Interesting piece on Livestrong

[washedup]

I once got cancer from a hot tub. True story. I didn't know it until I started oozing yellow out of my unit. Luckily, I watched the tour that morning, so I knew what it was.

I had so much courage and will that I kept both of my balls.

 

[Darryl Webster]

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.

Fabulous and clear understanding. Great post!

 

[Ferminal]

http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/news/19001/Armstrong-and-Cavendish-headline-legends-dinner

"Lance Armstrong and Mark Cavendish will star at the Legends Night Dinner during the 2011 Santos Tour Down Under.

South Australian Premier Mike Rann announced that the two cycling greats have confirmed their attendance at the dinner which will be held at the Adelaide Convention Centre on Saturday 22 January 2011."

I wonder what the appearance fee will be, or if it's part of the contract for appearing at the TdU (all money to charity, of course, this one is on the house).

 

[AussieGoddess]

To the bold. Start by reading this thread, plenty of negative comments right here and I have seen many stating it does no good at all. You spend a lot of time here so I'm sure you recall a thread where Aussie Goddess defended her experience with the foundation. If I recall that thread offered many negative opinions. In this thread alone you will find two typical posts. The "what about me" posts. What has LAF ever done for me. In one a poster describes their experience in oncology and never seeing a pamphlet or poster. Two individuals who presumably know how to find LAF for F's sake. Yet there obvious indolence had them expecting a personal invitation to all 28MM cancer patients, or probably just to them individually. If this were the case I'm sure they would be on here bemoaning the expense of printing such garbage and self promotion.

Regarding charity ratings 3 = 3.

.

Just to defend myself here.... I did beleive (and still do) that Livestrong DOES do good work.

BUT - I also actually agree with the others. Lance himself has blurred the line between promoting for the good of his charity and his own personal financial future.

I was prepared to overlook some of the somewhat average financial reviews of the charity in the knowledge that they do good work, and the belief that the world is better off for Livestrong. BUT ... sorry to say I have reviewed my position.

1 - more harm to charities in general is done because of dodgy deals such as the Livestrong.com v Livestrong.org stuff. People question whether their money actually goes to the charity or not - and that isnt good. There should be a VERY clear line - and Lance crossed it.

2 - Lances comeback was 'all about promoting cancer', and that is fantastic. But the actual reality is that it definitely was not. Its the false promotion of himself that I object to. His comeback was all about him and earning money (there is nothing wrong with that btw .... just that I despise the false 'how great am I' rhetoric). If he was truly doing it for the cause - all of his videos and directed web traffic would have gone directly to the .org web site where the LAF could have made enormous profit from advertising or could have received far more donations from through traffic. Instead he chose to direct this traffic to his .com for-profit web site .....

3 - the people who are talking about never seeing a pamphlet or a poster ...(the second bolding) - actually the whole purpose of the LAF/Livestrong is to support and offer information to cancer survivors. If the LAF is doing ANYTHING it should be giving them information. These foundations do (and should) seek out newly diagnosed patients to help them through the minefield of information and support. If they are not getting help - the foundation isnt doing what it is raising money for.

4 - for every $1 raised - that is $1 less to another cause or another foundation - one that might spend its money more wisely or raise it ethically.

and finally - 5
Livestrong raised $31m last year, and got an overall rating of 53. The Susan G Komen for the cure foundation raised $298m ....and got an overall rating of 63. Personally - I know which charity I would rather donate to.

 

[Race Radio]

Just to defend myself here.... I did beleive (and still do) that Livestrong DOES do good work.

BUT - I also actually agree with the others. Lance himself has blurred the line between promoting for the good of his charity and his own personal financial future.

I was prepared to overlook some of the somewhat average financial reviews of the charity in the knowledge that they do good work, and the belief that the world is better off for Livestrong. BUT ... sorry to say I have reviewed my position.

1 - more harm to charities in general is done because of dodgy deals such as the Livestrong.com v Livestrong.org stuff. People question whether their money actually goes to the charity or not - and that isnt good. There should be a VERY clear line - and Lance crossed it.

