Interesting piece on Livestrong

[miloman]

Well Miloman, perhaps if you visited threads on other riders like Valverde, Contador, Riis etc and see what I post there then you would know that I have little time for any doper - it does not mean I think they are evil or deserve scorn, just that those who are dopers should be punished appropriatley.

So - most people recognise a difference between .org & .com?? You appear to be ignoring the profile of the 2 sites that RR posted earlier.

I’m not sure what it is purported to show. Is it showing that the .com is more popular than the .org to the general public? So, what does that prove? I’ll bet to the recently diagnosed cancer patient seeking information, the .org is more popular. How many times have you visited a site like the Red Cross? I’ll bet if you needed to know where to get aid in an emergency your habits would change.

 

[Race Radio]

That's the best you can do, tax-free hotels and jet fuel? You think that's his driving force? Any good accountant can do better than that. 501 (c)(3)charities need to meet strict gov't. standards. Livestrong also is highly rated by consumer watch groups like http://www.charitynavigator.org. Where is your proof of jet fuel and hotels?

Not exactly. On the Demand media deal the Head of Charity Navigator said

"This blurs the lines between the foundation and its charitable mission, and the personal gain of its founder,'' said Ken Berger, president and executive director of Charity Navigator. "It's mixing two purposes in a way that smells of a conflict of interest. The most precious thing a charitable organization has is the public's trust, and things like this put a ***** in that.''

As for the jet. In the combined audit report of the livestrong family of charities the 2009 travel expenses total almost $2 million ($1,922,995). For comparison, the National Cancer Coalition, with 5 times as much money raised only claimed $108,559 in travel expenses.....it can't be for jet fuel, that thing runs on Unicorns, hope, and rainbows.

 

[miloman]

I'm sorry, but what else do I need? The guy wants to go spank Eva L's naughty tushie in Hollywood, he just hops on the jet, makes sure he stops by a kids hospital room on the way to the Mondrian, gets his rock off and he sends a nice tweet about how great if felt to make that kid's day. LiveStrong is his rich-guy taxshelter. Rich? Get yourself a charitable foundation and "fight cancer" all day long. You can even fight cancer while banging every wife in town.

So, I'll take that to mean you have no proof and you are offering your biased opinion. Proof would be nice, especially if you are going to say such disparaging things.

 

[BotanyBay]

Not exactly. On the Demand media deal the Head of Charity Navigator said



As for the jet. In the combined audit report of the livestrong family of charities the 2009 travel expenses total almost $2 million ($1,922,995). For comparison, the National Cancer Coalition, with 5 times as much money raised only claimed $108,559 in travel expenses.....it can't be for jet fuel, that thing runs on Unicorns, hope, and rainbows.

A good CPA can make almost any expense "be something else", and it'll be perfectly legal. If Miloman thinks that "public disclosure documents" are accurately reflecting the LAF travel expenses, I'd like to have his home contact info, because I could probably bleed him dry with various other sales pitches.

 

[BotanyBay]

So, I'll take that to mean you have no proof and you are offering your biased opinion. Proof would be nice, especially if you are going to say such disparaging things.

I'm sorry, I don't have time to teach you about tax accounting. A good starting point would be your local community college.

 

[miloman]

You see how easy it is to make a mistake?

The name of LA's 'charity' is the Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF).

As for Jet Fuel - check the traveling expenses between some different cancer charities.

No mistake, intentional. Livestrong.com is the website for LAF and you will be redirected to Livestrong.org if you search for LAF.

 

[miloman]

A good CPA can make almost any expense "be something else", and it'll be perfectly legal. If Miloman thinks that "public disclosure documents" are accurately reflecting the LAF travel expenses, I'd like to have his home contact info, because I could probably bleed him dry with various other sales pitches.

Exactly, so why would they be so stupid and obvious?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I’m not sure what it is purported to show. Is it showing that the .com is more popular than the .org to the general public? So, what does that prove? I’ll bet to the recently diagnosed cancer patient seeking information, the .org is more popular. How many times have you visited a site like the Red Cross? I’ll bet if you needed to know where to get aid in an emergency your habits would change.

You're starting to get it - if the LAF or Livestrong is all about being a charity to support those with cancer why have a seperate for profit website?
Does the Red Cross have a for profit site that makes money for individuals?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No mistake, intentional. Livestrong.com is the website for LAF and you will be redirected to Livestrong.org if you search for LAF.

The Livestrong.com is the website for LAF???
So what is the LAF website for?

If the Livestrong.com website is for the LAF why did Lance & CSE take half the stake that Demand Media offered?

 

[thehog]

The Livestrong.com is the website for LAF???
So what is the LAF website for?

If the Livestrong.com website is for the LAF why did Lance & CSE take half the stake that Demand Media offered?

Well done Sir. I think you got him. Nice work.

 

[Maxiton]

Clearly it's not a goal of the livestrong.com site to direct traffic to the .org site.

Simple scenario: You're in charge of the goals of both sites. IF your goal is to optimize for the cancer foundation (the entire direction of the brand) and maximize donations to that foundation, how would you handle the .com/.org URLs? What are the first 3 things might you do to optimize traffic and foundation donations? In decreasing order of effectiveness:

1. Not have a .com site and automatically redirect all livestrong.com links to livestrong.org
2. Do #1 and do whatever health/lifestyle stuff you're doing at the livestrong.com under a completely different name. Obviously it's completely off brand and confuses the message.
3. Prominently link to the .org site in both the navigation (all pages) and the home page, and explain that .org is the cancer foundation site. (they do link to the .org site in the nav but it's a second-level menu, not prominent)

If you were trying to generate ad revenue and were okay knowingly sucking the vast bulk of traffic from the .org site, and were okay that this clearly minimized donations and support, what would you do?

1. What they did.

End of story.

OK, I've been following this thread but haven't had time to contribute until now. Formerly it was thought self-evident that there must be an impregnable wall between charitable endeavors for the social good, on the one hand, and for-profit efforts on the other. Beginning approximately with the Reagan-Thatcher era and increasingly since then, this thinking has changed, at least on the part of some.

Nowadays there is an unmistakable current of thought that says we don't need this wall and never did. Ayn Rand acolytes who regard selfishness as the greatest characteristic of man and the so-called market as man's most efficient mechanism for progress - these people say the separation between profit and non-profit is only needed if profit is a bad word. According to this thinking more money can be made for good causes if the approach to raising it is as "market-oriented" as possible.

The Livestrong setup is a really textbook example. Thus we have Livestrong, the 501(c)(3) organization, taking an equity stake in Livestrong.com, the profit maker, as well as in Nike's for-profit Livestrong apparel line. The "market" is "turned loose" on the fundraising side, in theory raining maximum dollars on the social cause, while Armstrong and others get richer, and guilt-free to boot! Milton Friedman, siting in his lofty perch in Heaven alongside the aforementioned Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher (and their friend Augusto Pinochet)*, reaches down to pat Armstrong on the head in warm approval, and everyone is smiling all around.

*To mods and others concerned: these political figures are mentioned only for context; i.e., insofar as their philosophies and policies directly lead to issues (conflict of interest between Livestrong.org/.com) discussed in this thread.

 

[Polish]

You're starting to get it - if the LAF or Livestrong is all about being a charity to support those with cancer why have a seperate for profit website?
Does the Red Cross have a for profit site that makes money for individuals?

Did the Red Cross win the Tour 7 maybe 8 times?

Silly to even compare the Red Cross to Armstrong.
Why do it?

The Red Cross is not a globe trotting Rock Star.
If it were, it would consume more jet fuel.

 

[miloman]

You're starting to get it - if the LAF or Livestrong is all about being a charity to support those with cancer why have a seperate for profit website?
Does the Red Cross have a for profit site that makes money for individuals?

Ever had a blood transfusion in a hospital? They aren't free. Where did you think the blood came from? Did you get paid by the Red Cross when you donated blood? They don't even have a seperate web site.

 

[Maxiton]

The Livestrong.com is the website for LAF???
So what is the LAF website for?

If the Livestrong.com website is for the LAF why did Lance & CSE take half the stake that Demand Media offered?

If you understand what I wrote above, you understand why they took the half stake and how they could do it with a straight face.

 

[thehog]

Did the Red Cross win the Tour 7 maybe 8 times?

Silly to even compare the Red Cross to Armstrong.
Why do it?

The Red Cross is not a globe trotting Rock Star.
If it were, it would consume more jet fuel.

Livestrong and the Red Cross are closer than you think. The founder was a rockstar of his day and eerily Armstrong will end up just like him...the Red Cross was set up because of the travels of it's founder.

In 1867, founder Henry Dunant was forced to declare bankruptcy due to business failures in Algeria, partly because he had neglected his business interests during his tireless activities for the International Committee. Controversy surrounding Dunant's business dealings and the resulting negative public opinion, combined with an ongoing conflict with Gustave Moynier, led to Dunant's expulsion from his position as a member and secretary. He was charged with fraudulent bankruptcy and a warrant for his arrest was issued. Thus, he was forced to leave Geneva and never returned to his home city. In the following years, national societies were founded in nearly every country in Europe. In 1876, the committee adopted the name "International Committee of the Red Cross" (ICRC), which is still its official designation today. Five years later, the American Red Cross was founded through the efforts of Clara Barton. More and more countries signed the Geneva Convention and began to respect it in practice during armed conflicts. In a rather short period of time, the Red Cross gained huge momentum as an internationally respected movement, and the national societies became increasingly popular as a venue for volunteer work.

