Livestrong did you know ...

[Ninety5rpm]

You have provided nothing to explain why it is ok to exploit the assets of a non profit for personal gain. Your McDonald's analogy only succeed in confirming your inability to grasp the issue and did nothing to prove your point.

The only purpose of the McDonald's analogy/question was to help me try to understand your point, since you were not explaining it.

Yes, I have provided nothing to explain why it is ok to exploit the assets of a non profit for personal gain. I have also not provided anything to explain why it's okay to cross the fingers on both of my hands at the same time. The onus is on whoever claims it's not okay to do that to explain why it's not okay.

You're the one asserting that what LA is doing is morally wrong. The onus is on you to show it.

You have provided nothing to explain why it is NOT ok to exploit the assets of a non profit for personal gain. If the Red Cross decided to buy my company's computing services, what, I'm supposed to turn over my profits from that deal to charity so as not to "exploit the assets of a non profit for personal gain"? Or am I supposed to refuse to deal with them at all?

The logical conclusion of what you appear to be arguing is that no one should make a profit in any business deal involving a non profit. That is absurd.

 

[Publicus]

Ah, the inherently self-destructive moral philosophy of altruism rears its ugly head. There is no winning with altruism, by definition. That would be selfish, and wrong. Altruism is contrary to human nature, and life in general.

Of course his actions are not purely altruistic. So what? No behavior is. Show me human behavior that you think is purely altruistic, and I'll show you a situation you haven't analyzed very well (or maybe a suicide, but even suicide is rarely purely altruistic).



Right. So where is the lie? Where is the immorality?

I think your beef is with Lance Armstrong. I didn't tell him to position himself and his dealings with the LAF, etc., as being altruistic (raising cancer awareness) or to claim that he hasn't made a dime. These are logical implications of his statements, whether you love him or hate him.

Whether or not he's actually recorded a profit from the sale of the stock is immaterial to the question of whether or not he has received VALUE in connection with the Livestrong.com website. He has. If he hadn't, the deal would be VOIDABLE under applicable state contract law for lack of consideration. But I conceded the technical point that he has not recognized a gain on the sale of the securities.

 

[Publicus]

The only purpose of the McDonald's analogy/question was to help me try to understand your point, since you were not explaining it.

Yes, I have provided nothing to explain why it is ok to exploit the assets of a non profit for personal gain. I have also not provided anything to explain why it's okay to cross the fingers on both of my hands at the same time. The onus is on whoever claims it's not okay to do that to explain why it's not okay.

You're the one asserting that what LA is doing is morally wrong. The onus is on you to show it.

You have provided nothing to explain why it is NOT ok to exploit the assets of a non profit for personal gain. If the Red Cross decided to buy my company's computing services, what, I'm supposed to turn over my profits from that deal to charity so as not to "exploit the assets of a non profit for personal gain"? Or am I supposed to refuse to deal with them at all?

The logical conclusion of what you appear to be arguing is that no one should make a profit in any business deal involving a non profit. That is absurd.

I guess the best comparison is the Jerry Lewis Tele-a-thons. If it turned out that Jerry Lewis was earning a percentage of every commercial sold during the show and a percentage of the donations, while technically legal, would that be problematic to you?

 

[Eva Maria]

The only purpose of the McDonald's analogy/question was to help me try to understand your point, since you were not explaining it.

Yes, I have provided nothing to explain why it is ok to exploit the assets of a non profit for personal gain. I have also not provided anything to explain why it's okay to cross the fingers on both of my hands at the same time. The onus is on whoever claims it's not okay to do that to explain why it's not okay.

You're the one asserting that what LA is doing is morally wrong. The onus is on you to show it.

You have provided nothing to explain why it is NOT ok to exploit the assets of a non profit for personal gain. If the Red Cross decided to buy my company's computing services, what, I'm supposed to turn over my profits from that deal to charity so as not to "exploit the assets of a non profit for personal gain"? Or am I supposed to refuse to deal with them at all?

The logical conclusion of what you appear to be arguing is that no one should make a profit in any business deal involving a non profit. That is absurd.

