Lance and le tour... new book

[Dominar]

Thank you for answering questions that no-one asked.

Perhaps I am not making my question complicated enough - why should Lance profit in any way through his association with the Livestrong brand - which you have already achknowledged is a recognised charity brand?

Sorry. I don't know how much clearer I can be. I do not believe I said that Livestrong was a "recognized charity brand." I said that LAF owns the rights to it, and as such, receives the royalties, etc. associated with it. Big difference. Armstrong doesn't benefit from Livestrong/LAF; it's more like Livestrong/LAF benefits from Armstrong.

Let's face it. Livestrong = Lance Armstrong in most people's minds, just as LAF = Lance Armstrong's charity in most people's minds. He had the vision and the follow-through to create both. It doesn't matter at this point that he is only 1 of more than a dozen foundation directors or that his personal contributions have probably long since been exceeded by public contributions. He is the face of LAF/Livestrong. Without him, the goodwill attached to the "brand," and thererfore it's value, would be substantially diminished.

So, again, Armstrong doesn't benefit from Livestrong/LAF. It's the other way around.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sorry. I don't know how much clearer I can be. I do not believe I said that Livestrong was a "recognized charity brand." I said that LAF owns the rights to it, and as such, receives the royalties, etc. associated with it. Big difference. Armstrong doesn't benefit from Livestrong/LAF; it's more like Livestrong/LAF benefits from Armstrong.

Let's face it. Livestrong = Lance Armstrong in most people's minds, just as LAF = Lance Armstrong's charity in most people's minds. He had the vision and the follow-through to create both. It doesn't matter at this point that he is only 1 of more than a dozen foundation directors or that his personal contributions have probably long since been exceeded by public contributions. He is the face of LAF/Livestrong. Without him, the goodwill attached to the "brand," and thererfore it's value, would be substantially diminished.

So, again, Armstrong doesn't benefit from Livestrong/LAF. It's the other way around.

On a previous thread I asked "What is the name on Lances shirts and cycling apparel? LAF or Livestrong? So which is being promoted?"
This was your reply:

It's Livestrong, of course, but that's always been the charity's mark, not LA's personal logo. Exhibit #1: www.livestrong.org.

.....which I believe is acknowledging that Livestrong is the recognized charity brand.

However - in your latest post you argue:
"Let's face it. Livestrong = Lance Armstrong in most people's minds, just as LAF = Lance Armstrong's charity in most people's minds."

If someone like yourself who has stated they are a "Top 10 law school graduate + 11 years of experience working with non-profits" is getting confused with the Livestrong branding what hope have "ordinary Joe's" like me got in distinguishing between the charity and profit sites.

 

[Anonymous]

After reading the back and forth between the good and bad of LA, LAF, Livestrong and Demand Media it seems that if you want to maximize the exposure of your charity sites (both non and for profit sides) you'd use this business model. It seems to be maximizing exposure for both .org and .com. More exposure = more $$$. Heck, even if you don't care for it you guys are talking about LAF, Livestrong, etc., creating, in essence, more exposure (good or bad).

Thus far it seems both sites are staying within the legal limits of the law. So legally, you can't really fault them for doing anything wrong. Although you may not agree with them morally. But legally, what are they doing wrong?

Moreover, his "cancer message" is getting out and at the same time he's making lots of money for both himself and LAF. How incredibly savvy is that from a business perspective? He's having his cake and eating it too. Again, you may not agree with the moral aspect but the brand name recognition is almost synonymous with cancer which is synonymous with LA in many circles around the world. Just look at all the yellow crap and bands you see at the races he participates in around the world.

I wear my red band for Multiple Sclerosis awareness and for my friend with MS and people are like what's that for? But toss on the yellow band and many people almost immediately know what it is. That is $avvy!

 

[Polish]

I wear my red band for Multiple Sclerosis awareness and for my friend with MS and people are like what's that for? But toss on the yellow band and many people almost immediately know what it is. That is $avvy!

The LiveStrong Yelllow bracelet inspired "copycat" bracelets for
many many many mostly worthy causes.

So I guess Lance is somewhat indirectly responsible for all
the money raised for all those causes also.

Probably well over a €1billion by now...wow...

