How does a Charity sponsor a team?

[kurtinsc]

Thanks Kurt. Seems to me that they should be getting info about these programs out at races, rather than chalk. All sounds worthwhile to me.

I would think the cycling side is all about raising funds.

The other stuff happens through hospitals. I've had 3 co-workers diagnosed with varying forms of cancer who were referred to the LAF for help. One with testicular cancer was particularly gushing about them... he had to take advantage of the fertility stuff.

 

[kurtinsc]

You forgot about the "Hope rides again" poster program and the "Cheer for Lance" Megaphone project and the "Jet fuel" program.

Well, not sure what the latter two are, but the "hope rides again" posters raised quite a bit of money for the LAF.

The whole chalk thing... the LAF didn't pay for it.

Nike did.

Are we sure the LAF funded these other things? It sounds to me like many are making assumptions here.

 

[Publicus]

I would think the cycling side is all about raising funds.

The other stuff happens through hospitals. I've had 3 co-workers diagnosed with varying forms of cancer who were referred to the LAF for help. One with testicular cancer was particularly gushing about them... he had to take advantage of the fertility stuff.

My point is if your stated goal is to raise AWARENESS ABOUT CANCER passing out chalk and having someone tell everyone to shout for Lance isn't advancing that goal. It is doing what it sounds like: marking Armstrong and drumming up support for him.

If you want to raise cancer awareness--especially among those of us without cancer (I assume cancer victims are WELL AWARE of cancer), your marketing should focused towards doing that. Those are some decent programs that they should be getting out in front of folks every chance they get, and not just when they are sick.

 

[kurtinsc]

My point is if your stated goal is to raise AWARENESS ABOUT CANCER passing out chalk and having someone tell everyone to shout for Lance isn't advancing that goal. It is doing what it sounds like: marking Armstrong and drumming up support for him.

If you want to raise cancer awareness--especially among those of us without cancer (I assume cancer victims are WELL AWARE of cancer), your marketing should focused towards doing that. Those are some decent programs that they should be getting out in front of folks every chance they get, and not just when they are sick.

AND NIKE PAID FOR THE CHALK STUFF.

Not the LAF. I can't find anything showing the LAF paid any money for any purpose at the TOC so far. Not saying it didn't happen... I'm saying I can't find a link suggesting that. I have found stuff saying that other sponsors paid for much of what you seem to be attributing to the LAF... mainly Nike.



Lance's stated purpose for coming back was "raising the awareness of cancer". OF COURSE THAT'S A LOAD OF BS. You people seem to think I'm defending Lance in some way. I'M NOT.

The LAF IS NOT ABOUT RAISING CANCER AWARENESS. That's not their mission. That's not what the charity does. They are there to support survivors of cancer in a variety of ways, from direct financial support to funding the search for a cure to providing a community to providing them information on the latest research and clinical tests to helping them make sure they can still have kids after treatment.


Lance is a ***.

The LAF is a very good charity.


Some of you seem incapable of seeing that one does not affect the other.

 

[BYOP88]

Surely if Lance and the foundation want to reach out to as many people as possible, then making a TV ad to be aired during the Superbowl/other major sporting events would reach more people than sponsoring a low level bike team and having a car annouce the imminent arrival of the peloton containing Armstrong.

 

[kurtinsc]

Surely if Lance and the foundation want to reach out to as many people as possible, then making a TV ad to be aired during the Superbowl/other major sporting events would reach more people than sponsoring a low level bike team and having a car annouce the imminent arrival of the peloton containing Armstrong.

First... was the car paid for by the LAF? It seems that Nike was primarily behind most of the "yay Lance!" stuff at the TOC.

Second... A one shot, 30 second superbowl commercial costs 2.6 million dollars. That's half of the LAF's entire expenditure on fundraising in a year. Somehow, the rate of return on that investment probably wouldn't be worth it.

And Third, the LAF is not about raising cancer awareness. LANCE has said his return to cycling is about raising cancer awareness. The LAF is about helping survivors of cancer in various ways.


Tiger Woods seems like a bit of a jerk right now.

The Tiger Woods Foundation is a very good charity helping underprivledged youth.

One does not exclude the other people.

 

[BYOP88]

First... was the car paid for by the LAF? It seems that Nike was primarily behind most of the "yay Lance!" stuff at the TOC.