It has been explained over and over on this thread. I cannot help it if your comprehension skills are limited.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

It has been explained over and over on this thread. I cannot help it if your comprehension skills are limited.

Yeah, sorry, my IQ is below 200.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I guess the best comparison is the Jerry Lewis Tele-a-thons. If it turned out that Jerry Lewis was earning a percentage of every commercial sold during the show and a percentage of the donations, while technically legal, would that be problematic to you?

Well, if LA was earning a percentage of the donations to LAF, or a percentage of the ads on laf.org or livestrong.org, then whether I'd have a problem with your above scenario would be relevant.

If Jerry Lewis owned an interest in the production company that put on the show, and profited from that (by selling ads or whatever), I would not have a problem with that.

 

[Digger]

Well, if LA was earning a percentage of the donations to LAF, or a percentage of the ads on laf.org or livestrong.org, then whether I'd have a problem with your above scenario would be relevant.

If Jerry Lewis owned an interest in the production company that put on the show, and profited from that (by selling ads or whatever), I would not have a problem with that.

Do you think anyone whatsoever has gone into livestrong.com instead of livestrong.org? accidentally

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Do you think anyone whatsoever has gone into livestrong.com instead of livestrong.org? accidentally

Almost certainly.

 

[Publicus]

Well, if LA was earning a percentage of the donations to LAF, or a percentage of the ads on laf.org or livestrong.org, then whether I'd have a problem with your above scenario would be relevant.

If Jerry Lewis owned an interest in the production company that put on the show, and profited from that (by selling ads or whatever), I would not have a problem with that.

Of course you wouldn't. Apparently, you'd also not have a problem if Jerry was telling you that he didn't earn any money from the show.

 

[Digger]

Almost certainly.

Do you accept that demand media's revenue is somewhat dependent on advertising from said website?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Do you accept that demand media's revenue is somewhat dependent on advertising from said website?

Yes.

Ah, so, people who want to find cancer survivorship information might find themselves at livestrong.com instead of livestrong.org, and click on an ad there, thus making money for Demand and ultimately it's stakeholders, LAF as well as LA. Oh, brother. That's what this is all about?

Now who is hurt when this happens?

 

[RightWingNutJob]

What I want to know is who on here is going to try and sue the guy?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

What I want to know is who on here is going to try and sue the guy?

Right, and for what exactly?

Where is the damage?

So because Lance Armstrong neglected to account for the people looking for livestrong.org and finding livestrong.com instead, and clicking an ad on there, he is liar for saying he doesn't make a dime? This isn't picking nits. It's picking hairs of nits.

 

[Publicus]

Right, and for what exactly?

Where is the damage?

So because Lance Armstrong neglected to account for the people looking for livestrong.org and finding livestrong.com instead, and clicking an ad on there, he is liar for saying he doesn't make a dime? This isn't picking nits. It's picking hairs of nits.

No one. The question is how many people would STOP frequenting LiveStrong.com, or viewing his videos, etc., if they knew they were not just promoting cancer awarness and raising money for the LAF, but also personally enriching him.

 

[Digger]

Yes.

Ah, so, people who want to find cancer survivorship information might find themselves at livestrong.com instead of livestrong.org, and click on an ad there, thus making money for Demand and ultimately it's stakeholders, LAF as well as LA. Oh, brother. That's what this is all about?

Now who is hurt when this happens?

No that's not what it's about - but thanks for the pre-emptive response on my behalf.
Agree that increased web page visits equals increased advertisements from companies?

 

[gjdavis60]

The sale of securities, even of a private company, are governed by the Securities Act, as well as applicable state securities laws (Blue Sky).

As for my read of the transaction, yes I pretty much agree with your assessment. I think what troubles people is the confusingly similar names (.com vs .org), the fact that you aren't aware it is Demand Media that you are engaging instead of the LAF. And arguably that is by design to maximize the return of all of the parties involved. Lance's claims/posturing that he is not making money though is what I find disconcerting. He's not doing anything illegal, but I get the sense that he is uncomfortable publicly acknowledging that he's getting a cut from these ventures as well.

So even in something as "informal" as a press release there would be some requirements about how the transaction was characterized?

I agree that some see the conflation of the two livestrongs as troubling, although I think the intent is not to engage in duplicity, but to expand the livestrong brand into something much broader than it is today, and to leverage private capital and for-profit revenue models to provide a return to investors while driving the philanthropic mission to the next level.

If the venture is successful, and if the LAF benefits significantly from it, even if others make some money (even if one of them is LA), I think it is a smart and ethical way to fund a philanthropic cause. From the non-profit perspective, this is the kind of creative strategy we dream about. It is money we would not be able to raise otherwise, and it holds the possibility of making private philanthropy a much more relevant force in society.

Certainly, lying, cheating, or stealing are not acceptable parts of this strategy. But they don't need to be.

I agree that Armstrong should be up front about his relationships. Because of the way he has chosen to identify himself with the cause, it is impossible to separate Armstrong the athlete from Armstrong the philanthropist from Armstrong the businessman, and those roles intersect often, and sometimes with uncomfortable appearances. But it does no one any good if he is deceptive about it. Frankly if I were him I would not feel the need to apologize for raising an amount close to my net worth for charity. But that's just me.

Thanks for your help with the securities law clarifications.

 

[scribe]

Sigh. All of you who have an issue with livestrong.org/livestrong.com thing can't even seem to agree on what the issue is. Do any two of you even agree with each other?

Not sure who you are talking about. But I can tell you that I am convinced Lance is the Hamburgler.

 

[scribe]

As you've framed it, you are suggesting the issue is whether he is defrauding the LAF. That's the only way he could be deemed to be "draining money stipulated for use in the fight against cancer." But I think that your view is overly narrow.

Is he being personally enriched by the LAF? I think we have enough evidence to answer that question in the affirmative. One could certainly argue that there was NO REASON for Demand Media to offer Lance Armstrong stock, since, again, Lance has NO OWNERSHIP INTEREST/RIGHTS to the name/trademark "LiveStrong."

Now he has stock in Demand Media? I thought they hadn't went public yet.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

No one. The question is how many people would STOP frequenting LiveStrong.com, or viewing his videos, etc., if they knew they were not just promoting cancer awarness and raising money for the LAF, but also personally enriching him.

You mean who besides the Lance haters on this forum?

I don't know how to estimate the Lance hater population on Earth, but I suspect those who would choose to not use the services on livestrong.com or watch his videos simply because they found out it "enriches" him must all be from this population. Who else would not want to spend their money, or click on a link, that they otherwise were willing to spend or click, only because they found out that doing so contributes to "enriching" Lance Armstrong?

How much more pathetic can this get?

 

[Publicus]

So even in something as "informal" as a press release there would be some requirements about how the transaction was characterized?

I agree that some see the conflation of the two livestrongs as troubling, although I think the intent is not to engage in duplicity, but to expand the livestrong brand into something much broader than it is today, and to leverage private capital and for-profit revenue models to provide a return to investors while driving the philanthropic mission to the next level.

If the venture is successful, and if the LAF benefits significantly from it, even if others make some money (even if one of them is LA), I think it is a smart and ethical way to fund a philanthropic cause. From the non-profit perspective, this is the kind of creative strategy we dream about. It is money we would not be able to raise otherwise, and it holds the possibility of making private philanthropy a much more relevant force in society.

Certainly, lying, cheating, or stealing are not acceptable parts of this strategy. But they don't need to be.

I agree that Armstrong should be up front about his relationships. Because of the way he has chosen to identify himself with the cause, it is impossible to separate Armstrong the athlete from Armstrong the philanthropist from Armstrong the businessman, and those roles intersect often, and sometimes with uncomfortable appearances. But it does no one any good if he is deceptive about it. Frankly if I were him I would not feel the need to apologize for raising an amount close to my net worth for charity. But that's just me.

Thanks for your help with the securities law clarifications.

Put it this way, if Lance invested capital in the company why would that be relevant to a disclosure about the licensing arrangement? It wouldn't be. They've linked Lance's equity stake with the licensing arrangement which gives you all the evidence you need.

