will sponsors drop lance, when ?

[Tubeless]

"He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice..."

I am not really surprised that some haters like these few irrelevant bits out of the depth of the internet and that they will take it as proof that Nissan really dropped Lance.

A sponsor switching, for whatever reason, its ad character from Armstrong to someone else. The only reason given by an article author for a high profile news site, and not affiliated with the cycling industry was that this was due to the ongoing doping controversy.

Can you find evidence to the contrary from the depths of the internet that Nissan is still sticking with Lance?

 

[python]

as the thread starter i really hope this is the beginning of sponsors exodus.

fraud charges and the mainstream media negative exposure of late can't be far off of the advertising managers minds.

 

[Cobblestoned]

A sponsor switching, for whatever reason, its ad character from Armstrong to someone else. The only reason given by an article author for a high profile news site, and not affiliated with the cycling industry was that this was due to the ongoing doping controversy.

Can you find evidence to the contrary from the depths of the internet that Nissan is still sticking with Lance?

No no, my friend. It doesn't work like that.
YOU have to prove that the sponsor SWITCHED! to an icebear instead of THE GREAT LANCE ARMSCHTRONG, that Lance was REPLACED! by an icebear, and that Nissan dropped Lord Lance.

You really believe that ? Well as I said, I am not surprised - but it's entertaining anyway.

 

[Cloxxki]

Would recent sponsors than USPS have bargained less strict bad-publicity clauses in their Lance contracts?

 

[Tubeless]

No no, my friend. It doesn't work like that.
YOU have to prove that the sponsor SWITCHED! to an icebear instead of THE GREAT LANCE ARMSCHTRONG, that Lance was REPLACED! by an icebear, and that Nissan dropped Lord Lance.

You really believe that ? Well as I said, I am not surprised - but it's entertaining anyway.

A poster found a credible article suggesting Lance is being unseated at Nissan by a polar bear. You could speculate that this was

- a planned manuever all along, Lance's contract had run its course
- a temporary switch and Lance will be back soon advertising Nissan Leaf
- a misinterpretation, as Nissan is running both polar bear and Lance ads at the same time

But without any news to the contrary, that would be baseless speculation - and all we're left with is the CNET piece, its conclusion about the reasons for the switch and the linked video of the actual ad.

Tell me what logic you makes you conclude this is irrelevant? And why I would have to prove anthing else regarding the apparent end of Nissan sponsorship of your hero?

 

[Oldman]

A poster found a credible article suggesting Lance is being unseated at Nissan by a polar bear. You could speculate that this was

- a planned manuever all along, Lance's contract had run its course
- a temporary switch and Lance will be back soon advertising Nissan Leaf
- a misinterpretation, as Nissan is running both polar bear and Lance ads at the same time

But without any news to the contrary, that would be baseless speculation - and all we're left with is the CNET piece, its conclusion about the reasons for the switch and the linked video of the actual ad.

Tell me what logic you makes you conclude this is irrelevant? And why I would have to prove anthing else regarding the apparent end of Nissan sponsorship of your hero?

Recent Michelob Ultra adds on NFL broadcasts were sans Lance as well. Some where he previously appeared in a social setting have been editted.

 

[Cal_Joe]

A poster found a credible article suggesting Lance is being unseated at Nissan by a polar bear. You could speculate that this was

- a planned manuever all along, Lance's contract had run its course
- a temporary switch and Lance will be back soon advertising Nissan Leaf
- a misinterpretation, as Nissan is running both polar bear and Lance ads at the same time

But without any news to the contrary, that would be baseless speculation - and all we're left with is the CNET piece, its conclusion about the reasons for the switch and the linked video of the actual ad.

Tell me what logic you makes you conclude this is irrelevant? And why I would have to prove anthing else regarding the apparent end of Nissan sponsorship of your hero?

See the bolded parts. Actually your post is one of the better attempts I have ever seen in postulating a position based on erroneous assumptions.

Credible - CNET reports on technology. They report on things such as electric cars. They do not cover cycling or report on advertisement cycles/sponsor deals/ and the like.

Suggesting - I am surprised you did not back this up. The actual quote from the article is -

Or perhaps a polar bear will never be accused of doing naughty things at the Tour de France.

The article also takes a swipe at Madonna - maybe that should tell you something about the writer and CNET and their credibility?

I like how the baseless speculation part is turned inside out. Bravo. Your sentence

But without any news to the contrary

sets a new standard, not for asking someone to disprove a negative, but for insisting that a baseless speculation is valid, and can only be countered by an equally speculative denial. Again, Bravo.

Conclusion? Maybe we are not reading the same article. It would help the thread if you could post a quote re the conclusions, and perhaps add some of your thoughts regarding the validity of the posted conclusions.

I remain stunned at the logic and interpretive skills displayed in your post.

 

[Polish]

IceBear best not get too overconfident in his current starring role.
Nissan commercial fame is transitory at best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKO-tZGuFDg
.
.
.

