revenue for LA.

+10000
Spot on!!!
BTW just a reminder from his website:

"While LIVESTRONG.ORG remains a nonprofit, LIVESTRONG.COM is a for-profit that derives its revenue from advertising and member subscriptions"

every single brand such as Nike, Radio Shack, FRS, etc. DOES PAY Lance Armstrong a Percentage for every item sold advertised/linked/carrying the "livestrong.com" label.

 

[Ferminal]

Let me reiterate that I also have a problem because I worked with several charities. Two of them were specifically concerned with children with cancer. To know all the cheering and happiness of kids who were there during his run is based on a fraud does bother me. No, I am not going to go tell a kid on chemo that their hero is a fraud. They don't know anything about cycling. The thing is that I was doing that work before Lance ever won a race, and as I remember, there was just as much love and help coming their way then as now. In fact, many times, they were over funded because everyone likes to have their picture taken with a kid with a tube in his nose, but diabetic kids don't produce the same effect. It bothers me on a personal level, and to suggest that simply having cancer means you are indebted to Mr Armstrong is ignorant of all of the work that happened before he came on the scene. Who he is as a person does play into this because I know that even without him, the help still finds people.

This.

If I donate to LAF, does my dollar stay in my local area? If not there are dozens of more purposeful and direct cancer charities one could donate too. I'd hate to think that people in certain countries are donating to LAF and not seeing a dollar of it in terms of research and patient care (although maybe the mission of LAF is to do neither of these two things?).

 

[kurtinsc]

Kurtinsc - Again you have mentioned that LA is "being paid for advertising" - is that an assumption or do you have details of that?

The arrangement is through Demand Media - which earns revenue through the Livestrong.com site - and Lance has equity in DM.

Hfer07 made a post earlier about being invited to donate $1 to the "Livestrong Charity" - this is my objection, it is not the LAF that is being promoted, it is the brand 'Livestrong'. People associate Livestrong as the charity and that ultimately is a source of revenue for LA.

You are correct that he owns a piece of demand media, which operates a large number of websites (including livestrong.com). But I invite you to visit the livestrong.com site.

There is no donation link. There is no online "store" to buy stuff. The income from the site comes from the advertising revenue it generates.

There is no confusion with "livestrong"... because the only use demand media has is the domain name... livestrong.com. It's essentially licensed from the LAF in exchange for the LAF having an ownership stake in demand media.

Now of course demand media gave the LAF stock and sunk 20 million dollars into developing the website because the livestrong brand has value. The point is they PAID the LAF to use that name... giving the charity more funds to run programs.

That's kind of the point of fundraising for a charity... and that's what the livestrong brand is about... fundraising for the LAF.

I suppose I see how your concerned that the brand recognition for livestrong could cause dollars to hit Lance's wallet... but in all honesty, if it's not direct money (donations or sales), it's kind of irrelevant. It's not like Lance is tricking people into sending him a check instead of his charity. We're talking about people perhaps accidentally going to livestrong.com instead of livestrong.org... then clicking on an advertisement, which then causes some small amount of money to go to demand media from the company paying for advertising. Some small portion of that goes to dividends. And Lance (and the LAF) recieve a small portion of that dividend.

The money is coming from the company paying for the advertisement. I don't see any real malfeasance there.

 

[kurtinsc]

+10000
Spot on!!!
BTW just a reminder from his website:

"While LIVESTRONG.ORG remains a nonprofit, LIVESTRONG.COM is a for-profit that derives its revenue from advertising and member subscriptions"

every single brand such as Nike, Radio Shack, FRS, etc. DOES PAY Lance Armstrong a Percentage for every item sold advertised/linked/carrying the "livestrong.com" label.

False.

First of all... there is no "livestrong.com" label. It's just livestrong.

The LAF owns 100% of the livestrong brand. All revenues from licensing of that brand go to the LAF. Demand Media paid the LAF in stock to use the livestrong.com domain name. They don't own anything beyond that... all they can do is operate and promote the website, they cannot sell products with the brand on it.

 

[kurtinsc]

This.

If I donate to LAF, does my dollar stay in my local area? If not there are dozens of more purposeful and direct cancer charities one could donate too. I'd hate to think that people in certain countries are donating to LAF and not seeing a dollar of it in terms of research and patient care (although maybe the mission of LAF is to do neither of these two things?).

Well, to be honest donating to any large charity is going to send your money outside of your local area. My donations to the Juvenile Diabetes Association aren't earmarked for the southeast US either.

I really don't think you donate to a large charity to see the dollars directly at work in your community. You donate because you believe in their mission in general, and you want to support it on a nation/world wide scale.

If I want to donate to a charity that focuses on finding a cure for cancer, I might donate to the V Foundation... but I dont' expect any of that to come back to my town. If I want to support cancer survivors, I might donate to the LAF... but again, I'm not expecting that to benefit my town directly. If I want that, I might donate to the Cancer Association of Spartanburg & Cherokee Counties. But I frankly might want my dollars to reach outside of my specific community.

 

[Anonymous]

False.

First of all... there is no "livestrong.com" label. It's just livestrong.

The LAF owns 100% of the livestrong brand. All revenues from licensing of that brand go to the LAF. Demand Media paid the LAF in stock to use the livestrong.com domain name. They don't own anything beyond that... all they can do is operate and promote the website, they cannot sell products with the brand on it.

But the website sells advertising and memberships which makes it a for profit venture.

 

[Ferminal]

Well, to be honest donating to any large charity is going to send your money outside of your local area. My donations to the Juvenile Diabetes Association aren't earmarked for the southeast US either.

I really don't think you donate to a large charity to see the dollars directly at work in your community. You donate because you believe in their mission in general, and you want to support it on a nation/world wide scale.

If I want to donate to a charity that focuses on finding a cure for cancer, I might donate to the V Foundation... but I dont' expect any of that to come back to my town. If I want to support cancer survivors, I might donate to the LAF... but again, I'm not expecting that to benefit my town directly. If I want that, I might donate to the Cancer Association of Spartanburg & Cherokee Counties. But I frankly might want my dollars to reach outside of my specific community.

You know what I mean though, "charity begins at home". I guess LAF is the same as World Vision.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You are correct that he owns a piece of demand media, which operates a large number of websites (including livestrong.com). But I invite you to visit the livestrong.com site.

There is no donation link. There is no online "store" to buy stuff. The income from the site comes from the advertising revenue it generates.

There is no confusion with "livestrong"... because the only use demand media has is the domain name... livestrong.com. It's essentially licensed from the LAF in exchange for the LAF having an ownership stake in demand media.

Now of course demand media gave the LAF stock and sunk 20 million dollars into developing the website because the livestrong brand has value. The point is they PAID the LAF to use that name... giving the charity more funds to run programs.

That's kind of the point of fundraising for a charity... and that's what the livestrong brand is about... fundraising for the LAF.

I suppose I see how your concerned that the brand recognition for livestrong could cause dollars to hit Lance's wallet... but in all honesty, if it's not direct money (donations or sales), it's kind of irrelevant. It's not like Lance is tricking people into sending him a check instead of his charity. We're talking about people perhaps accidentally going to livestrong.com instead of livestrong.org... then clicking on an advertisement, which then causes some small amount of money to go to demand media from the company paying for advertising. Some small portion of that goes to dividends. And Lance (and the LAF) recieve a small portion of that dividend.

The money is coming from the company paying for the advertisement. I don't see any real malfeasance there.

Everything you say would be correct if LAF was on all the jerseys, the signs, the promotional material. But its not - it is Livestrong.

And there are 2 Livestrongs - one a dot.com one a dot.org.

So when you see the brand 'Livestrong' which one is it selling? If Lance was not taking a cut through his interests in DM I think it would be an excellent and clever earner for the LAF - but now when I see Livestrong I feel LA is often just promoting another revenue stream for himself.

This thread was started out of the confusion of 'Livestrong' being a charity or for profit, I will repost an earlier post on this thread that echoed my sentiments.

i was being pedantic.. techincally the charity is not called livestrong as many here seem to think... livestrong is a marketing name, and raises money for LAF, this is why people get confused over the .com and .org maybe its time they started using the lance armstrong foundation name a bit more