How does a Charity sponsor a team?

[Polish]

Team ONCE

Team ONCE did well with their cycling team.
Too bad they did not come up with the yellow bracelet idea
Would have matched their kit. Like that kit.

http://www.once.es/new/

 

[Anonymous]

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

Easy mistake to make

actually the lance armstrong foundation is the charity!

laf.org is the website of the lance armstrong foundation
livestrong.org is a website using armstrongs name to promote the foundation as well

but the charity is not called, livestrong, and never has been

 

[pmcg76]

actually the lance armstrong foundation is the charity!

laf.org is the website of the lance armstrong foundation
livestrong.org is a website using armstrongs name to promote the foundation as well

but the charity is not called, livestrong, and never has been

Holp crap, I dont get involved with criticsim of Lances cancer work but I have to admit, having just read this post, I would be very confused as to where I could actualy make a donation that goes to charity. Admittedly not the most techno minded so please forgive me.

 

[Race Radio]

actually the lance armstrong foundation is the charity!

laf.org is the website of the lance armstrong foundation
livestrong.org is a website using armstrongs name to promote the foundation as well

but the charity is not called, livestrong, and never has been

it has always been called Livestrong. It is on their yellow bands, their website, and all their marketing material.

http://www.livestrong.org

 

[Race Radio]

Team ONCE did well with their cycling team.
Too bad they did not come up with the yellow bracelet idea
Would have matched their kit. Like that kit.

http://www.once.es/new/

ONCE is one of the national lotteries of Spain. If you go to Spain you will see these Kiosk everywhere selling tickets.

While the charity for the blind benefited from the ticket sales the primary purpose of the Cycling team was to sell tickets, not drive donations.

 

[Anonymous]

it has always been called Livestrong. It is on their yellow bands, their website, and all their marketing material.

http://www.livestrong.org

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

 

[Anonymous]

Economics 101 suggests that a for-profit charity/foundation will have more impact than a not-for-profit charity.

Firms (/charities/foundations etc) acting in a profit-maximising way will actually be able to raise more funds that firms just acting to break even (due to a change in incentives for staff at all levels - i.e. tell you call centre staff, for every $1000 dollars you raise, we'll pay you an additional 50 on top of your normal hourly rate)

Treat a charity like a business, and you will be able to not only increase the profile (i.e. raise awareness to a higher level) but you will be able to attract more funds (i.e. spending money to make more money from donations - so, advertising campaigns etc)

The only problem is that people view profit as 'greedy and evil and capitalist' but quite frankly its not. Its a common misconception (especially now with the GFC) that making a profit means you are 'exploiting' people (a la Karl Marx's opinion) which is entirely incorrect.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

I think that website is very useful. Contrary to this members assertion, LAF is not one of the better cancer charities. You can look at the information here: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6570

You can then search around and see that there are MANY that are much better places to send your money.

 

[md2020]

The only problem is that people view profit as 'greedy and evil and capitalist' but quite frankly its not. Its a common misconception (especially now with the GFC) that making a profit means you are 'exploiting' people (a la Karl Marx's opinion) which is entirely incorrect.

I don't think that's the view of most people here at all. The problem is that it appears that LA may be profiting from exploiting a murky connection to his charity. Now some people brush this off by saying that if it weren't for LA then the charity wouldn't exist in the first place, so even if he's skimming (or using it to promote his pet projects) then it's still a net positive for LAF.

Unfortunately, it's been shown that competition for charitable donations is a zero sum game. The money that LA takes in is essentially coming out of another charity's pockets.

Personally, I don't have a problem with a charity sponsoring a sporting event or team as part of it's marketing strategy unless it impacts it's efficiency to get money to it's stated cause. Plus, the unclear financial connection with it's founder just rubs the wrong way.

 

[Anonymous]

Economics 101 suggests that a for-profit charity/foundation will have more impact than a not-for-profit charity.