 

[thehog]

The LiveStrong Yelllow bracelet inspired "copycat" bracelets for
many many many mostly worthy causes.

So I guess Lance is somewhat indirectly responsible for all
the money raised for all those causes also.

Probably well over a €1billion by now...wow...

http://www.stillerstrong.org/

 

[Big GMaC]

http://www.stillerstrong.org/

i don't recall lance winning a TT this year... but ben stiller does...

actually quite amusing... he's not co-opting cancer to raise money, but he is co-opting a douchebag

 

[Dominar]

On a previous thread I asked "What is the name on Lances shirts and cycling apparel? LAF or Livestrong? So which is being promoted?"
This was your reply:.....which I believe is acknowledging that Livestrong is the recognized charity brand.

It's Livestrong, of course, but that's always been the charity's mark, not LA's personal logo. Exhibit #1: http://www.livestrong.org

However - in your latest post you argue:
"Let's face it. Livestrong = Lance Armstrong in most people's minds, just as LAF = Lance Armstrong's charity in most people's minds."

If someone like yourself who has stated they are a "Top 10 law school graduate + 11 years of experience working with non-profits" is getting confused with the Livestrong branding what hope have "ordinary Joe's" like me got in distinguishing between the charity and profit sites.

Drawing subtle distinctions based on context is apparently beyond you, so let me try again:

The Livestrong brand belongs to, and represents, LAF (my first post), but both the brand's value and LAF's reputation depend on Armstrong's own reputation and continued association with them (my second post). If Armstrong got caught in some tabloid scandal like Tiger Woods or withdrew his support of LAF, the marketing value of "Livestrong" and donations to LAF would both suffer greatly. So, how can you say he benefits from them, when it's really the other way around?

As an analogy, consider The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (I may not have the exact name right, but close enough). Bill & Melinda started the Foundation on their own, but it has since developed into enough of a credible charity that it receives donations from others as well (e.g., $31B from Warren Buffet in 2006). Now, let's just suppose that BMGF has a snazzy catchphrase or logo like "OpenGates" to symbolize its mission to open the doors of opportunity for the less privileged. And let's further imagine that any time Bill Gates makes a public appearance, the logo is prominently displayed. And of course, whenever ol' Bill makes a public appearance, it's always possible that someone will ask a question about Microsoft...

Does that mean Bill is promoting himself or Microsoft whenever he makes an appearance on behalf of BMGF and the logo is present? Does the fact that the public cannot but help think of Bill and Melinda whenever they read about BMGF or see the logo cause you to think less of Bill Gates and the work BMGF does? Would you conclude that Bill & Melinda are personally benefiting from their charity just because of that connection in people's minds?

If not, then putting aside your obvious personal dislike for Armstrong and my guess that you probably don't value the type of charitable work LAF does as much as BMGF's work, what's so different with LAF/Livestrong & Lance Armstrong?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

After reading the back and forth between the good and bad of LA, LAF, Livestrong and Demand Media it seems that if you want to maximize the exposure of your charity sites (both non and for profit sides) you'd use this business model. It seems to be maximizing exposure for both .org and .com. More exposure = more $$$. Heck, even if you don't care for it you guys are talking about LAF, Livestrong, etc., creating, in essence, more exposure (good or bad).

Thus far it seems both sites are staying within the legal limits of the law. So legally, you can't really fault them for doing anything wrong. Although you may not agree with them morally. But legally, what are they doing wrong?

Moreover, his "cancer message" is getting out and at the same time he's making lots of money for both himself and LAF. How incredibly savvy is that from a business perspective? He's having his cake and eating it too. Again, you may not agree with the moral aspect but the brand name recognition is almost synonymous with cancer which is synonymous with LA in many circles around the world. Just look at all the yellow crap and bands you see at the races he participates in around the world.

I wear my red band for Multiple Sclerosis awareness and for my friend with MS and people are like what's that for? But toss on the yellow band and many people almost immediately know what it is. That is $avvy!

Thank you 'Gee333' - you have answered the question that Dominar can't grasp.

You are correct - there is nothing illegal in how either Livestrong.org or Livestrong.com operate and indeed you are correct again in saying it is a savvy way of gaining more funds for the .org(LAF).
I just don't think that Lance needs to 'profit' financially in anyway through his association with Livestrong.