As for this entire situation, I don't think anyone begrudges the man making a dollar. I think it is more optics than anything else. But in the world of philanthropy/charity those optics matter. I'd be less inclined to give me or frequent his website if I knew it personally enriched him--but that's my personal opinion.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

No that's not what it's about - but thanks for the pre-emptive response on my behalf.

Sorry, just trying to cut to the chase...

Agree that increased web page visits equals increased advertisements from companies?

Sure, on average, undoubtedly.

 

[Publicus]

You mean who besides the Lance haters on this forum?

I don't know how to estimate the Lance hater population on Earth, but I suspect those who would choose to not use the services on livestrong.com or watch his videos simply because they found out it "enriches" him must all be from this population. Who else would not want to spend their money, or click on a link, that they otherwise were willing to spend or click, only because they found out that doing so contributes to "enriching" Lance Armstrong?

How much more pathetic can this get?

It has nothing to do with hating Lance Armstrong. I personally wouldn't frequent the website to help make him wealthier. IMO, my time would be better spent on the American Cancer Society's website or other cancer-related sites than Lance's. Your mileage clearer varies.

What I find pathetic is that you can fathom why folks would find this problematic. I mean some people see no problem with giving money to tv evangelist and watching their shows. I do--because there are more effective ways to give money to help worthy causes without personally enriching the tv evangelist in the process. I don't hate the tv evangelist or the people who watch their shows and give money. **And this is not intended to be disparaging to anyone. Just offered as an example of why someone would not frequent a particular charity or organization over another**

 

[Publicus]

Now he has stock in Demand Media? I thought they hadn't went public yet.

They haven't. They are still a corporation which divides its ownership interest up into common stock. The fact that the company hasn't gone public yet only has bearing on the liquidity of his investment.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

It has nothing to do with hating Lance Armstrong. I personally wouldn't frequent the website to help make him wealthier. IMO, my time would be better spent on the American Cancer Society's website or other cancer-related sites than Lance's. Your mileage clearer varies.

I wouldn't frequent the website to make him wealthier either. I would frequent the website to, for example, help me put together a diet and exercise program that would help me lose weight and get in shape. In fact, I did do that.

What I find pathetic is that you can fathom why folks would find this problematic. I mean some people see no problem with giving money to tv evangelist and watching their shows. I do--because there are more effective ways to give money to help worthy causes without personally enriching the tv evangelist in the process. I don't hate the tv evangelist or the people who watch their shows and give money. **And this is not intended to be disparaging to anyone. Just offered as an example of why someone would not frequent a particular charity or organization over another**

Huh? When you click on a livestrong.com ad, or pay a livestrong.com fee, you don't believe you're donating to cancer research. You're paying for a service, or servicing ads that are paying for your service. Of course those who provide the service make money from that. What is the problem? Or are we back to the guy who think's he's on livestrong.org researching his cancer while he is calculating his BMI at livestrong.com and clicks on an ad on that page?

 

[Publicus]

I wouldn't frequent the website to make him wealthier either. I would frequent the website to, for example, help me put together a diet and exercise program that would help me lose weight and get in shape. In fact, I did do that.


Huh? When you click on a livestrong.com ad, or pay a livestrong.com fee, you don't believe you're donating to cancer research. You're paying for a service, or servicing ads that are paying for your service. Of course those who provide the service make money from that. What is the problem? Or are we back to the guy who think's he's on livestrong.org researching his cancer while he is calculating his BMI at livestrong.com and clicks on an ad on that page?

I'm assuming site volume equals page views equals advertising dollars. If that's not the model then traffic volume is moot, only click-throughs (and anyone buying services through the site) matter. EDIT: And I assume that volume is the key component and the reason why Lance drives folks to the site.

As for why you visit the site . . . more power to you. Again, I can obtain those services elsewhere without personally enriching him under the guise of raising cancer awareness or whatever else motivates you or anyone else to frequent the site. That doesn't make me a hater, any more than you frequenting the site makes you a fan boy/Lance-lover.