Firms (/charities/foundations etc) acting in a profit-maximising way will actually be able to raise more funds that firms just acting to break even (due to a change in incentives for staff at all levels - i.e. tell you call centre staff, for every $1000 dollars you raise, we'll pay you an additional 50 on top of your normal hourly rate)

Treat a charity like a business, and you will be able to not only increase the profile (i.e. raise awareness to a higher level) but you will be able to attract more funds (i.e. spending money to make more money from donations - so, advertising campaigns etc)

The only problem is that people view profit as 'greedy and evil and capitalist' but quite frankly its not. Its a common misconception (especially now with the GFC) that making a profit means you are 'exploiting' people (a la Karl Marx's opinion) which is entirely incorrect.

You don't know much about charities, do you? Your assertion looks to be valid on the surface, but in reality you are terribly misinformed. I won't do your heavy lifting, but your premise is flawed in several significant ways.

That, and whether or not you like it, exploitation is an integral part of profit motive. No way around it. You can treat it like a religion all you want, but fact is that there is no altruistic part of capitalism.

 

[brianf7]

Charitys have to make a lot of money. I beleive Armstrong has donated heaps to it so that is probably why they sponsor him something like that

 

[Anonymous]

You don't know much about charities, do you? Your assertion looks to be valid on the surface, but in reality you are terribly misinformed. I won't do your heavy lifting, but your premise is flawed in several significant ways.

That, and whether or not you like it, exploitation is an integral part of profit motive. No way around it. You can treat it like a religion all you want, but fact is that there is no altruistic part of capitalism.

Please expand on the 'several significant ways'. A rhetorical question doesn't really help explain what you meant by your opening paragraph. It sounds condescending for some reason, and i'm unsure why you didnt expand on it.

Exploitation is just a nasty way of saying "efficient". It's just a word. So I can easily make your sentence say:

"efficiency is an integral part of profit motive"

Nobody is actually being 'exploited' here. The information is out there plain and simple for everyone to see in the Livestrong case. People know who they are giving money to, and if they didn't know, why give money to an unkown beneficary? Its up to the consumer (in this case the donater is actually a consumer) to figure out where their money goes.

Also, it is not a "fact" that altruism does not exist in capitalism. It does exist.

I don't understand how I was "treating it like a religion", could you explain that also, it went right over my head.?

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think that's the view of most people here at all. The problem is that it appears that LA may be profiting from exploiting a murky connection to his charity. Now some people brush this off by saying that if it weren't for LA then the charity wouldn't exist in the first place, so even if he's skimming (or using it to promote his pet projects) then it's still a net positive for LAF.

Unfortunately, it's been shown that competition for charitable donations is a zero sum game. The money that LA takes in is essentially coming out of another charity's pockets.

Personally, I don't have a problem with a charity sponsoring a sporting event or team as part of it's marketing strategy unless it impacts it's efficiency to get money to it's stated cause. Plus, the unclear financial connection with it's founder just rubs the wrong way.

BOLD BIT: I didn't say most people here have that view - but rather, many people in general use that argument, which is nt one that i agree with.

SECOND BOLD BIT: That's life. It's impossible to 'create' real money so to speak. There is a finite amount at any one time. Competition for all firms (profit or not) is a zero sum game when they compete in any given market (goods, service or charity), i agree with you on that.

 

[Tangled Tango]

ONCE is one of the national lotteries of Spain. If you go to Spain you will see these Kiosk everywhere selling tickets.

While the charity for the blind benefited from the ticket sales the primary purpose of the Cycling team was to sell tickets, not drive donations.

Yes but the proceeds from ticket sales went and still go to both the Lottery and the support of millions of handicapped in Spain. Once is not just the lottery but gives jobs to the supported handicapped as it´s ticket sellers.
FYI they are not only for the blind, though that may be the majority.

 

[Anonymous]

Please expand on the 'several significant ways'. A rhetorical question doesn't really help explain what you meant by your opening paragraph. It sounds condescending for some reason, and i'm unsure why you didnt expand on it.

Exploitation is just a nasty way of saying "efficient". It's just a word. So I can easily make your sentence say:

"efficiency is an integral part of profit motive"

Nobody is actually being 'exploited' here. The information is out there plain and simple for everyone to see in the Livestrong case. People know who they are giving money to, and if they didn't know, why give money to an unkown beneficary? Its up to the consumer (in this case the donater is actually a consumer) to figure out where their money goes.