He is already very wealthy and in one year alone amassed $28,000,000 and this is what he said last year, prior to his return:
“I am essentially racing for free. No salary. No bonus. Nothing on the line.… This one’s on the house. And you know what? At the end of the day, I don’t need money.… Not only will I be fine, my kids will be fine, my grandkids will be fine.”

Demand Media are entitled to renumeration for their service - but it should be the LAF that solely has the equity stake in Demand and Lance should have absolutely no personal gain from it.

 

[Race Radio]

Drawing subtle distinctions based on context is apparently beyond you, so let me try again:

The Livestrong brand belongs to, and represents, LAF (my first post), but both the brand's value and LAF's reputation depend on Armstrong's own reputation and continued association with them (my second post). If Armstrong got caught in some tabloid scandal like Tiger Woods or withdrew his support of LAF, the marketing value of "Livestrong" and donations to LAF would both suffer greatly. So, how can you say he benefits from them, when it's really the other way around?

As an analogy, consider The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (I may not have the exact name right, but close enough). Bill & Melinda started the Foundation on their own, but it has since developed into enough of a credible charity that it receives donations from others as well (e.g., $31B from Warren Buffet in 2006). Now, let's just suppose that BMGF has a snazzy catchphrase or logo like "OpenGates" to symbolize its mission to open the doors of opportunity for the less privileged. And let's further imagine that any time Bill Gates makes a public appearance, the logo is prominently displayed. And of course, whenever ol' Bill makes a public appearance, it's always possible that someone will ask a question about Microsoft...

Does that mean Bill is promoting himself or Microsoft whenever he makes an appearance on behalf of BMGF and the logo is present? Does the fact that the public cannot but help think of Bill and Melinda whenever they read about BMGF or see the logo cause you to think less of Bill Gates and the work BMGF does? Would you conclude that Bill & Melinda are personally benefiting from their charity just because of that connection in people's minds?

If not, then putting aside your obvious personal dislike for Armstrong and my guess that you probably don't value the type of charitable work LAF does as much as BMGF's work, what's so different with LAF/Livestrong & Lance Armstrong?

Billable hours..... lots of words, little content.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Drawing subtle distinctions based on context is apparently beyond you, so let me try again:

The Livestrong brand belongs to, and represents, LAF (my first post), but both the brand's value and LAF's reputation depend on Armstrong's own reputation and continued association with them (my second post). If Armstrong got caught in some tabloid scandal like Tiger Woods or withdrew his support of LAF, the marketing value of "Livestrong" and donations to LAF would both suffer greatly. So, how can you say he benefits from them, when it's really the other way around?

As an analogy, consider The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (I may not have the exact name right, but close enough). Bill & Melinda started the Foundation on their own, but it has since developed into enough of a credible charity that it receives donations from others as well (e.g., $31B from Warren Buffet in 2006). Now, let's just suppose that BMGF has a snazzy catchphrase or logo like "OpenGates" to symbolize its mission to open the doors of opportunity for the less privileged. And let's further imagine that any time Bill Gates makes a public appearance, the logo is prominently displayed. And of course, whenever ol' Bill makes a public appearance, it's always possible that someone will ask a question about Microsoft...

Does that mean Bill is promoting himself or Microsoft whenever he makes an appearance on behalf of BMGF and the logo is present? Does the fact that the public cannot but help think of Bill and Melinda whenever they read about BMGF or see the logo cause you to think less of Bill Gates and the work BMGF does? Would you conclude that Bill & Melinda are personally benefiting from their charity just because of that connection in people's minds?

If not, then putting aside your obvious personal dislike for Armstrong and my guess that you probably don't value the type of charitable work LAF does as much as BMGF's work, what's so different with LAF/Livestrong & Lance Armstrong?

Firstly - the reason I can say he benefits from his association with Livestrong is that he admitted it himself that he retains equity in Demand Media - who profit through the Livestrong site.

As for your absurd analogy on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - do Bill & Mellinda have 'equity' associated with the charity? Is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation known as 'Microsoft.org'?

On your final point - it says little for your ability to constructively debate the issue when you "guess" my motives or falsely assume I dislike Armstrong.

I have never 'knocked' the LAF - it appears to be a well run charity and of course any cancer charity deserves support.
However Armstrong does not have the 'LAF' or even Livestrong/LAF on his jerseys - he has Livestrong.
And through his association with Demand Media this means it is another revenue stream for him - this calls in to question his 'charitable' actions.

 

[SpeedWay]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I really don't care what you choose to spew about Lance Armstrong, but you should leave the LAF out of it. You may not agree with or support its particular charitable purposes, but by all objective accounts, it's a well-run, quality charity.

Since you've only been here for a little over a month you obviously aren't aware that anything remotely associated with LA is fair game for denigration. The fact that these LA addicts also claim to not hate LA makes their assertions even more bullet proof to dissent on any matter related to him. Objectivity requires taking subjectivity into account - that AINT'T GONNA happen here.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Since you've only been here for a little over a month you obviously aren't aware that anything remotely associated with LA is fair game for denigration. The fact that these LA addicts also claim to not hate LA makes their assertions even more bullet proof to dissent on any matter related to him. Objectivity requires taking subjectivity into account - that AINT'T GONNA happen here.

'Speedway' - please explain to me why Lance - or anyone else for that matter - should be immune from criticism?

As for my views on Armstrong - I am apathetic towards him. But my views on him do not and should not matter -what should matter is that any facts I offer are correct - so by all means, please point out any inaccuracies in anything I write and I will happily correct it.

I would do the same service to you - but since you joined in March the majority of your posts are directed at those who criticize Armstrong as opposed to offering a rebuttal or any meaningful dialogue.

 

[Race Radio]

Since you've only been here for a little over a month you obviously aren't aware that anything remotely associated with LA is fair game for denigration. The fact that these LA addicts also claim to not hate LA makes their assertions even more bullet proof to dissent on any matter related to him. Objectivity requires taking subjectivity into account - that AINT'T GONNA happen here.

Here are some simple facts.

The Livestrong brand was built via the hard work of volunteers and donations from thousands of people. This brand was built as a non profit whose goal was to educate and raise awareness of cancer. It also was used to shield Armstrong from being criticized, something your post confirms

This non profit brand is now being used by Armstrong for personal gain. You would have to be blind to not see that over the last year his efforts have been focused on building the Livestrong for profit brand and not the .org. Beyond the natural conflict that is generated by people who type in the .com instead of .org there is also the fact that all of his updates, daily video, etc. drive traffic to the .com site and not the .org site.

It is no surprise that this has been successful as the .com's traffic growth is impressive

with the exception of the time during the tour the .org's traffic has been weak and is a fraction of the .com's.

The .org is ranked 35,696 amongst US website, the .com is ranked 1,254. It is clear that this confusion has raised the awareness of Armstrong FOR PROFIT brand, but done little for the .org. I think we can all agree, even those who did not attend a top 10 school, that there is a conflict here.

 

[Anonymous]

The .org is ranked 35,696 amongst US website, the .com is ranked 1,254. It is clear that this confusion has raised the awareness of Armstrong FOR PROFIT brand, but done little for the .org. I think we can all agree, even those who did not attend a top 10 school, that there is a conflict here.

i think thats purely people who see the livestrong name, and want to know more automatically type .com

if i told you my website was called fred, or randyfarmer or whatver, you would automatically add a .com to the end
if they didnt work then you might try .co.uk, or .org or whatever..

.com will always get more hits than .org innitially.. you got to remember as well the .com has lances videos etc on it, and stuff like that.. more people are interested in lance than are interested in cancer

the .com is also going to get more hits, its a functional website. the wife for instance visits it daily to record her meals, and do all that bumph, as do many people.. who would go to the .org daily... just common sense and logic...

have you looked at what is on the .com, a wealth of information, massive amounts of information, that a lot of people use on a daily basis... whats on the .org? cancer stuff.. its like comparing the bbc's traffic with cycling news.. they are incomparable.. its irrational to think any different..

how much traffic does lancearmstrong.com get btw.. everyone forgets that lance actually has his OWN website..

 

[Race Radio]

i think thats purely people who see the livestrong name, and want to know more automatically type .com

if i told you my website was called fred, or randyfarmer or whatver, you would automatically add a .com to the end
if they didnt work then you might try .co.uk, or .org or whatever..

