Livestrong did you know ...

[Dr. Maserati]

..
To be clear, I'm testing my hypothesis that the objection to using the Livestrong brand for both non-profit and for-profit organizations really amounts to nit picking rationalization that is actually the manifestation of an irrational and inexplicable dislike for the man.

Again Ninety you have brought your own personal viewpoint in to your arguement, you see no problem with Armstrong profiteering from a website closely linked to his non-profit website.

I have said it before I do not dislike the man - and I have also said on a different post how I meet him, have you?

Of course it could be argued that you see little wrong with anything he does because of an "irrational and inexplicable crush for the man".

 

[Max Cadence]

Really? OK. Quick straw poll of 6 cyclists in the room who have just got back from riding 80 miles. Results? "He's a w*nker" x 4 "F*cking c*ck" x 2

You should study high-school statistics before you go around expressing the spewings of six cohorts as a basis for opinion of the whole population. Plus, calling someone a 'real' cyclist or 'true' fan based on an affinity or dislike of a particular cyclist is making a weak argument weaker.

 

[Digger]

Okay, for those of you who think there is something obviously wrong with Lance Armstrong using the same Livestrong brand for his LAF non-profit and for his livestrong.com for-profit business, but can't explain it, what do you think of the use of the McDonald's name for both the McDonald's for-profit chain and for the Ronald McDonald House charity?

Do you see this as the same problem? Or not? If not, what's the difference?

To be clear, I'm testing my hypothesis that the objection to using the Livestrong brand for both non-profit and for-profit organizations really amounts to nit picking rationalization that is actually the manifestation of an irrational and inexplicable dislike for the man.

Case in point:

We have explained it. You don't accept that explanation - your choice.

Regarding McDonalds...Cycling forum ring a bell?
Anyway, two wrongs don't make a right

 

[LugHugger]

You should study high-school statistics before you go around expressing the spewings of six cohorts as a basis for opinion of the whole population. Plus, calling someone a 'real' cyclist or 'true' fan based on an affinity or dislike of a particular cyclist is making a weak argument weaker.

Pardon? I have never claimed to speak for the majority of any population. Neither have I called anybody a real fan or a fake fan, for that matter. I simply conducted a quick straw poll of my peers. It is one thing to disagree with people due to a difference of opinion, it is entirely another thing to misquote and insinuate in order to make an argument. Now that is weak debating.

 

[Max Cadence]

Again Ninety you have brought your own personal viewpoint in to your arguement, you see no problem with Armstrong profiteering from a website closely linked to his non-profit website.

I have said it before I do not dislike the man - and I have also said on a different post how I meet him, have you?

Of course it could be argued that you see little wrong with anything he does because of an "irrational and inexplicable crush for the man".

By that line of reasoning, Ninety5rpm has an "irrational and inexplicable crush" on Ronald McDonald as well. Who's irrational now?

 

[Max Cadence]

Pardon? I have never claimed to speak for the majority of any population. Neither have I called anybody a real fan or a fake fan, for that matter. I simply conducted a quick straw poll of my peers. It is one thing to disagree with people due to a difference of opinion, it is entirely another thing to misquote and insinuate in order to make an argument. Now that is weak debating.

I guess I made my point then.

 

[LugHugger]

I guess I made my point then.

That you are a weak debater?

 

[Eva Maria]

And you choose to see it.

I'm asking you to explain what you see. Spell it out. What moral rule of yours is being broken here?

It has been explained MANY times, you choose to ignore it.

 

[Digger]

Really? That is not my experience of 'most cyclists' in England. In fact, quite the opposite. And it's not true that we resent success. We resent brazen, misplaced arrogance and hypocrisy. Most who follow pro cycling grudgingly respect his Tour record but actively dislike the man and his 'charitable' return.

I'm Irish and can echo those sentiments.

 

[Publicus]

Okay, for those of you who think there is something obviously wrong with Lance Armstrong using the same Livestrong brand for his LAF non-profit and for his livestrong.com for-profit business, but can't explain it, what do you think of the use of the McDonald's name for both the McDonald's for-profit chain and for the Ronald McDonald House charity?

Do you see this as the same problem? Or not? If not, what's the difference?

To be clear, I'm testing my hypothesis that the objection to using the Livestrong brand for both non-profit and for-profit organizations really amounts to nit picking rationalization that is actually the manifestation of an irrational and inexplicable dislike for the man.

Case in point:

Not a parallel situation. The more appropriate analogy is Ronald McDonald House charity, but also Ronald McDonald House for profit operation. Or if you like United Way charity, and United Way for profit business. McDonald's is a separate corporate entity that NO ONE could possibly confuse for being Ronald McDonald House charity.


It is the similar name that is causing the confusion--whether that confusion/lack of transparency is intentional is the real issue.

 

[Max Cadence]

Pardon? I have never claimed to speak for the majority of any population. Neither have I called anybody a real fan or a fake fan, for that matter. I simply conducted a quick straw poll of my peers. It is one thing to disagree with people due to a difference of opinion, it is entirely another thing to misquote and insinuate in order to make an argument. Now that is weak debating.