Also, it is not a "fact" that altruism does not exist in capitalism. It does exist.

I don't understand how I was "treating it like a religion", could you explain that also, it went right over my head.?

Actually, I won't expand on the myriad of problems with your premise. I will however ask you one question. Two people come to you and say that they are taking up money for cancer. One says that they are in the business of cancer, and that some of your money will go to cancer research, and the rest is profit, salary, and commission. The other guy is from a non-profit (which means that they spend all of the money they take in, keeping none as profit), and that they spend only 20% of their money on administrative necessities, and everything else goes to cancer research. Who do you send your money to?

The thing is that is not even the most illogical part of your "for profit because it is the greatest thing since sliced bread" thought process.

 

[eleven]

For-profit firms spend billions of dollars on advertising / marketing / public relations because they believe that the return on investment will be larger than the investment itself - the campaign will generate a positive return. This provides additional revenue for profits, for capital investment and for innovation. They wouldn't advertise if they didn't believe that...

Nonprofit firms spend billions of dollars on advertising / marketing / public relations because they believe that the return on investment will be larger than the investment itself - the campaign will generate a positive return. This provides them additional resources to pursue their mission. They wouldn't advertise if they didn't believe that.

I'm not sure what folks are seeing as the problem here. If nonprofits never spent money on promotion / advertising, how would they ever go about generating donations?

 

[kurtinsc]

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.

Yes.

And that revenue goes to Demand's bottom line.

And Demand (I assume) pays dividends.

And as both Lance Armstrong and the LAF own some percentage of Demand... they get revenue from the dividends.

As I'm said... I'm interested in how much they own. Does Lance own 5% and LAF own .000001%? Is it the other way around? Do each own 2%?

The answer to that would say a lot about how much Lance has profited from the "livestrong" brand financially. He makes very little "obvious" money from it. He gets nothing from the sales of "livestrong" merchandise. He doesn't get paid for advertising he does for the "livestrong" brand. I suppose he gets some positive exposure leading to other advertising revenue... but that sort of thing is hard to quantify.

But the stake in demand media came entirely from giving them the right to the livestrong.com web address and doing things to help promote that address. And the LAF owned the brand... NOT Lance.

If Lance did get the majority of the ownership in demand media (between the two) from that transaction, it would be a black mark.

Now I think the criticism directed at the charity is mostly bunk. It's a solid charity that does exactly what their mission statement says, and while not super efficient it's better then many are. They're above board, and there's no direct funnelling of money to Lance's pocket. The only real indirect one would be the demand media ownership. He probably does deserve something since he's done a lot to promote the livestrong.com site... but HE didn't own the livestrong brand... the LAF did. If he got the major portion of the stake in Demand Media... that's a crap move.

Is Lance a jerk? Yeah. Did he dope? Yep... but there aren't many successful cyclists who don't. Ego the size of Texas? You bet.

But he started a good charity. No need to attack that because you don't like him.

 

[Aapjes]

Please expand on the 'several significant ways'.

1. Non-profit doesn't mean that you can't take in more than you spend. It only means that you don't make an official profit and you can't take money out of the non-profit again. Most charities have a substantial reserve to stabilize their spending money.
2. A charity can give bonuses to employees, however, charities tend to attract people more motivated by the idea of doing good things. I'd expect these people to be just as motivated as people who just want to go after a bonus. In fact, we often see that people cheat to get big bonuses, even though their behavior is not good for the company. The extreme risk-taking among bankers is a good example. People who are motivated by the actual work usually do not do this.
3. Advertising for a charity is way easier than advertising a business. Famous people will help you for free. You will get better deals on advertising. People respect charities more and will pay more attention to advertising that features them. People like to show off that they donated to your charity, so you can sell shirts, armbands, etc.
4. Donations to charity can be deducted from taxes, while people have to pay taxes on normal goods. So non-profits are basically subsidized.

The only problem is that people view profit as 'greedy and evil and capitalist' but quite frankly its not. Its a common misconception (especially now with the GFC) that making a profit means you are 'exploiting' people (a la Karl Marx's opinion) which is entirely incorrect.