 

[Tubeless]

See the bolded parts. Actually your post is one of the better attempts I have ever seen in postulating a position based on erroneous assumptions.

Credible - CNET reports on technology. They report on things such as electric cars. They do not cover cycling or report on advertisement cycles/sponsor deals/ and the like.

Suggesting - I am surprised you did not back this up. The actual quote from the article is -

The article also takes a swipe at Madonna - maybe that should tell you something about the writer and CNET and their credibility?

I like how the baseless speculation part is turned inside out. Bravo. Your sentence

sets a new standard, not for asking someone to disprove a negative, but for insisting that a baseless speculation is valid, and can only be countered by an equally speculative denial. Again, Bravo.

Conclusion? Maybe we are not reading the same article. It would help the thread if you could post a quote re the conclusions, and perhaps add some of your thoughts regarding the validity of the posted conclusions.

I remain stunned at the logic and interpretive skills displayed in your post.

CNET is owned by CBS, is a major news outlet, and has credibility in reporting news with a reasonable level of accuracy. There's nothing unusual about the fact that CNET or some other non-cycling publication is reporting that Armstong has the been replaced as public face for the Nissan Leaf - a hybrid car which is a technology trend CNET follows on a regular basis.

If you don't like the style of the writing in the news piece, the article serves us the new Nissan Leaf ad. Compare that to the old one featuring Armstrong and you can draw your own conclusion about the change.

I was trying to help 'stoned make sense of his own cryptic post and offered some reasonable points of doubt that could be used against this article. You got confused by who was speculating senselessly?

Other than that, I am not sure what point you're trying to make. This thread is about commercial sponsors of Armstrong that may be on the verge of dropping him as their spokesperson / public face - Nissan certainly appears to have taken that step. Do you disagree with that apparent outcome?

 

[Cal_Joe]

CNET is owned by CBS, is a major news outlet, and has credibility in reporting news with a reasonable level of accuracy. There's nothing unusual about the fact that CNET or some other non-cycling publication is reporting that Armstong has the been replaced as public face for the Nissan Leaf - a hybrid car which is a technology trend CNET follows on a regular basis.

If you don't like the style of the writing in the news piece, the article serves us the new Nissan Leaf ad. Compare that to the old one featuring Armstrong and you can draw your own conclusion about the change.

I was trying to help 'stoned make sense of his own cryptic post and offered some reasonable points of doubt that could be used against this article. You got confused by who was speculating senselessly?

Other than that, I am not sure what point you're trying to make. This thread is about commercial sponsors of Armstrong that may be on the verge of dropping him as their spokesperson / public face - Nissan certainly appears to have taken that step. Do you disagree with that apparent outcome?

CNET may be owned by CBS, but they totally gutted staff quite a while ago. The "article" was written by a "blogger" who "brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world" and "is not an employee of CNET."

Not sure where you reached the conclusion (from the article) that Nissan dropped LA based on FDA and/or whistleblower legal issues.

The thing that we are seeing is that many info sources (credible/established, bloggers, whoever) are becoming more aware of LA's current issues and that will be appearing in many articles/blogs/WWN/etc.

My issue is that the CNET article reference has no basis in fact - the author is tossing out a joke based on the LA debacle popping up in the current public consciousness.

"Nissan certainly appears to have taken that step" - as far as I interpret that statement, it appears to be unsubstantiated by anything at this point. "Appears" is definitely an opinion; I myself would base an opinion on that issue on more than a blogger puff piece.

 

[Tubeless]

CNET may be owned by CBS, but they totally gutted staff quite a while ago. The "article" was written by a "blogger" who "brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world" and "is not an employee of CNET."

Not sure where you reached the conclusion (from the article) that Nissan dropped LA based on FDA and/or whistleblower legal issues.

The thing that we are seeing is that many info sources (credible/established, bloggers, whoever) are becoming more aware of LA's current issues and that will be appearing in many articles/blogs/WWN/etc.

My issue is that the CNET article reference has no basis in fact - the author is tossing out a joke based on the LA debacle popping up in the current public consciousness.

"Nissan certainly appears to have taken that step" - as far as I interpret that statement, it appears to be unsubstantiated by anything at this point. "Appears" is definitely an opinion; I myself would base an opinion on that issue on more than a blogger puff piece.

Nissan is unlikley to publicly confirm its reasons for a switch from Armstrong to a polar bear - but it is not a stretch to conclude it's related to the present negative publicicity about the rider. The fact that CNET's editorial / legal dept allowed the contributing writer's own similar speculation to stay in the article when reviewing this piece means the magazine did not disagree with the conclusion, however humorously it was written.

If Armstrong used to appear on Nissan ads and no longer does, that news alone is what we've been looking for as a sign that sponsors are starting to bolt. Oldman reported a few posts ago that the same has now happened with Michelob. Radioshack, Nike, Trek, Oakley will be the last to leave him.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Nissan is unlikley to publicly confirm its reasons for a switch from Armstrong to a polar bear - but it is not a stretch to conclude it's related to the present negative publicicity about the rider. The fact that CNET's editorial / legal dept allowed the contributing writer's own similar speculation to stay in the article when reviewing this piece means the magazine did not disagree with the conclusion, however humorously it was written.

If Armstrong used to appear on Nissan ads and no longer does, that news alone is what we've been looking for as a sign that sponsors are starting to bolt. Oldman reported a few posts ago that the same has now happened with Michelob. Radioshack, Nike, Trek, Oakley will be the last to leave him.

If the bolded part is your wishlist re Nissan, good for you. Agreed that if the speculations in this thread turn out to have some basis in reality, Nissan will most likely never comment on it.

Stretching for conclusions is fun. Speculation is interesting. Mindreading of the CNET legal department is totally off the wall, especially since there is no conclusion in the blog puff piece. I think in my previous post I asked if you could post a quote of the "conclusion". I am confused re your concept of a conclusion.

No need to look for "signs" that sponsors will bolt. They tend to do things quietly unless hammered by the press (see that golfer Woods). Sponsors drop people and start up a new ad campaign that focuses on their products, not their previous ads - sometimes based on personalities, or contracts, or whatever.

It still just cracks me up that the first post about the CNET "article" did not appear to come under any scrutiny regarding the blog piece or the blogger or his background.

 

[Tubeless]

If the bolded part is your wishlist re Nissan, good for you. Agreed that if the speculations in this thread turn out to have some basis in reality, Nissan will most likely never comment on it.

Stretching for conclusions is fun. Speculation is interesting. Mindreading of the CNET legal department is totally off the wall, especially since there is no conclusion in the blog puff piece. I think in my previous post I asked if you could post a quote of the "conclusion". I am confused re your concept of a conclusion.

No need to look for "signs" that sponsors will bolt. They tend to do things quietly unless hammered by the press (see that golfer Woods). Sponsors drop people and start up a new ad campaign that focuses on their products, not their previous ads - sometimes based on personalities, or contracts, or whatever.

It still just cracks me up that the first post about the CNET "article" did not appear to come under any scrutiny regarding the blog piece or the blogger or his background.

Ok if it satisfies your apparent obsession to objectivity, here's a rewritten analysis of what we know - leaving out the speculation part that you so detest. I am making no conclusion, leaving each reader to form their own.

_____________________________________________________________

In this autoblog piece, Nissan says they're sticking with Armstrong. Nissan's new marketing boss, Jon Brancheau, admitted that although Armstrong has received a significant amount of negative press, "This is something we'll continue to monitor, but the claims are all unsubstantiated up to this point."

You can also watch the Nissan Leaf ad featuring the rider:

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/09/0...lance-armstrong-as-leafs-spokesperson-despit/

Nissan-USA web site is still featuring Lance, although the material talking about his prep for Tour de France indicates this was created a while back and has not since been updated.

http://www.nissanusa.com/lance/index.html?tool=home.lance_armstrong.link

The CNET piece shows a new ad for Nissan Leaf, featuring a polar bear and no cyclists. CNET has a lot of syndication, both domestic and international, so the headline "Nissan Leaf replaces Armstrong with bear" has spread far a widely, whatever the reasons for Nissan's shift of their ad direction.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20016024-71.html

 

[Black-Balled]

Logic flaw. Impossible to prove those negatives.

Sponsors will stick by him as long as they make money off him.

Can you demonstrate that Trek has not sold more bikes because of LA?

Can you demonstrate that Nike has not sold more cycling gear because of LA?

Can you demonstrate that USPS didn't raise their name recognition in europe when he was winning the Tour?

The answer is no to all three questions. They got exactly what they paid for, increased brand awareness and sales because they had LA doing ads and winning the Tour with their logos all over him.

In a fraud case, one must prove that through the deception, a party suffered some form of harm. In this case, it is hard to argue that their is an injured party who did not get what they paid for.

 

[Tubeless]

Recent Michelob Ultra adds on NFL broadcasts were sans Lance as well. Some where he previously appeared in a social setting have been editted.

Here's some interesting data for this discussion (original source: Associated Press).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38540813

List of Armstrong's own commercial sponsors:

Nike Inc., RadioShack Corp., Oakley sunglasses, 24-hour Fitness, Nissan, Anheuser-Busch InBev's Michelob Ultra, FRS energy drinks and Trek bikes.

Annual value of Armstrong's endorsements:

Year ending June 2009: $20 million
Year ending June 2005: $28 million

 

[Cobblestoned]

**** edited by mod *****

 

[python]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Cobblestoned]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[MacRoadie]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Dr. Maserati]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Cobblestoned]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[MacRoadie]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Cobblestoned]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Cobblestoned]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Dr. Maserati]

*** edited by mod ***