Second... A one shot, 30 second superbowl commercial costs 2.6 million dollars. That's half of the LAF's entire expenditure on fundraising in a year. Somehow, the rate of return on that investment probably wouldn't be worth it.

And Third, the LAF is not about raising cancer awareness. LANCE has said his return to cycling is about raising cancer awareness. The LAF is about helping survivors of cancer in various ways.


Tiger Woods seems like a bit of a jerk right now.

The Tiger Woods Foundation is a very good charity helping underprivledged youth.

One does not exclude the other people.

How many people watch the Superbowl? That's why so many companies want an ad during it and I'm sure the TV station could knock a few bucks off of the cost for Lance. But saying that Armstrong recieved $3,000,000 for his charity last year so that offsets the cost of a full-price ad and you still have $400,000 left.

 

[Anonymous]

I would think the cycling side is all about raising funds.

The other stuff happens through hospitals. I've had 3 co-workers diagnosed with varying forms of cancer who were referred to the LAF for help. One with testicular cancer was particularly gushing about them... he had to take advantage of the fertility stuff.

I would like to believe in unicorns, but I don't.

 

[Race Radio]

First... was the car paid for by the LAF? It seems that Nike was primarily behind most of the "yay Lance!" stuff at the TOC.

Second... A one shot, 30 second superbowl commercial costs 2.6 million dollars. That's half of the LAF's entire expenditure on fundraising in a year. Somehow, the rate of return on that investment probably wouldn't be worth it.

And Third, the LAF is not about raising cancer awareness. LANCE has said his return to cycling is about raising cancer awareness. The LAF is about helping survivors of cancer in various ways.


Tiger Woods seems like a bit of a jerk right now.

The Tiger Woods Foundation is a very good charity helping underprivledged youth.

One does not exclude the other people.

Does Tiger's charity pay for jet fuel and a golf cart at tournaments that has some guy driving around saying "Get ready to cheer for Tiger"!!? When Tiger gets paid to show up at a Tournament does he tell everyone that the money is going to his charity....when it is actually going into his pocket?

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about, and I am not your research assistant. Suffice to say that reading this drivel, not only are you ignorant of charitable organizations, but capitalism also. Based on utility...thats funny!

Classic! How many times do we see that on a forum? Someone challenge someones view (twice) and ask them to back it up, and they crawl into a hole and give a backhanded insult on their way in there.

This is a real revelation about you TFF. You always have a condescending attitude towards people that disagree with you, and i've asked you to back up what your saying and you actually can't?... Nice work...

And you call me ignorant. Isn't repeatedly ignoring my questions ALSO ignorant?? I'll use one of your tricks by asking a question then answering it myself. I'll tell you the answer. Yes its ignorant.

Now i'll just wait for the usual tag-team to come in and defend you whilst they also throw out backhanded insults.

 

[Anonymous]

Classic! How many times do we see that on a forum? Someone challenge someones view (twice) and ask them to back it up, and they crawl into a hole and give a backhanded insult on their way in there.

This is a real revelation about you TFF. You always have a condescending attitude towards people that disagree with you, and i've asked you to back up what your saying and you actually can't?... Nice work...

And you call me ignorant. Isn't repeatedly ignoring my questions ALSO ignorant?? I'll use one of your tricks by asking a question then answering it myself. I'll tell you the answer. Yes its ignorant.

Now i'll just wait for the usual tag-team to come in and defend you whilst they also throw out backhanded insults.

No, I said your view is ignorant. I wanted to say it is stupid, but I was being nice. Your questions are stupid and ignorant. Therefore, my refusal to acknowledge you have any comprehension of the subject is at the core of my reticence.

And remember, it isn't condescension to tell someone that knows less than you that they are ignorant; that is called honesty.

























