Interesting piece on Livestrong

Page 58 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
WinterRider said:
I don't know. Every time I go into Sport Chek lately (a major Canadian sports chain store) I still see livestrong everywhere, and a bowl of yellow wristbands for sale at the counter.

I haven't wanted to annoy the checkout staff enough to warrant asking if the bracelets are still moving, but they're there in every store I've been in (3 in the past 3 months).
Sport Chek is a partner in the Hockey Canada/Nike/Livestrong setup. They have signed on to exploiting cancer as a marketing tool, so not surprising they are pushing Livestrong merchandise.
 
Race Radio said:
50% of the treadmill and eliptical business was real money. Especially because the product sold at a super premium above the unlicensed version of the same product.

I'm positive then that Hockey Canada got a presentation from possibly Nike showing a **super** revenue boost by adopting the Liestrong brand. Hockey Canada only imagined the increased revenue. Don't be surprised to learn they are stuck with the deal for some time.
 
frenchfry said:
Sport Chek is a partner in the Hockey Canada/Nike/Livestrong setup. They have signed on to exploiting cancer as a marketing tool, so not surprising they are pushing Livestrong merchandise.
Sport Chek was started in Canada as a retail sports store by the Forzani brothers former CFL football (Canadian style) players. It was recently sold to Canadian Tire, a large box chain store that sells just about anything except food and booze, and has a reputation for terrible service. I go into the local Sport Cheks regularly and there is widespread displays of Livestrong wear, but I don't see anyone buying it these days and the clerks roll their eyes when you bring it up.

I think Phil Knight suckered Hockey Canada into a Lance like promotion with a sweet heart deal. Knight has to figure out some way of unloading the Livestrong brand and now Hockey Canada is unwittingly doing its part.
 
DirtyWorks said:
50% of the treadmill and eliptical business was real money. Especially because the product sold at a super premium above the unlicensed version of the same product.

I'm positive then that Hockey Canada got a presentation from possibly Nike showing a **super** revenue boost by adopting the Liestrong brand. Hockey Canada only imagined the increased revenue. Don't be surprised to learn they are stuck with the deal for some time.
Canadian Tire sells Livestrong treadmills and ellipticals etc. but usually on 50% off deals, which tells you how much wiggle room they have because of the donation to Livestrong mark up. Google Canadian Tire and check out this weeks bargoonies on Livestrong Treadmills. PS they do get a good rating for quality.

I think you hit the nail on the head re: Hockey Canada (women's team only)
 
Jan 22, 2011
403
0
9,280
RobbieCanuck said:
Google Canadian Tire and check out this weeks bargoonies on Livestrong Treadmills.
Jeesh...pretty much 50% off most of the LS models.

Wiggle room is right. The top model was near enough $4000 and is now on sale for about $2000. :eek:
 
calling in from the land of Pre...

Am in the land of Pre in Euguene.

Was surprised to see a yellow wrist band at the dinner table beside me last night. Surprised, because it has actually been a while since I have seen one.

Not that I should have been surprised. It was obviously a coach for the Ducks. Football by the size of him, and by the earnestness of the parents he was trying to recruit.

Yellow wrist band - check
Nike shirt - check

Clearly the full Nike sponsorship deal. A sell-out.

I really wanted to lean over and ask why he was promoting Fraudstrong to these fine people sitting with him.

Note that Glenn may not appreciate this, but where Nike has all but forgotten the mantra of Pre (refused to cheat himself), there is a huge Nike banner ad on the stadium with a picture of Pre.

Hard not to have mixed feelings over that.

Dave.
 
Jul 26, 2012
524
0
0
del1962 said:
Very clevah! As Fred Perry would say.

The trade mark owner is gonna love you for that.

Tie ups with Livestrong sound rather like one of those downloads where you end up with malware all over your computer.
 
caryopsis said:
Here's Hockey Canada's current spin on the women's national team's Livestrong branding/jerseys. They will wear them in their opening game of the tourney tomorrow night, against the US.

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/canadian-women-open-world-hockey-championship-livestrong-colours-153632313--spt.html

The majority of recent commenters seem to hope this is an April Fools Day joke, but alas...

"It's important for us to look at what it does for the millions of people as opposed to what one person did."

It's interesting how the Hockey federation is owning the decision and the author deploys the cancer shield at volume 11 on a scale of 1-10.

It sounds like Nike is in deep, probably with a licensing scheme, to the point of Nike losing money on the deal if they don't at least try to move product.
 
DirtyWorks said:
"It's important for us to look at what it does for the millions of people as opposed to what one person did."

It's interesting how the Hockey federation is owning the decision and the author deploys the cancer shield at volume 11 on a scale of 1-10.