When I wrote, "a 'real' cyclist or 'true' fan" that is not quoting you. Single quotation marks have a different meaning than double quotation marks.
If I am not to insinuate your meanings then you need to write clearly so I don't have to. To say someone masturbates or is an erect penis has no meaning to me. And you DID write that - ""He's a w*nker" x 4 "F*cking c*ck" x 2."

 

[TheArbiter]

Really? OK. Quick straw poll of 6 cyclists in the room who have just got back from riding 80 miles. Results? "He's a w*nker" x 4 "F*cking c*ck" x 2

You're hanging around with a bad crowd. You need to dump these dead beats and start riding with real - as in understand the sport - cyclists that appreciate the greats.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

By that line of reasoning, Ninety5rpm has an "irrational and inexplicable crush" on Ronald McDonald as well. Who's irrational now?

Wow...... sorry if I hit a nerve.

I have nothing against Ronald McDonald either.

 

[Max Cadence]

Wow...... sorry if I hit a nerve.

I have nothing against Ronald McDonald either.

I'm lovin' it.

 

[LugHugger]

You're hanging around with a bad crowd. You need to dump these dead beats and start riding with real cyclists that appreciate the greats in the sport.

Oh come on! Because they don't like Armstrong they're a bad crowd? I can tell you that we all like Merckx, RdV, Sean Kelly, Stephen Roche, LeMond. True greats. Oh, and we truly appreciate good coffee

Edit: Do a Tour of the North winner and a UK cyclocross champ count as real cyclists?

 

[gjdavis60]

You are assuming LAF gets money from the .com. It has never been disclosed what their cut is, in fact the answer to that question has been conspiculously avoided. If it was anything more then a token for the use of their brand it would be trumpeted, but it isn't.

- We know that the LAF owns "Livestrong" and licenses it, but not for how much.

- We know that the LAF has taken equity in Demand Media, but we don't know how much.

- We can observe for ourselves that livestrong.com drives visitors to livestrong.org.

So the upside potential here is that a privately capitalized and successful commercial venture (livestrong.com) generates direct revenue for the foundation and turns ".com" customers and visitors into ".org" donors and advocates.

Remember, the LAF has a board of 16 directors who are responsible for the foundation. I am fairly certain that they would not be involved in this unless they anticipated a significant benefit.

Of course one could contact the foundation directly and ask them why they're doing this.

 

[scribe]

- We know that the LAF owns "Livestrong" and licenses it, but not for how much.

- We know that the LAF has taken equity in Demand Media, but we don't know how much.

- We can observe for ourselves that livestrong.com drives visitors to livestrong.org.

So the upside potential here is that a privately capitalized and successful commercial venture (livestrong.com) generates direct revenue for the foundation and turns ".com" customers and visitors into ".org" donors and advocates.

Remember, the LAF has a board of 16 directors who are responsible for the foundation. I am fairly certain that they would not be involved in this unless they anticipated a significant benefit.

Of course one could contact the foundation directly and ask them why they're doing this.

Since Lance is one of the directors, I would think that a restraining order might prevent a certain someone dedicated to a cause from contacting them.

 

[Publicus]

- We know that the LAF owns "Livestrong" and licenses it, but not for how much.

- We know that the LAF has taken equity in Demand Media, but we don't know how much.

- We can observe for ourselves that livestrong.com drives visitors to livestrong.org.

So the upside potential here is that a privately capitalized and successful commercial venture (livestrong.com) generates direct revenue for the foundation and turns ".com" customers and visitors into ".org" donors and advocates.

Remember, the LAF has a board of 16 directors who are responsible for the foundation. I am fairly certain that they would not be involved in this unless they anticipated a significant benefit.

Of course one could contact the foundation directly and ask them why they're doing this.

1. We also don't know what percentage of the licensing fees received are paid out to Lance Armstrong personally (since he owned the name LiveStrong prior to selling it to the LAF). Could be zero or it could be a significant amount. LAF doesn't have to disclose these payments separately (they are aggregated in their expense figures).

2. We do know that Lance took a "significant" stake in Demand Media, Inc. and that the company has been conservatively valued at approximately $1B.

3. We do not know any of the 16 board members motives for being a board member, let alone for approving any of the various deals that the LAF has entered into over time.


Everyone is trying to fill in the missing information based on their subjective feelings about Lance Armstrong. The reality is that we can't know much beyond LAF has entered into an exclusive licensing agreement with Demand Media, Inc. for the use of the name LiveStrong.com. As part of that transaction, Lance Armstrong was significantly enriched PERSONALLY, even though he has no ownership interest in the name LiveStrong (sold to LAF in 2005 I believe).

 

[scribe]

Not a parallel situation. The more appropriate analogy is Ronald McDonald House charity, but also Ronald McDonald House for profit operation. Or if you like United Way charity, and United Way for profit business. McDonald's is a separate corporate entity that NO ONE could possibly confuse for being Ronald McDonald House charity.


It is the similar name that is causing the confusion--whether that confusion/lack of transparency is intentional is the real issue.

If Ronald McDonald contributes a certain amount of all gross sales to it's charity, you can safely assume that the company is keeping a certain amount of profits off of the same sale. People buy things with the warm feeling that they are contributing to something good, and McDonalds keeps a nice profit.

Sorry boys. You picked a bad example to hold against Livestrong.

 

[TheArbiter]

Oh come on! Because they don't like Armstrong they're a bad crowd? I can tell you that we all like Merckx, RdV, Sean Kelly, Stephen Roche, LeMond. True greats. Oh, and we truly appreciate good coffee

Edit: Do a Tour of the North winner and a UK cyclocross champ count as real cyclists?

Well you do sometimes get this reaction amongst people who think they're the in crowd. They believe the sport's greatest rider is just something for the masses, that he is too widely known and commercial. Michael Schumacher received the same treatment from the trendy people who thought they knew it all in F1.

You should shake them out of their smugness and remind them what a priviledge it is for them to still see Armstrong riding.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

What moral rule of yours is being broken here?

It has been explained MANY times, you choose to ignore it.

Not once has the supposed moral rule that is allegedly being broken here been clearly identified. Saying "you choose not to see it" does identify the moral rule.

 

[gjdavis60]

....I have often collected money for local causes and indeed my own cycling club, however I have never received "equity" for doing so.

The equity stake is in a marketing media company, not the foundation (which also holds a stake in the same company). I think it's pretty clear that Armstrong does not and cannot profit directly from his foundation. Now, conflating the Livestrong brand with the commercial venture may (or may not) reward Armstrong directly. We don't know. But it would also reward the foundation, which explains (to me) why the foundation (a separate, autonomous entity with a 16 member board) would enter into this agreement. As I said in another post, I'm sure you could inquire directly to the foundation and get an answer straight from them.

 

[gjdavis60]

1. We also don't know what percentage of the licensing fees received are paid out to Lance Armstrong personally (since he owned the name LiveStrong prior to selling it to the LAF). Could be zero or it could be a significant amount. LAF doesn't have to disclose these payments separately (they are aggregated in their expense figures).

2. We do know that Lance took a "significant" stake in Demand Media, Inc. and that the company has been conservatively valued at approximately $1B.

3. We do not know any of the 16 board members motives for being a board member, let alone for approving any of the various deals that the LAF has entered into over time.


Everyone is trying to fill in the missing information based on their subjective feelings about Lance Armstrong. The reality is that we can't know much beyond LAF has entered into an exclusive licensing agreement with Demand Media, Inc. for the use of the name LiveStrong.com. As part of that transaction, Lance Armstrong was significantly enriched PERSONALLY, even though he has no ownership interest in the name LiveStrong (sold to LAF in 2005 I believe).

My experience with non-profit boards makes it very hard for me to believe that the LAF board would not act in their organization's best interests at all times. I actually have more faith in them than I do in Mr. Armstrong.

 

[Publicus]

If Ronald McDonald contributes a certain amount of all gross sales to it's charity, you can safely assume that the company is keeping a certain amount of profits off of the same sale. People buy things with the warm feeling that they are contributing to something good, and McDonalds keeps a nice profit.

Sorry boys. You picked a bad example to hold against Livestrong.

I've not picked an example, I've just pointed out why the McDonald/Ronald McDonald House charity parallel was a faulty one. The Ronald McDonald House Charity doesn't have a for-profit arm. Nor does LAF. It has simply licensed the name LiveStrong.com to a third party and in the process taking an ownership stake in the third party--which is perfectly legitimate consideration for an exclusive license to use the name.

The odd thing, is that Lance Armstrong, also earned an ownership stake in the third party but he does not own the rights to LiveStrong which he sold to the LAF in 2005 (or earlier). It appears he IS personally profiting from the LAF. Not strong enough an appearance to bring legal action, but it is odd enough.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The equity stake is in a marketing media company, not the foundation (which also holds a stake in the same company). I think it's pretty clear that Armstrong does not and cannot profit directly from his foundation. Now, conflating the Livestrong brand with the commercial venture may (or may not) reward Armstrong directly. We don't know. But it would also reward the foundation, which explains (to me) why the foundation (a separate, autonomous entity with a 16 member board) would enter into this agreement. As I said in another post, I'm sure you could inquire directly to the foundation and get an answer straight from them.

There is no need to ask them when he makes comments as in this [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/tdf2009/columns/story?columnist=ford_bonnie_d&id=4304698']interview[/url]with ESPN before the Tour.

Q: There is a school of thought that you're lining your pockets by putting exclusive content on Livestrong.com as opposed to Livestrong.org. What is your answer to that?

A: I haven't made a dime off Livestrong.com. Obviously the .org is the foundation, .com is a subsidiary of Demand Media. Both the foundation and myself have equity in Demand. But I think that the promotion of the .org kinds of things, the charity side of things on .com makes it the reason we do it. To me, .com is really about prevention and .org is about treatment and care and survivorship. I think if we paid closer attention to the .com side of things, ultimately a lot of people wouldn't need the .org side.

If it was just the LAF who have equity in Demand Media then it would not be an issue.