2 - Lances comeback was 'all about promoting cancer', and that is fantastic. But the actual reality is that it definitely was not. Its the false promotion of himself that I object to. His comeback was all about him and earning money (there is nothing wrong with that btw .... just that I despise the false 'how great am I' rhetoric). If he was truly doing it for the cause - all of his videos and directed web traffic would have gone directly to the .org web site where the LAF could have made enormous profit from advertising or could have received far more donations from through traffic. Instead he chose to direct this traffic to his .com for-profit web site .....

3 - the people who are talking about never seeing a pamphlet or a poster ...(the second bolding) - actually the whole purpose of the LAF/Livestrong is to support and offer information to cancer survivors. If the LAF is doing ANYTHING it should be giving them information. These foundations do (and should) seek out newly diagnosed patients to help them through the minefield of information and support. If they are not getting help - the foundation isnt doing what it is raising money for.

4 - for every $1 raised - that is $1 less to another cause or another foundation - one that might spend its money more wisely or raise it ethically.

and finally - 5
Livestrong raised $31m last year, and got an overall rating of 53. The Susan G Komen for the cure foundation raised $298m ....and got an overall rating of 63. Personally - I know which charity I would rather donate to.

Very good post.

Certainly after raising $350 million at least some of it has done some good....but it is hard to know how much was use productively and how much went to jet fuel......and what the $3,000,000 line item for "Other" is for.

The charity rankings can be deceptive. They only look at the ratio of fundraising and program expenses. If the "Programs" include flying Armstrong around on his Jet and money publicizing Lance and his sponsors in the name of "awareness" the results are worse.

 

[thehog]

Very good post.

Certainly after raising $350 million at least some of it has done some good....but it is hard to know how much was use productively and how much went to jet fuel......and what the $3,000,000 line item for "Other" is for.

The charity rankings can be deceptive. They only look at the ratio of fundraising and program expenses. If the "Programs" include flying Armstrong around on his Jet and money publicizing Lance and his sponsors in the name of "awareness" the results are worse.

I know the MacMillan organisation in the UK well. With donations and grants they receive they provide in-home care for those with cancer and those who support them. They also perform awareness but its a totally different type of awareness than what Mr. Armstrong involves himself in.

I've copied a except below:

http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Documents/AboutUs/RaiseAndSpend/AnnualReport2009.pdf

Raising awareness
What we aimed for
We aimed to increase awareness of Macmillan to
56% of people living with cancer and 36% among
the general public. We also planned to deliver
campaigns that would direct people to selected
services, and to increase our presence on the high
street. We said we would help people involved with
Macmillan promote our services too.

What we achieved
We ran our Good Day awareness campaign during
autumn and winter 2009. This increased awareness
of Macmillan with 56% of those living with cancer,
57% of those affected by cancer and 50% of the
general public now aware of our services. The
campaign promoted our new phoneline and we
received 50% more calls than in recent periods.
Macmillan was also voted number one by the public
in The Charity Brand Index 2009 survey.

Our plans for the future
In 2010 we plan to raise awareness of the support
we provide. We will particularly aim this at people
affected by cancer on low incomes.

We aim to respond to at least 55,000 people in this group
through our website and telephone service.
We will launch a partnership with Boots to provide
information about cancer in all 3,000 Boots stores
and increase our presence on the high street.

 

[Polish]

I had the same experience in 3 separate cases of cancer. Never saw anything related to LAF..

Since the Macmillan Charity is 10 times bigger than the LAF, can I assume you saw 10 times as much material related to that Charity?

Ten times nothing is still nothing.

But the Red Cross is a better charity than Macmillan and LAF combined.
LAF...30million$
Macmillan...300million$
Red Cross....3,000million$

Red Cross kicks ****.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Very good post.

Certainly after raising $350 million at least some of it has done some good....but it is hard to know how much was use productively and how much went to jet fuel......and what the $3,000,000 line item for "Other" is for.