It sounds like Nike is in deep, probably with a licensing scheme, to the point of Nike losing money on the deal if they don't at least try to move product.
A quote from Dan Church, head coach of the team:

There are going to be comments and people who are going to associate it with Lance Armstrong," head coach Dan Church said. "I asked those same questions. I wanted to know about where the money was going. I wanted to know about that relationship.
This is the interesting question, where is the money going?

Exactly how are the proceeds from the merchandise sales distributed? How much to Nike, how much to Sport Chek, how much to Hockey Canada, and how much to Livestrong? Does Armstrong still receive royalties despite being kicked out of Livestrong?

Undoubtedly those involved will cite confidentiality of the agreement in order not to make this information public - and this is exactly the problem. Zero transparency even when the charity motive is continually put forward to justify the commercialisation of cancer.

How much of the money finally goes to directly funding cancer support programs? I am sure we will never know.
 
Nice to see that the journalists get it:

Globe and Mail: Old rivalry kicks into life, 3 April 2013

"...The Canadians were wearing the Nike colours of Livestrong Foundation, a good cause founded by a bad man, disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong. All that we can say to that is that it's unfortunate the Terry Fox Foundation wasn't able to outfit them in colours more in keeping with Canadian glory in international hockey. ..."


Nike needs to understand that Livestrong, and thus Nike, is forever associated with "disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong" no matter how much they pay to buy off the Canadian Women's Hockey team.

Lance doped and Nike facilitated and keeps facilitating. Simple.

Dave.
 
D-Queued said:
Nice to see that the journalists get it:

Globe and Mail: Old rivalry kicks into life, 3 April 2013

"...The Canadians were wearing the Nike colours of Livestrong Foundation, a good cause founded by a bad man, disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong. All that we can say to that is that it's unfortunate the Terry Fox Foundation wasn't able to outfit them in colours more in keeping with Canadian glory in international hockey. ..."


Nike needs to understand that Livestrong, and thus Nike, is forever associated with "disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong" no matter how much they pay to buy off the Canadian Women's Hockey team.

Lance doped and Nike facilitated and keeps facilitating. Simple.

Dave.
I wonder what Hockey Canada is thinking of their decision now. Reaction to the Livestrong association is universally negative. I can only imagine merchandise sales (the real objective, the marketing of cancer) aren't great either, so any financial benefit would likely be minimal.
 
Jul 14, 2012
168
0
0
D-Queued said:
Nice to see that the journalists get it:

Globe and Mail: Old rivalry kicks into life, 3 April 2013

"...The Canadians were wearing the Nike colours of Livestrong Foundation, a good cause founded by a bad man, disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong. All that we can say to that is that it's unfortunate the Terry Fox Foundation wasn't able to outfit them in colours more in keeping with Canadian glory in international hockey. ..."


Nike needs to understand that Livestrong, and thus Nike, is forever associated with "disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong" no matter how much they pay to buy off the Canadian Women's Hockey team.

Lance doped and Nike facilitated and keeps facilitating. Simple.

Dave.
Buying off the Canadian Women's Hockey team is precisely what they are doing. Livestrong is a cunning business more than it is a charity. They spend/waste far too much much on salaries, legal advice, patent protection, lobbying, marketing and suing anyone who remotely gets in their way.

It's probably been written before on this thread, but we all know that Livestrong is a charity founded on the greatest fraud in sporting history. A charity that for many years had conspired to increase the wealth of the greatest cheat in sporting history. They should just hurry up and close up shop now.

As for Nike, I never ever bought their gear anyway. Over priced and over marketed.
 
frenchfry said:
Does Armstrong still receive royalties despite being kicked out of Livestrong?
My guess is yes. Just because Wonderboy's not on the board doesn't mean the premise of the scam has changed. Now the *how* he's enriched, I'm sure, is rather elaborate and difficult to explain.

frenchfry said:
How much of the money finally goes to directly funding cancer support programs? I am sure we will never know.
There's an assumption in your reply "cancer support" does something. Maybe it does, I don't know. Based on my experience, it didn't.

One of the fundamental levers in the Livestrong scam goes back to the black "23" jersey. The 23 being a reference to 23 million people stricken with cancer and then that was built into an assumption Livestrong somehow helped those 23 million because of all of the "done so much good" excuses.
 
frenchfry said:
Great questions FF. You and others should be aware that the comments in Canada's nominal national newspaper, the Globe and Mail, were universally opposed to the national team wearing the Livestrong jerseys. To be frank they looked ridiculous wearing them in their first game of the woman's world hockey championships against the USA of all countries.

Since the government of Canada also provides funding to Hockey Canada, it would seem that some disclosure of the Nike deal may have to be released through the government to justify to taxpayers the amount of tax dollars paid to HC.

But in Canada we have a conservative government lacking transparency to begin with, so don't hold your breath! I suspect Hockey Canada are embarassed by the deal but are too proud to admit it. :D
 
Think this belongs in here.