In some cases profit does mean exploitation. Marxism claims that capitalist society has certain characteristics which means that employers can get away with paying minimal wages to workers, exploiting them. Dubai is a good example of a society that mostly fits Marx's definition of a capitalist society and in which (foreign) workers are exploited quite badly. However, in the 1st world, our societies are mostly (no longer) like this, due to democracy, unions, better education, welfare, etc. Arguably, our western societies are not purely capitalist, but capitasocialist. IMO, this balance between capitalism and socialism is what makes our societies work.

This need for balance is why I disagree with people who advocate an extreme position. People who claim that profit is bad are just as wrong as the people who claim that non-profit & government cannot do anything right and unlimited freedom for business interests is needed.

 

[kurtinsc]

I think that website is very useful. Contrary to this members assertion, LAF is not one of the better cancer charities. You can look at the information here: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6570

You can then search around and see that there are MANY that are much better places to send your money.

There are some VERY good cancer charities. But most have slightly different focuses.

For example the "V" foundation is extremely good, and is exceptional at getting a high percentage of donations to cancer research. But their goal is to cure cancer... and that's it. If that's your focus for giving, it's one of the best places to send donations.

The LAF has a different mission. While they do fund cancer research, a large percentage of their programs are directed at helping "cancer survivors". Those who are living with a diagnosis or living after successful treatment. Much of their work is based on education rather then research.

While they aren't as efficient as the "V" foundation... they are still very good.

They are NOT the Cancer Fund of America (ZERO stars), the national association for Cancer Research (1 star), or the American Institute for Cancer Research (1 star).


If you want to direct money toward solely finding a cure four cancer, there are better options. If you want to direct money toward a charity that helps people living with cancer and spends money on researching a cure and providing cancer screening, the LAF is a good option. If you want to direct money toward children with cancer, the Sunshine Kids Foundation is a good choice. There are also good choices that focus on specific types of cancer.


If you want to classify 3-star charities as bad... well you're doing a great disservice to charities in general. 3-stars are VERY good charities. SHARE, the Pediatric Cancer Foundation and The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society are all 3-star rated charities that are deserving of every dollar they recieve. The LAF is in that boat as well.

 

[kurtinsc]

Please expand on the 'several significant ways'. A rhetorical question doesn't really help explain what you meant by your opening paragraph. It sounds condescending for some reason, and i'm unsure why you didnt expand on it.

Exploitation is just a nasty way of saying "efficient". It's just a word. So I can easily make your sentence say:

"efficiency is an integral part of profit motive"

Nobody is actually being 'exploited' here. The information is out there plain and simple for everyone to see in the Livestrong case. People know who they are giving money to, and if they didn't know, why give money to an unkown beneficary? Its up to the consumer (in this case the donater is actually a consumer) to figure out where their money goes.

Also, it is not a "fact" that altruism does not exist in capitalism. It does exist.

I don't understand how I was "treating it like a religion", could you explain that also, it went right over my head.?

Points:

Capitalism is about efficiency... but it's about efficiently MAKING MONEY. That's the key thing you have to understand when applying capitalism to any concept. If you apply it to something like medicine, capitalism will NOT find the best answer solution for an individual... it will find the most profitable one. The two are NOT necessarily the same thing.

Second, altruism is NOT part of capitalism. An individual can be altruistic in a capitalist society, but the basic economic framework is based SOLELY on greed. Altruism actually breaks the economic model capitalism provides.



If your goal is to get products with a high quality and low price to market... capitalism works. If your goal is more nebulous like "provide a good education" or "make people healthier" or "find a cure for diabetes"... well it doesn't work as well.

Let me use diabetes as an example (as I'm a diabetic and keep well informed on research in the area).

Almost ALL the research on finding a cure for diabetes comes from charities, not the major for profit corporations who provide support for diabetics.

Why?

Because of capitalism.

Eli Lilly or Medtronic aren't going to spend much to find a cure for diabetes. Why? Because they make a LOT more money providing test strips, insulin, syringes, insulin pumps, glucose monitors and such to diabetics then they'd get from a one time fee to cure a diabetic. YOu're talking about 60 years of sales to a diabetic compared to one charge for a cure. Not only are they not going to fund it... capitalism suggests that they should do everything in their power to PREVENT a cure from being found.

So organizations like the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation or the Lee Iacocca Foundation provide funding for research for a cure. They have MUCH less money. The big suppliers of diabetic products hire doctors to disparage the work of researchers to slow down any progress they might make.


That's how capitalism works with illnesses. The money is on the side of NOT curing diseases. They want to TREAT you... not CURE you. They can treat you for DECADES, making profit the whole time. They can only cure you once.


So no, I do NOT want capitalist theory to drive research into the cures for diseases. The money isn't on the side of a cure... so it wouldn't work.

 

[Anonymous]

There are some VERY good cancer charities. But most have slightly different focuses.

For example the "V" foundation is extremely good, and is exceptional at getting a high percentage of donations to cancer research. But their goal is to cure cancer... and that's it. If that's your focus for giving, it's one of the best places to send donations.

The LAF has a different mission. While they do fund cancer research, a large percentage of their programs are directed at helping "cancer survivors". Those who are living with a diagnosis or living after successful treatment. Much of their work is based on education rather then research.

While they aren't as efficient as the "V" foundation... they are still very good.

They are NOT the Cancer Fund of America (ZERO stars), the national association for Cancer Research (1 star), or the American Institute for Cancer Research (1 star).


If you want to direct money toward solely finding a cure four cancer, there are better options. If you want to direct money toward a charity that helps people living with cancer and spends money on researching a cure and providing cancer screening, the LAF is a good option. If you want to direct money toward children with cancer, the Sunshine Kids Foundation is a good choice. There are also good choices that focus on specific types of cancer.


If you want to classify 3-star charities as bad... well you're doing a great disservice to charities in general. 3-stars are VERY good charities. SHARE, the Pediatric Cancer Foundation and The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society are all 3-star rated charities that are deserving of every dollar they recieve. The LAF is in that boat as well.

Yes, they do have a different focus. All one need do is look at their promotional materials, and I mean look at the actual physical promotional materials, to see what their real point is.

As for where to send money, I worked for 5 years with several charities, 2 of which were cancer charities. I don't need suggestions, nor do I need to be told about their individual focus.

 

[ScottinPhilly]

They can do it the same way Unicef can have its name plastered on the front Barcelona's football jersey. Charities whether or not they are run for profit, need to advertise to generate revenue/donations.

 

[BYOP88]

They can do it the same way Unicef can have its name plastered on the front Barcelona's football jersey. Charities whether or not they are run for profit, need to advertise to generate revenue/donations.

Barcelona actually donate money to Unicef. I believe it's in the region of 1-2 million a year(I'll look for a link to back that up), I doubt if the team Trek-Livestrong team donate money to the LAF or whatever the hell it is, but the team probably gets some money from LAF or livestrong.

EDIT: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article635017.ece
In that article it says that Barca will donate a minimum of 1.5 million a year.


2nd EDIT: ScottinPhilly: What do you make of the Halladay/Lee trade?

 

[ScottinPhilly]

I don't disagree and appreciate that Unicef is getting money out of their relationship with Barcelona, I was just trying to point out that charities can benefit from a little advertising too, whether its free advertising or not.

By the way, I, like most Phillies, fans am bittersweet about the Halladay trade. I love the fact they got Halladay, I've felt he has been the best right handed pitcher in the game, but I can't help feeling like they kicked Lee in the gut after he went 4-0 in the playoffs and won their only 2 World Series games. But the key will be how the rest of the rotation performs during 2010, I expect Halladay and lee to produce at the same level, its the rest of the staff that needs to step it up.

 

[US Patent Exploding Cyclist]

2nd EDIT: ScottinPhilly: What do you make of the Halladay/Lee trade?

Not ScottinPhilly, but from the area and a Phillies fan. It is nice to replenish the prospects we lost but we didn't get back what we gave away IMO. Drabek was ready to be called up this year and from what I've read the two arms we got in return are two to three years away. Not to mention Cole Hamels is a head case right now.

I think the front office should have bit the $9,000,000 bullet and kept Lee for one more year. We would've been a virtual lock for a third straight World Series appearance.

Sorry to hi-jack the question and thread.