.com will always get more hits than .org innitially.. you got to remember as well the .com has lances videos etc on it, and stuff like that.. more people are interested in lance than are interested in cancer

the .com is also going to get more hits, its a functional website. the wife for instance visits it daily to record her meals, and do all that bumph, as do many people.. who would go to the .org daily... just common sense and logic...

have you looked at what is on the .com, a wealth of information, massive amounts of information, that a lot of people use on a daily basis... whats on the .org? cancer stuff.. its like comparing the bbc's traffic with cycling news.. they are incomparable.. its irrational to think any different..

how much traffic does lancearmstrong.com get btw.. everyone forgets that lance actually has his OWN website..

Thank you for proving my point. There is no effort to clear up that confusion, in fact confusion only helps. The more hits, the more revenue, the more they can charge for ads. The comeback has "raised awareness" for the .com, for the .org....not so much.

 

[Earth Tribe]

On the other thread about this it was explained that a large part of the money from the .com site is ploughed back into the charity and this is simply a way of doing this.

 

[Earth Tribe]

'Speedway' - please explain to me why Lance - or anyone else for that matter - should be immune from criticism?

Of course, nobody should be immune from criticism. But when everything a person does is criticised to an absurd extent and they are never given credit for anything - even attacking their charity that would not exist with out them - then we start to smell a rat. That crosses the line into vindictive hatred.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Of course, nobody should be immune from criticism. But when everything a person does is criticised to an absurd extent and they are never given credit for anything - even attacking their charity that would not exist with out them - then we start to smell a rat. That crosses the line into vindictive hatred.

You see that post says way more about you Sproket01 then it does about me.

Here are a couple of examples and you can check back on some threads if you like - I supported Armstrong and the decision to have his teammates work in the break during the Tour and gained 41 seconds. Hardly the thing for a 'hater' to do?! If anyone brings in his personal life I am one of the first to say it is off limits.

Someone like yourself - who has sockpuppets, been banned at least 6 times and whose only goal is to derail threads is a lot more questionable.

But I am glad you agree that LA is not immune from criticism.

 

[Anonymous]

There are a lot of shams out there -- many people tried to make a buck by putting out various colored wristbands after the Livestrong bands became popular. Another example are the professional fundraisers who call me on behalf of" this charity or that. I always like jerking them around by asking them how much of each donation they get to keep vs. how much goes to the charity. By law, they have to tell me, but they dance and dance around the question until they finally hang up.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6570

From this, we can easily see that you should send your money to other cancer charities. Those head shots of Lance cost a pretty penny.

[/LESSON]

 

[Race Radio]

On the other thread about this it was explained that a large part of the money from the .com site is ploughed back into the charity and this is simply a way of doing this.

Please give us a link to support this "Large Part" claim. There is zero evidence that the .org is getting more then a token. If it was actually "Large" then certainly Armstrong would have share this info when he announced his alliance with the king of spam. Wonder what he has to hide?

 

[Earth Tribe]

Please give us a link to support this "Large Part" claim. There is zero evidence that the .org is getting more then a token. If it was actually "Large" then certainly Armstrong would have share this info when he announced his alliance with the king of spam. Wonder what he has to hide?

The details were discussed at length in this thread.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=4380&highlight=LiveStrong.org

 

[Anonymous]

This is where Lance swims in "cancer awareness." (stolen thought, thanks to whomever posted it this past summer. Bro maybe?)

 

[Earth Tribe]

You see that post says way more about you Sproket01 then it does about me.

Who said I was specifically refering to you? Maybe I was using your post to describe somebody else in close attendance? But it's funny you should use that terminology because I think it says more about the people who attack LA's charity than it says about him. I was going to say that.

Not rising to the inaccurate trollery in the rest of your post.

 

[Race Radio]

The details were discussed at length in this thread.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=4380&highlight=LiveStrong.org

As expected, nothing.

There is nothing in that thread that supports your claim that "large part of the money from the .com site is ploughed back into the charity". But the thread does highlight why you have been banned for Trolling several times

 

[Anonymous]

"I'm flying in my own private cancer awareness jet, what are you doing?"