MacRoadie said:
Stingray34 said:
"The foundation said it reduced its budget nearly 11 percent in 2013 to $38.4 million, but said Tuesday that revenue is already 2.5 percent ahead of projections.

It's easy to exceed projections, when you're anticipating getting ******-all...:rolleyes:
Wonder what the Cdn National Women's Hockey Team has to say about this?

Shouldn't they be further embarrassed/humiliated at how they were (ab)used?

Dave.
 
D-Queued said:
Think this belongs in here.



Wonder what the Cdn National Women's Hockey Team has to say about this?

Shouldn't they be further embarrassed/humiliated at how they were (ab)used?

Dave.
In no way was Hockey Canada used or abused. A minimum of due diligence would have indicated that they were signing into a no-win situation.

When I saw that Nike was dropping Livestrong I was wondering how this would affect Hockey Canada as it was a tri-party agreement.
 
frenchfry said:
In no way was Hockey Canada used or abused. A minimum of due diligence would have indicated that they were signing into a no-win situation.

When I saw that Nike was dropping Livestrong I was wondering how this would affect Hockey Canada as it was a tri-party agreement.
Ok, us Canadians were taken advantage of since we had no say in the glaringly stupid decision - now all the more glaringly obvious.

Dave.
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
D-Queued said:
Ok, us Canadians were taken advantage of since we had no say in the glaringly stupid decision - now all the more glaringly obvious.

Dave.
When a sports association that is only partly funded by the government seeks additional funding to maintain programs, then gets a deal from Nike, it is hard for the administrators to be held in contempt , or be accused of having acted in a way that hurts their program.

That deal was very likely baked well in advance of mid-October, and was written in a way that may not have given them an out even though they may have tried.

The collective probably thought that it would blow over and be forgotten but we all know how that was not the case.

Particularly that women's hockey in Canada needs a lot of external funding, they should not be blamed for taking a calculated risk given Armstrong's successful 'defiance' against his detractors for years prior.
 
Fortyninefourteen said:
When a sports association that is only partly funded by the government seeks additional funding to maintain programs, then gets a deal from Nike, it is hard for the administrators to be held in contempt , or be accused of having acted in a way that hurts their program.

That deal was very likely baked well in advance of mid-October, and was written in a way that may not have given them an out even though they may have tried.

The collective probably thought that it would blow over and be forgotten but we all know how that was not the case.

Particularly that women's hockey in Canada needs a lot of external funding, they should not be blamed for taking a calculated risk given Armstrong's successful 'defiance' against his detractors for years prior.
The ends always justify the means?

Probably ok for them to dope, then, since they will win more hockey games and get more fan support to help fund the program.

A deal with Livestrong is a deal with a profound doping controversy. Thus, my flippant example isn't so flippant.

Dave.
 
D-Queued said:
Ok, us Canadians were taken advantage of since we had no say in the glaringly stupid decision - now all the more glaringly obvious.

Dave.
They should have listened to us when we contacted them to point out the error of their decision.

I am really getting tired of being right all the time. Although I am not perfect - once I thought I was wrong, but I wasn't.
 
Fortyninefourteen said:
When a sports association that is only partly funded by the government seeks additional funding to maintain programs, then gets a deal from Nike, it is hard for the administrators to be held in contempt , or be accused of having acted in a way that hurts their program.

That deal was very likely baked well in advance of mid-October, and was written in a way that may not have given them an out even though they may have tried.

The collective probably thought that it would blow over and be forgotten but we all know how that was not the case.

Particularly that women's hockey in Canada needs a lot of external funding, they should not be blamed for taking a calculated risk given Armstrong's successful 'defiance' against his detractors for years prior.
But there was also Livestrong's troubled track record with other cross marketing schemes (like the Kansas City stadium deal) that should have set off warning bells.
 
frenchfry said:
In no way was Hockey Canada used or abused. A minimum of due diligence would have indicated that they were signing into a no-win situation.

When I saw that Nike was dropping Livestrong I was wondering how this would affect Hockey Canada as it was a tri-party agreement.
The way I've seen the Liestrong stuff structured in consumer products suggests Nike has a consumer licensing deal similar to the others. (ex. the treadmill machines) I very much doubt the charity knows anything about Nike's yellow and black business, just like they know nothing of the treadmill business. They just get some money in exchange for letting their brand be used.

The way a merchandise deal like this would probably work is Nike gives CH some money up front for wearing the Nike-sourced uniform in competition. Nike's motive for the deal is making a profit by selling CH gear through various retail channels. On paper, it makes sense for CH. Too bad no one asked around before doing the deal.

It would be a really nice bit of reporting if there was a writer who had the energy to pursue an estimate of who gets what in the deal. It's probably a *very* fluid number based on sales volume over time and the profit per unit. Don't worry, Nike is taking most of the profit.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY