• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Lance's Bikes Raise $1.25 million for cancer research

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
SpeedWay said:
NOTE: Facts are neither welcome or encouraged here. They tend to have a double pi$$ in the porridge affect.

You are welcome to introduce facts anytime, so far it appears you are just interested in taking shots at anyone who questions the myth.
 
Jul 10, 2009
311
0
0
Visit site
To all those who say he's not profiting from Livestrong, then how does he afford this house? Is it from the immense profit that Mellow Johnny's is pulling in? He didn't take a salary from Astana this year, so how come he hasn't been foreclosed on?

I'm no fanboy, but I'm no hater either. I don't think LA does what he does for the altruistic reasons that some people around here do. The guy needs to make a buck like everyone. If he can turn his story into that house, more power to him. I just don't like how he tries to play it off like he's not making a cent and living in poverty to make sure that cancer has all the "awareness" it needs.
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
He promotes cancer awareness.....oh, wait. Nope he promotes Nike

The latest Livestrong Jersey

est8cn.jpg

I don't think one jersey is a definitive sample. While I respect your opinion and the opinion of others, I have to respectfully disagree. I have worked closely with Nike reps and their apparel. This jersey is just one example, I could show you numerous examples of Nike/Livestrong merchandise with minimal Nike insignia that would indicate otherwise.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
The_Z_man said:
To all those who say he's not profiting from Livestrong, then how does he afford this house? Is it from the immense profit that Mellow Johnny's is pulling in? He didn't take a salary from Astana this year, so how come he hasn't been foreclosed on?

other speaking engagements, appearance fees, endorsements, business and investments. None tied into livestrong directly. Remember, just because livestrong foundation leverages his name, face, and achievement, doesn't mean he can't have other business interests that leverage the same.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
The_Z_man said:
To all those who say he's not profiting from Livestrong, then how does he afford this house? Is it from the immense profit that Mellow Johnny's is pulling in? He didn't take a salary from Astana this year, so how come he hasn't been foreclosed on?

I'm no fanboy, but I'm no hater either. I don't think LA does what he does for the altruistic reasons that some people around here do. The guy needs to make a buck like everyone. If he can turn his story into that house, more power to him. I just don't like how he tries to play it off like he's not making a cent and living in poverty to make sure that cancer has all the "awareness" it needs.

Lance and his advisers have always been good at marketing him even since his teenage years.
He has had plenty of salary's, appearance fee's and endorsements throughout his career, everything from Giro, Oakley to Michealob and Subaru.
In 2004 alone he made $28,000,000.

Others are profiting from his name so I believe he is entitled to receive adequate compensation for this. (Of course if he deserves that athletic achievement and the associated fame and wealth is a discussion for the Clinic.)

However with all those other revenue streams I do not see any reason why it should be necessary for him to have any equity in Demand Media and ultimately profit from the Livestrong brand.
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
Visit site
SpeedWay said:
You are relatively new here - stick around and it will become crystal clear(p.s. -
you are considered a fanboy until you exhibit said hostility).

So if I defend him in any regard does that necessitate hostility toward me? What if I defend Contador from a "fanboys" criticism?
:confused:
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
King Lance and the Knights of the RadioShack

Lance has so much on his plate, he makes most World Leaders look like slackers:)


Yes, Lance's life has Mythical Proportions!
.
.
.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Lance and his advisers have always been good at marketing him even since his teenage years.
He has had plenty of salary's, appearance fee's and endorsements throughout his career, everything from Giro, Oakley to Michealob and Subaru.
In 2004 alone he made $28,000,000.

Others are profiting from his name so I believe he is entitled to receive adequate compensation for this. (Of course if he deserves that athletic achievement and the associated fame and wealth is a discussion for the Clinic.)

However with all those other revenue streams I do not see any reason why it should be necessary for him to have any equity in Demand Media and ultimately profit from the Livestrong brand.
You don't know the terms of that equity stake. It could take the form of controlling interest in the brand without compensation for all we know. Let's not get too carried away.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
scribe said:
other speaking engagements, appearance fees, endorsements, business and investments. None tied into livestrong directly. Remember, just because livestrong foundation leverages his name, face, and achievement, doesn't mean he can't have other business interests that leverage the same.

Not exactly. Armstrong is often paid when he is making appearances for Cancer Awareness. The book "Le Sale Tour" goes into detail about this and has interviews with others in the cancer community who questioned Armstrong's actions.

"when Armstrong receives 200,000 Euro to host a conference, he puts it into his pocket - unlike the leading cancer experts, who will donate the money."
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
scribe said:
You don't know the terms of that equity stake. It could take the form of controlling interest in the brand without compensation for all we know. Let's not get too carried away.
From a Wall Street Journal piece on the deal.