Okay, I was jut being a dick to be a dick. My problem with your premise is threefold:
1. Contrary to your proposition, many people (in fact I would suggest most) would find it morally reprehensible for someone to profit from the terminal illnesses, etc of others. Of course we let big pharma do it, but that is out of necessity and not altruism. People will not willingly give as much to an organization seeking profit if they have the ability to send to one that doesn't. To suggest that simply by adding a profit motive to a charitable organization, you will produce better results ignores the reality that people detest for-profit altruism because it isn't altruism. People want to feel good about where they send their money, and sending to Cancer's-R-Us will tarnish their gift. You also completely ignore that charities many times produce fantastic results with the money given them. You seem to think they are producing a flawed product across the board. Fact is, the majority produce fantastic benefit to the community.
2. Exploitation is a part of capitalism. Just because you want to live in a world of benevolent profit seeking corporations does not mean that you have but a minute number of institutions that you can point to with that business model. In fact, I would suggest that an examination of late 19th century industrial business practices would garner you a view of what happens when business is allowed to run without regulation. I will warn you, it isn't pretty.
3. Lastly, you have no relevant examples of your model of free enterprise being used in any of the major industrialized nations of the 20th century. You have an untested theory. See, what you fail to see is that charities do function in a market. That being the case, they function under the business models that have garnered more favorable results for those entities. If doing it with a profit motive would work better, just like with any market, they would gravitate to that model. Or don't you believe the market babel that underlies your whole premise?

 

[HL2037]

And Third, the LAF is not about raising cancer awareness. LANCE has said his return to cycling is about raising cancer awareness. The LAF is about helping survivors of cancer in various ways.

How do the LAF help the cancer survivors?

 

[kurtinsc]

Does Tiger's charity pay for jet fuel and a golf cart at tournaments that has some guy driving around saying "Get ready to cheer for Tiger"!!? When Tiger gets paid to show up at a Tournament does he tell everyone that the money is going to his charity....when it is actually going into his pocket?

Does Lance's?

You keep saying the LAF pays for these things, but the only one I can verify one way or another (the chalk at the TOC) was paid for by Nike, not the LAF.

Are you sure you aren't seeing Nike or Trek hype Lance and assuming it's the LAF?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't find ANY proof that you're right.

 

[kurtinsc]

How do the LAF help the cancer survivors?

Read back a few pages.

They provide direct financial support to the underinsured and uninsured getting cancer treatment. They provide therapy for people who are living with cancer (either directly, or with a loved one). They link people with cancer to clinical studies. They help people with cancer preserve fertility. They provide grants for those seeking cures to cancer and to those creating local programs to support cancer survivors. They provide primary funding for survivor centers in several cities. THey also provide "survivor packets" to those newly diagnosed with cancer putting them in touch with other services that are available they may not know about.

Those are the "programs" the LAF runs. I can't find any information about the LAF paying for cars saying "cheer for Lance" or any other blatant stuff like that... the only articles I've found about any of that (the chalk messages) were paid for by Nike, who sponsors Lance.

Even the whole "The LAF is about cancer awareness" thing is false. Lance's stated reason for coming back was to raise awareness of cancer and the LAF... but the LAF's mission has nothing to do with cancer awareness. I think that reason is pretty obviously bogus, but it doesn't reflect on the LAF in one way or another... just on Lance. The LAF is about helping and "empowering" survivors of cancer. Period. Lance is just a promotional tool. A celebrity endorser used to raise money.

 

[Tangled Tango]

As the person who started this thread I just want to thank those of you who have given a clear description of the differences within the various Livestrong organizations. It appears to me as somone else said that there was an intent to confuse the public when the word charity is used in more than one similarly named organization. With so many top experts involved in everything LA does, there can be no other explanation than that this confusion is no accident.

What bothers me the most is the very likely possibility for someone to donate their hard earned money to something other than the LAF, thinking that is where it is going. In addition the fact that there are millions of dollars hanging in the balance of various lawsuits and I would fear greatly that what my money was being spent on was lawyers, Livestrong teamates or whatever and not in helping cancer survivors.

Thanks also to the link to the charity navigator. That is very helpful in comparing and rating the various charities. It´s a good thing knowing where you´re money is going and how it is being spent.

 

[kurtinsc]

As the person who started this thread I just want to thank those of you who have given a clear description of the differences within the various Livestrong organizations. It appears to me as somone else said that there was an intent to confuse the public when the word charity is used in more than one similarly named organization. With so many top experts involved in everything LA does, there can be no other explanation than that this confusion is no accident.

What bothers me the most is the very likely possibility for someone to donate their hard earned money to something other than the LAF, thinking that is where it is going. In addition the fact that there are millions of dollars hanging in the balance of various lawsuits and I would fear greatly that what my money was being spent on was lawyers, Livestrong teamates or whatever and not in helping cancer survivors.

Thanks also to the link to the charity navigator. That is very helpful in comparing and rating the various charities. It´s a good thing knowing where you´re money is going and how it is being spent.

It would be very hard to mistakenly donate to something other then the LAF if your intent was to donate to that charity. Livestrong.com has no donation link and no store to shop at. the whole "legal confusion" thing seems ridiculous to me.

As for lawsuit... anyone can be sued. The LAF is being sued by a guy who claims that "livestrong" dog collars infringed on his patent... and the LAF countersued. Interestingly enough, he tried to get permission to make "Livestrong" collars first, then when denied made "purrstrong" and "barkstrong" collars and made people think they were for charity when in fact he ran a for profit agency. I'm not sure I disagree with suing the guy, but I can understand that changing your decision

But again... research and make your own choices. I feel that it's a pretty above board charity that does some good work, but you may see things differently. The only thing that bothers me is when people attribute stuff that Lance or Nike does and say that it's an example of the charity doing bad things.

 

[kurtinsc]

By the way, I went and looked over the LAF financial documents for the past couple of years (available on their website). To answer the original question, it doesn't look like the LAF gives the Trek-Livestrong team any financial assistance (or if they do, they burried it very well in their financial documents).

I would guess that technically they are NOT a sponsor, but rather a partner (like most charities involved with sports teams are).

Similarly, they seem to have the same relationship with Radioshack... they have their logo on the kit but don't give the team any financial assistance.

 

[Dominar]

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion, Kurt. I have tried to make similar points in the past -- LAF is a quality organization, and people shouldn't muddy its reputation with unsupported innuendo just because they happen to dislike Lance Armstrong.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

By the way, I went and looked over the LAF financial documents for the past couple of years (available on their website). To answer the original question, it doesn't look like the LAF gives the Trek-Livestrong team any financial assistance (or if they do, they burried it very well in their financial documents).

I would guess that technically they are NOT a sponsor, but rather a partner (like most charities involved with sports teams are).

Similarly, they seem to have the same relationship with Radioshack... they have their logo on the kit but don't give the team any financial assistance.

Damn Kurtinsc you were doing quite well on this thread and then you wrote the above.

I would agree with you that it is unlikely that Livestrong 'sponsor' the Livestrong-Trek team but again it is promoting the 'Livestrong' brand - part of which is a charity part of it is a for profit to which Lance earns equity.

What is on the Livestrong-Trek jersies or the Radio Shack jersies?
LAF or Livestrong?

Livestrong - the brand - is promoted as a charity, and like a lot of people the OP did not realise there was a distinction between the LAF and Livestrong.com

 

[HL2037]

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion, Kurt. I have tried to make similar points in the past -- LAF is a quality organization, and people shouldn't muddy its reputation with unsupported innuendo just because they happen to dislike Lance Armstrong.

Then maybe it would be best if the organization wasn't named after him? It's not "people" that are muddying it's reputation - it's the founder himself with his embarassing behaviour.

 

[kurtinsc]

Damn Kurtinsc you were doing quite well on this thread and then you wrote the above.

I would agree with you that it is unlikely that Livestrong 'sponsor' the Livestrong-Trek team but again it is promoting the 'Livestrong' brand - part of which is a charity part of it is a for profit to which Lance earns equity.

What is on the Livestrong-Trek jersies or the Radio Shack jersies?
LAF or Livestrong?

Livestrong - the brand - is promoted as a charity, and like a lot of people the OP did not realise there was a distinction between the LAF and Livestrong.com

The charity owns the Livesrong brand.

They charity recieved equity in demand media (the company that runs the livestrong.com site) for letting them use the name.

Lance recieved equity in demand media for doing advertising for them and contributing to the content of the livestrong.com site.

Livestrong.com is pretty clearly not a charity site. It's a health and fitness site (and frankly, it's not that great an example of that kind of site). It doesn't have any direct revenue from people who visit the site... there is no "store" or "donations". It only gets money from advertising. The only "livestrong" site you can donate is the one for the LAF.

The LAF does own a piece of demand media. I have no idea how much (that information is not published), but letting someone use a brand to promote a website in exchange for part ownership of the company does seem like a valid method of raising funds.

Livestrong is a brand/slogan. It's similar to "Just do it" or "Air Jordan" for Nike. Yes, Nike owns the rights to those slogans and brands. But they are perfectly able to license them to a third party in exchange for some profit if they see fit.

Profit for a non-profit charity = more funds to do the work of the charity.

 

[kurtinsc]

Then maybe it would be best if the organization wasn't named after him? It's not "people" that are muddying it's reputation - it's the founder himself with his embarassing behaviour.

While you don't like Lance, overall his name brings a lot of donations to the charity. Perhaps people are stupid or ignorant... but the point of a "celebrity name" on a charity is to bring in donations.

That works for the LAF.

It also works for the "V" foundation (named after now deceased college basketball coach/commentator Jim Valvano), the various Gilda's Clubs (named after Gilda Radner), the Christopher Reeve foundation, The Larry King Cardiac Foundation, The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinsons Research, The Oprah Angel network, the Tony La Russa Animal Rescue fund and the Tiger Woods Foundation.

All of the people above aren't angels. Heck, think about what we've learned about Tiger the last month. But I think it's foolish to think the charities suck because of that, and I don't knock them for trying to use something as cheap and meaningless as celebrity popularity to raise funds for a good cause.

 

[Race Radio]

By the way, I went and looked over the LAF financial documents for the past couple of years (available on their website). To answer the original question, it doesn't look like the LAF gives the Trek-Livestrong team any financial assistance (or if they do, they burried it very well in their financial documents).

I would guess that technically they are NOT a sponsor, but rather a partner (like most charities involved with sports teams are).

Similarly, they seem to have the same relationship with Radioshack... they have their logo on the kit but don't give the team any financial assistance.

Were you able to find the bill for the truck with the loudspeaker?

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

By the way, I went and looked over the LAF financial documents for the past couple of years (available on their website). To answer the original question, it doesn't look like the LAF gives the Trek-Livestrong team any financial assistance (or if they do, they burried it very well in their financial documents).

I would guess that technically they are NOT a sponsor, but rather a partner (like most charities involved with sports teams are).

Similarly, they seem to have the same relationship with Radioshack... they have their logo on the kit but don't give the team any financial assistance.

That's what I said on the first page.

I agree with you though. The charity, LAF, is promoted through the slogan-Livestrong. A phrase that actually comes from the charity's mission statement: "We believe in focus: getting smart and living strong.

I understand the criticism too. It does seem the charity is heavily reliant on that phrase for promotions, but it's recognizeable, marketable, and fits on a jersey sleeve more easily than spelling out, "The Lance Armstrong Foundation." I also don't think it was ever supposed to be this big. The LAF is capitalizing on the hugely popular wristbands by partnering with Nike, Oakley, and others to produce more "LiveStrong" Merchandise benefiting the LAF.

Edit: I guess you can interpret how they capitalize however you wish, bad or good. My attitude toward the charity isn't going to change.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The charity owns the Livesrong brand.

They charity recieved equity in demand media (the company that runs the livestrong.com site) for letting them use the name.

Lance recieved equity in demand media for doing advertising for them and contributing to the content of the livestrong.com site.

Livestrong.com is pretty clearly not a charity site. It's a health and fitness site (and frankly, it's not that great an example of that kind of site). It doesn't have any direct revenue from people who visit the site... there is no "store" or "donations". It only gets money from advertising. The only "livestrong" site you can donate is the one for the LAF.

The LAF does own a piece of demand media. I have no idea how much (that information is not published), but letting someone use a brand to promote a website in exchange for part ownership of the company does seem like a valid method of raising funds.

Livestrong is a brand/slogan. It's similar to "Just do it" or "Air Jordan" for Nike. Yes, Nike owns the rights to those slogans and brands. But they are perfectly able to license them to a third party in exchange for some profit if they see fit.

Profit for a non-profit charity = more funds to do the work of the charity.

I agree with your above statement - but the difficulty is that it is confusing trying to distinguish the brand (Livestrong) from the charity (LAF).

You even confused yourself in this post....

......
I would guess that technically they are NOT a sponsor, but rather a partner (like most charities involved with sports teams are).

Most people associate Livestrong as a charity - when it is in fact a brand-name, from which Armstrong also profits.