 

[miloman]

The Livestrong.com is the website for LAF???
So what is the LAF website for?

If the Livestrong.com website is for the LAF why did Lance & CSE take half the stake that Demand Media offered?

No, of course not, .org. You type in LAF and as I stated, you will be redirected to livestrong.org

 

[BotanyBay]

Exactly, so why would they be so stupid and obvious?

The report the way that they're legally required to report. If anyone asks them a deeper question, their one (and only) answer will be "We're 100% in compliance and our travel expenses are listed according to established rules".

Nothing stupid about it. The laws are written so that the public "thinks" they share everything, but they don't "actually" have to share it in a way that's useful to a critic. It speaks more to how the wealthy have a different set of rules.

 

[miloman]

The report the way that they're legally required to report. If anyone asks them a deeper question, their one (and only) answer will be "We're 100% in compliance and our travel expenses are listed according to established rules".

Nothing stupid about it. The laws are written so that the public "thinks" they share everything, but they don't "actually" have to share it in a way that's useful to a critic. It speaks more to how the wealthy have a different set of rules.

So, you resent his wealth then? The same rules can apply to you if and when you do what he does. Do you pay taxes? Do you look for every possible tax break? It is you right to legally pay as little as possible. Why would he be any different?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ever had a blood transfusion in a hospital? They aren't free. Where did you think the blood came from? Did you get paid by the Red Cross when you donated blood? They don't even have a seperate web site.

Exactly! ........

 

[red_flanders]

OK, I've been following this thread but haven't had time to contribute until now. Formerly it was thought self-evident that there must be an impregnable wall between charitable endeavors for the social good, on the one hand, and for-profit efforts on the other. Beginning approximately with the Reagan-Thatcher era and increasingly since then, this thinking has changed, at least on the part of some.

Nowadays there is an unmistakable current of thought that says we don't need this wall and never did. Ayn Rand acolytes who regard selfishness as the greatest characteristic of man and the so-called market as man's most efficient mechanism for progress - these people say the separation between profit and non-profit is only needed if profit is a bad word. According to this thinking more money can be made for good causes if the approach to raising it is as "market-oriented" as possible.

The Livestrong setup is a really textbook example. Thus we have Livestrong, the 501(c)(3) organization, taking an equity stake in Livestrong.com, the profit maker, as well as in Nike's for-profit Livestrong apparel line. The "market" is "turned loose" on the fundraising side, in theory raining maximum dollars on the social cause, while Armstrong and others get richer, and guilt-free to boot! Milton Friedman, siting in his lofty perch in Heaven alongside the aforementioned Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher (and their friend Augusto Pinochet)*, reaches down to pat Armstrong on the head in warm approval, and everyone is smiling all around.

*To mods and others concerned: these political figures are mentioned only for context; i.e., insofar as their philosophies and policies directly lead to issues (conflict of interest between Livestrong.org/.com) discussed in this thread.

If all the money from both sites were funneled into the same pie, I'd have no problem breaking down that wall either. However...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, of course not, .org. You type in LAF and as I stated, you will be redirected to livestrong.org

The LAF....... hmm, I don't ever remember Lance riding around in apparel with LAF on it.

 

[miloman]

Exactly! ........

Exactly what? “Exactly” that it is even more confusing? You think you are giving to a charity and they are profiting from you. At least when I give to a legitimate charity I get a receipt. Never got a receipt for blood indicating its value, have you? What appears fishy to you may not to me. They are seperate web sites. If I buy something from a charity, it recognizes the purchase as a partial donation. If they did that on the for profit Livestrong site, then they would have more to worry about than someone mistaking one for the other.

 

[red_flanders]

So, you resent his wealth then? The same rules can apply to you if and when you do what he does. Do you pay taxes? Do you look for every possible tax break? It is you right to legally pay as little as possible. Why would he be any different?

No. People don't resent his wealth.

What people resent is that he acts like it's all about cancer, when in fact, the money says otherwise. They money says it's about both, but mostly about the money.

In addition to genuinely giving his time, energy and focus to a cancer foundation, he's also clearly maximizing his profit on it, when most or all of that money raised under then brand "cancer", is being diverted directly to him and his business interests. It could be directed to the foundation.

It's not simple, it's a complex situation. But it's still partly sleazy profiteering.

 

[miloman]

The LAF....... hmm, I don't ever remember Lance riding around in apparel with LAF on it.

Go to an oncology office or cancer resource center and take a look around and tell me what you see.

 

[Maxiton]

If all the money from both sites were funneled into the same pie, I'd have no problem breaking down that wall either. However...

Right, but the model doesn't work without the avaricious, or selfish, for profit side. Mind you, I'm not defending it, just explaining it.