"Demand Media will keep the ad revenue generated by the commercial site"

"As part of the deal, the Austin, Texas, foundation and Mr. Armstrong will take equity stakes in Demand Media"

"Neither Demand Media nor the foundation would confirm the size of the equity stakes; Mr. Rosenblatt said they are "significant." Demand Media, a fast-growing but low-profile player in online social networking, was valued at nearly $1 billion by investors last year. Demand Media has raised about $320 million in the past 20 months from investors including Oak Investment Partners and Goldman Sachs."
 
Nov 2, 2009
68
0
0
Visit site
The_Z_man said:
To all those who say he's not profiting from Livestrong, then how does he afford this house? Is it from the immense profit that Mellow Johnny's is pulling in? He didn't take a salary from Astana this year, so how come he hasn't been foreclosed on?

[. . .] just don't like how he tries to play it off like he's not making a cent and living in poverty to make sure that cancer has all the "awareness" it needs.

OK, first, fact check: Show me an example of LA saying he is living in poverty.

Second, I'd be willing to bet $$ that he's paid for that house in full, so who cares if he drew a salary from Astana in 2009? He didn't need to because he obviously has plenty and demanding a salary would have required signing a contract with Astana, which may or may not have been possible. But there is no rational basis for saying that his non-salary status and his obvious wealth means he's necessarily been making $$ off of Livestrong.

But let's get at the real crux of your argument: namely, that LA must make money personally from Livestrong's activities because how else can he be so wealthy?

I work with very wealthy people on a daily basis. I can assure you that their financial investments typically extend far beyond what you or I can imagine -- hedge funds, commercial real estate, private ventures, international holdings, bonds, etc. There are plenty of other ways for LA to have made significant amounts of money besides from Livestrong. (Edited to add: For example, in researching this post, I just learned that LA also owns a stake in energy drink maker FRS -- I doubt there are many sports- or cycling-related companies he doesn't have an interest in at this point!)

For example, I am sure that like many top tier athletes, he has made (and continues to makes) considerable money from endorsements. If invested and managed wisely over the past 10 years, that money alone would be throwing off more income today (assuming 4% after-tax return) than he could conceivably spend. And from all appearances, he must have very good advisors so I'd say this is a safe assumption.

As for Livestrong.com specifically, LA and LAF may have partnered with Demand Media to launch the website, but according to the Wall Street Journal, the partnership involves LA and LAF taking an ownership interest in DM (although it must be a modest one in relative, if not absolute, terms, given DM's total equity) and DM running the website and keeping any ad revenue generated. If this is true, then any net profits that come from the website ultimately are paid out to all of the owners of DM, not just LA and LAF.

And even if the WSJ has it wrong and LA, LAF and DM own direct interests in the website itself, does it really matter? If the Foundation contributed x% of the capital, it's getting x% of whatever profits there may be (and a cursory check of the website confirms that its only income does seem to be from advertising only -- merchandise is available only through the charity's website so the net proceeds from that directly benefits LAF, not LA). LAF also benefits from the .com website's higher visibility in that there is a link on that website to direct all potential donors to LAF's website, so that's a good thing, right? (In fact, from the articles I've read this morning, that seems to have been the primary motivation behind the partnership for LAF -- funneling web users who type "livestrong.com" rather than "livestrong.org" to the charity's website.)

As for "going public," it seems there has never been any intention of taking the livestrong.com website public (and in any event, I don't know how that would happen -- more likely, it would be sold to another private investor). Rather, the talk has been of DM going public in 2010. And if that happens, all investors, not just LA and LAF, would get a pro rata share of the profits. So, what's the big deal?

Again, hate all you want, but please just base it on investigation and rational thought.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
It appears Armstong's efforts to raise the "Awareness" of the FOR PROFIT brand is working.

The .ORG site traffic is flat. A fraction of the .com

.ORG
graph


.COM
graph


10 times the traffic, 25% increase in traffic over the last 3 months for the .com site. 5% decrease

I think we can all agree that Armstrong's primary goal is to increase the size of his bank account, not increase cancer awareness.
 
Nov 2, 2009
68
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Not exactly. Armstrong is often paid when he is making appearances for Cancer Awareness. The book "Le Sale Tour" goes into detail about this and has interviews with others in the cancer community who questioned Armstrong's actions.
I am not familiar with the book, the author or the "others in the cancer community," so I can't comment on its reliability (and presumably, neither can you). But I can tell you that non-profits often pay speakers for their time, just like anyone else. Often, but not always, those speakers will donate their fee to charity, but nowhere is it written that they must do so or that it has to be the charity that's sponsoring the conference. How do these mysterious "others in the cancer community" know that LA didn't donate his fee to Livestrong?

Answer: They can't possibly know, and neither can you nor I.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Dominar said:
Again, hate all you want, but please just base it on investigation and rational thought.

So - in short you agree he has equity in DM which earns revenue from the Livestrong.com site.
You have also considered that he has many other revenue streams.

So why does he need to profit off the Livestrong brand?
 
Nov 2, 2009
68
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
It appears Armstong's efforts to raise the "Awareness" of the FOR PROFIT brand is working.

The .ORG site traffic is flat. A fraction of the .com

I think we can all agree that Armstrong's primary goal is to increase the size of his bank account, not increase cancer awareness.

No, not at all. If you will read my post above, one of the main motivators behind the launch of the .com site was a realization that the .org site wasn't getting the traffic it should. The partnership with Demand Media was sought because they know how to increase traffic. That's their job. Once again, the only money made off of the .com website is advertising revenue, which apparently goes to DM (and then indirectly to all of DM's shareholders/owners, not just LA and LAF). The .com website serves the charity by funneling users to the charity's .org site to make donations.

Let's move along, now. There's really nothing to see here.
 
Nov 2, 2009
68
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
So - in short you agree he has equity in DM which earns revenue from the Livestrong.com site.
You have also considered that he has many other revenue streams.

So why does he need to profit off the Livestrong brand?

He doesn't, which is exactly my point. Your question assumes a conclusion that doesn't seem to be based in fact. The money from the T-shirts, tennis shoes, bracelets, etc. benefits LAF, not LA. The merchandising is unrelated to the .com website, so LA's indirect equity stake (and again, he's only one of many investors in DM) in the .com is hardly "profiting off the Livestrong brand."
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
It appears Armstong's efforts to raise the "Awareness" of the FOR PROFIT brand is working.

The .ORG site traffic is flat. A fraction of the .com

.ORG
graph


.COM
graph


10 times the traffic, 25% increase in traffic over the last 3 months for the .com site. 5% decrease

I think we can all agree that Armstrong's primary goal is to increase the size of his bank account, not increase cancer awareness.

You could also attribute that to computer illiteracy and confusion. People are much more inclined to enter .com than .org when cruising the internet. Subsequently, when they see the Livestrong emblam everywhere, they think they have found the LAF. If you want to discuss the Foundation's failure to distinguish between the two, I would certainly agree, but sight traffic isn't enough evidence to convince me.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,003
0
0
Visit site
So if he has no intention of profiting from the Livestrong brand (though, let's not forget that he profits vastly from it in terms of goodwill and having blind eyes turned to his alleged doping) why not simply approach DM and ask them to drive traffic to the Livestrong.org site? Why the need to take any kind of equity at all which will - when the company goes public - directly profit him? It's a fairly simple question Dominar which you have signally failed to answer.

A more interesting question is why traffic to Livestrong.org is so low? Does that not indicate that the interest is not so much in Armstrong the 'cancer saviour' and more in Armstrong the celebrity. Interest in Livestrong.org - rather like the interest of the fanboys in cycling - presumably dies to almost nothing when their hero is not around?

Kadence, why bother to have 2 sites? If users are 'illiterate' as you say and will choose a .com over a .org then why not simply close the Livestrong.org site? Or might that look just a little too mercenary? Like I say, when Armstrong starts campaigning in Africa, fair enough. Until then, 'raising awareness' in lucrative first world countries will also smell of raising awareness for Nike, Oakley and Brand Armstrong.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Dominar said:
He doesn't, which is exactly my point. Your question assumes a conclusion that doesn't seem to be based in fact. The money from the T-shirts, tennis shoes, bracelets, etc. benefits LAF, not LA. The merchandising is unrelated to the .com website, so LA's indirect equity stake (and again, he's only one of many investors in DM) in the .com is hardly "profiting off the Livestrong brand."

I never mentioned merchandising!

If you read the WSJ article I posted - when asked how much equity LA has in Demand Media, Mr. Rosenblatt said they are "significant."

What is the name on Lances shirts and cycling apparel? LAF or Livestrong?
So which is being promoted? Are Demand Media profiting from their association with the Livestrong brand? Does LA have equity in Demand Media?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Dominar said:
OK, first, fact check: Show me an example of LA saying he is living in poverty.

Second, I'd be willing to bet $$ that he's paid for that house in full, so who cares if he drew a salary from Astana in 2009? He didn't need to because he obviously has plenty and demanding a salary would have required signing a contract with Astana, which may or may not have been possible. But there is no rational basis for saying that his non-salary status and his obvious wealth means he's necessarily been making $$ off of Livestrong.

But let's get at the real crux of your argument: namely, that LA must make money personally from Livestrong's activities because how else can he be so wealthy?

I work with very wealthy people on a daily basis. I can assure you that their financial investments typically extend far beyond what you or I can imagine -- hedge funds, commercial real estate, private ventures, international holdings, bonds, etc. There are plenty of other ways for LA to have made significant amounts of money besides from Livestrong. (Edited to add: For example, in researching this post, I just learned that LA also owns a stake in energy drink maker FRS -- I doubt there are many sports- or cycling-related companies he doesn't have an interest in at this point!)

For example, I am sure that like many top tier athletes, he has made (and continues to makes) considerable money from endorsements. If invested and managed wisely over the past 10 years, that money alone would be throwing off more income today (assuming 4% after-tax return) than he could conceivably spend. And from all appearances, he must have very good advisors so I'd say this is a safe assumption.

As for Livestrong.com specifically, LA and LAF may have partnered with Demand Media to launch the website, but according to the Wall Street Journal, the partnership involves LA and LAF taking an ownership interest in DM (although it must be a modest one in relative, if not absolute, terms, given DM's total equity) and DM running the website and keeping any ad revenue generated. If this is true, then any net profits that come from the website ultimately are paid out to all of the owners of DM, not just LA and LAF.

And even if the WSJ has it wrong and LA, LAF and DM own direct interests in the website itself, does it really matter? If the Foundation contributed x% of the capital, it's getting x% of whatever profits there may be (and a cursory check of the website confirms that its only income does seem to be from advertising only -- merchandise is available only through the charity's website so the net proceeds from that directly benefits LAF, not LA). LAF also benefits from the .com website's higher visibility in that there is a link on that website to direct all potential donors to LAF's website, so that's a good thing, right? (In fact, from the articles I've read this morning, that seems to have been the primary motivation behind the partnership for LAF -- funneling web users who type "livestrong.com" rather than "livestrong.org" to the charity's website.)

As for "going public," it seems there has never been any intention of taking the livestrong.com website public (and in any event, I don't know how that would happen -- more likely, it would be sold to another private investor). Rather, the talk has been of DM going public in 2010. And if that happens, all investors, not just LA and LAF, would get a pro rata share of the profits. So, what's the big deal?

Again, hate all you want, but please just base it on investigation and rational thought.

What is it with the Armstrong groupies that they confuse quantity of words with content?

Armstrong's disingenuous claims of "taking no salary" for his return worked well with his groupies for a while.

When Armstrong was given $1,000,000 to ride the TdU it was widely reported that 100% of this money would go to the LAF. Mike Rann's office even said this......until a local blog found out that none of it would be going to the LAF, all of it would go to Lance. After weeks of dodging the question Armstrong was forced to admit that yes, he was getting paid to race and and it would all be going into his pocket, not Livestrong.

This was repeated at the Giro, however the amount was greater. $2,000,000. It wasn't until this was uncovered by an Italian newspapers that Armstrong confirmed this.....he then went on a media strike like a petulant child.. Please tell how NOT talking to the media raises cancer awareness?

Armstrong's return has always been about raising awareness of the Armstrong brand. As the traffic figures show Armstrong's FOR PROFIT website benefit far greater from his return then the .ORG. This should be no surprise as Armstrong's video updates are always on the .COM site, thus driving traffic and viewers to that site not the .org. There appears to be little effort to funnel traffic from the .com to the .org.

The Livestrong brand was built by the non profit. This was supported by the donors. You make some unsupported assumptions regarding the .org's ownership position in the .com. It is completely possible for this ownership to be a fraction of a percentage point.......Like most of what Armstrong does, it is more about symbolism then reality.

Armstrong's return has only increased his income. Beyond the $3,000,000 in race fees and the new 3-year sponsorship with Crap Beer Armstrong's other sponsorships also increase based on his Q rating (Google it).

Armstrong has likely earned over $10 million from his return. As you can see by the traffic figures I gave and the flat income at LAF I think we can all agree that Armstrong's return is about his income, not cancer awareness.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
ImmaculateKadence said:
You could also attribute that to computer illiteracy and confusion. People are much more inclined to enter .com than .org when cruising the internet. Subsequently, when they see the Livestrong emblam everywhere, they think they have found the LAF. If you want to discuss the Foundation's failure to distinguish between the two, I would certainly agree, but sight traffic isn't enough evidence to convince me.

Thank you for proving my point. The confusion is intentional, driving more traffic to the site that earns Armstrong money.

There is much more then slight traffic. The .org is ranked 23,584 amongst US sites, the .COM is 1,200.

This is not the only commercial venture that Armstrong has leveraged the Livestrong brand for his personal profit. He also has a line of stationary bikes, treadmills, and a new magazine coming out.