The charity rankings can be deceptive. They only look at the ratio of fundraising and program expenses. If the "Programs" include flying Armstrong around on his Jet and money publicizing Lance and his sponsors in the name of "awareness" the results are worse.

Race can you post a link for the financials for the LAF.org? I am assuming that you have posted it here before but can you put it up again? I would like to see the line item for Other.

Maybe one of the “founding fathers errrrr board members” of the LAF could help fill in the blanks?

 

[miloman]

Race can you post a link for the financials for the LAF.org? I am assuming that you have posted it here before but can you put it up again? I would like to see the line item for Other.

Maybe one of the “founding fathers errrrr board members” of the LAF could help fill in the blanks?

Charity Rating and information from the BBB web site: http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/cancer/lance-armstrong-foundation-in-austin-tx-3996

Again, you have every right to hate the guy and think he's a cheat, but it looks like things check out with the charity, including uses of funds: Total Expenses Programs: 81% Fund Raising: 12% Administrative: 7%

 

[Race Radio]

Charity Rating and information from the BBB web site: http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/cancer/lance-armstrong-foundation-in-austin-tx-3996

Again, you have every right to hate the guy and think he's a cheat, but it looks like things check out with the charity, including uses of funds: Total Expenses Programs: 81% Fund Raising: 12% Administrative: 7%

So you are OK with the $2,000,000 in annual travel expenses and the over $3,000,000 line item for "Other"?

 

[thehog]

But the Red Cross is a better charity than Macmillan and LAF combined.
LAF...30million$
Macmillan...300million$
Red Cross....3,000million$

Red Cross kicks ****.

I'm waiting for the Red Cross to release their Nike Red X range before I compare them to Livestrong.

 

[miloman]

So you are OK with the $2,000,000 in annual travel expenses and the over $3,000,000 line item for "Other"?

Where is the link? I would like to see it. I think until someone more informed can interpret those numbers, I will rely on The Better Business Bureau’s recommendations . . . no offense!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Charity Rating and information from the BBB web site: http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/cancer/lance-armstrong-foundation-in-austin-tx-3996

Again, you have every right to hate the guy and think he's a cheat, but it looks like things check out with the charity, including uses of funds: Total Expenses Programs: 81% Fund Raising: 12% Administrative: 7%

Thank you for the link.

No need to think that I have any "hate on" for Lance Armstrong. Many will tell you the exact opposite about me.

 

[Polish]

I'm waiting for the Red Cross to release their Nike Red X range before I compare them to Livestrong.

http://www.redcrossstore.org/dp.aspx?pgid=576

The LAF does have the edge on the Red Cross in terms of style....

I would guess the Red Cross sells more though.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So you are OK with the $2,000,000 in annual travel expenses and the over $3,000,000 line item for "Other"?

I am not sure about the numbers you point out. I do remember reading those numbers for either jet fuel or jet rent? Something along those lines.

For me the amount of money that is spent for a person to run / operate the charity seems a large amount. That is my opinion and I am not comparing it to any other charity organization. I just think it is sad and stupid to pay someone a quarter of a million dollars to operate something that is set up to help fight cancer patients.

I guess it helps out the CEO so he can go and run ultra-marathons in the Himalayan mountain range.

The foundation board size is 16 . Paid staff size is 79. Must be a ton of work to process all the yellow band dollars.




Chief Executive : Doug Ulman, President and CEO
Compensation*: $257,774

Chair of the Board: Lance Armstrong
Chair's Profession / Business Affiliation: Sports Athelete

Board Size: 16

Paid Staff Size: 79

 

[patricknd]

Thank you for the link.

No need to think that I have any "hate on" for Lance Armstrong. Many will tell you the exact opposite about me.

shameless fanboy!!!!

 

[thehog]

http://www.redcrossstore.org/dp.aspx?pgid=576

The LAF does have the edge on the Red Cross in terms of style....

I would guess the Red Cross sells more though.

Where's the $3000 treadmills? and nothing over $100! what are they thinking? and 50% of full retail price goes straight to the purchasers chapter!

Get Lance in there to drive those profit margins.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Where is the link? I would like to see it. I think until someone more informed can interpret those numbers, I will rely on The Better Business Bureau’s recommendations . . . no offense!

No google on your computer? Here it is for you, page 25.

17. FUNCTIONAL EXPENSES
Just under Advertising of $4,195,187.

Travel $1,922,995

 

[Semper Fidelis]

shameless fanboy!!!!

Yeah French Fry got me! He saw how I made the "tell" in my post!

 

[miloman]

Travel: Total: $1,922,995 Programs: $1,652,246 Management and General: $83,069 Fundraising: $187,680


Where is it that it states Armstrong spent 2 million on jet fuel? This is travel for the entire organization. I would assume that is employees, health practitioners, program directors, etc. and yes, probably Lance too. You have to send people places once in a while. Especially if you are operating programs, services and yes, fundraising events. Who do you think oversees all of that? It is employees with the aid of volunteers.

 

[Polish]

Where's the $3000 treadmills? and nothing over $100! what are they thinking? and 50% of full retail price goes straight to the purchasers chapter!

Get Lance in there to drive those profit margins.

I would think the Red Cross profits from by having high volumes.
The profit margins are lucrative on all that cheap stuff.

And geez, what is wrong with treadmills?
You must love obesity...

 

[thehog]

Travel: Total: $1,922,995 Programs: $1,652,246 Management and General: $83,069 Fundraising: $187,680


Where is it that it states Armstrong spent 2 million on jet fuel? This is travel for the entire organization. I would assume that is employees, health practitioners, program directors, etc. and yes, probably Lance too. You have to send people places once in a while. Especially if you are operating programs, services and yes, fundraising events. Who do you think oversees all of that? It is employees with the aid of volunteers.

That's $50k spent on travel per employee? That's some travel budget. Get out of Banking & work in the charity sector. Free travel!!!

Now if only say the top 15 in the company travelled that's around $150,000 per person. How do you spend that much on travel in one year? Puts rock stars to shame.

 

[D-Queued]

Travel: Total: $1,922,995 Programs: $1,652,246 Management and General: $83,069 Fundraising: $187,680


Where is it that it states Armstrong spent 2 million on jet fuel? This is travel for the entire organization. I would assume that is employees, health practitioners, program directors, etc. and yes, probably Lance too. You have to send people places once in a while. Especially if you are operating programs, services and yes, fundraising events. Who do you think oversees all of that? It is employees with the aid of volunteers.

At least part of these expenses (appearance fees, jet rental) probably fall under 'Fund Raising' ($4.19m) and/or 'Administrative' ($2.4m) expenses. Neither of these are broken down in the bbb link.

In fact, Expenses were $4m greater than income when these are included and the net assets have decreased by that amount.

In terms of the breakdown that is provided, why do they need $1m ($997,955) for government relations? Normally this is code for 'lobbying'? Who does this go to and for what? What do they need to lobby for - more cancer?

Dave.

 

[JRTinMA]

Travel: Total: $1,922,995 Programs: $1,652,246 Management and General: $83,069 Fundraising: $187,680


Where is it that it states Armstrong spent 2 million on jet fuel? This is travel for the entire organization. I would assume that is employees, health practitioners, program directors, etc. and yes, probably Lance too. You have to send people places once in a while. Especially if you are operating programs, services and yes, fundraising events. Who do you think oversees all of that? It is employees with the aid of volunteers.

Thats one of those clinic numbers that some will say over and over in hopes that somebody will believe its true. Like LA's camp saying he was the youngest world champion. Another good clinic bs line is to compare all of the expenses of LAF to the president of American Cancer Society and feign disgust.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Just as a comparison - here are the audited accounts for the Cancer Coalition for 2008.

The Cancer Coalition raised over $150 million.
Their combined travel and meals was $121,266.
Telemarketing was $1,399,283 and Advertising & Public Relations was a paltry $5,090

The LAF total was just over $35 million.
Travel was $1,922,995.
Advertising $4,195,187.