OWN Oprah and Lance-spoilers (Read 328 times)

 

Except that the Foundations doesn't give ANY money to research, and hasn't in many years.  Most of it is spend on "awareness".

Not "awareness" so much as support to survivors and people in cancer recovery, ie the name of the charity.

 

Starting about page 7, a breakdown of Livestrong's expenses.  The bulk of the money goes to PR, marketing, and advertising.  Not a whole lot goes to programs that actually support patients or their families.

I can't stand that about a lot of charities in modern times.  It seems more acceptable in modern times for a HUGE amount of the money coming into many big charities goes toward "Administrative Costs" and the like, with little making it out the other end to the very folks the charity claims to support.

.

 

Its called lying.

Lance doesn't lie! How dare you insinuate that?! His lawyers will be in touch shortly.

 

Starting about page 7, a breakdown of Livestrong's expenses.  The bulk of the money goes to PR, marketing, and advertising.  Not a whole lot goes to programs that actually support patients or their families.

So?  LiveStrong is a lobbying organization.  PR and marketing are its core mission and it has been highly effective.  We say "who isn't aware of cancer?" but the question should be how do we prioritize cancer as a health issue, how do we deal with people who have been affected by cancer?  For-profit companies spend lots of money on PR and marketing for a reason: it works.  In this case, it helps influence where charitable dollars are directed, it influences where governments spend their health-care dollars, and it influences the public perception of cancer victims.

I understand that Lance is an incredibly polarizing figure and that his detractors hate everything he touches and I cannot say that he does not deserve the backlash that he is enduring.  But the LiveStrong foundation has been an unqualified success, even if it was LA's idea.      

 

I must be missing something.  Using the article you linked to it states "a surprising $4.2 million of that went straight to advertising, including large expenditures for banner ads and optimal search-engine placement" which represents 5% of total revenue.  That seems reasonable to me and I don't know how you could conclude it represents a bulk of the money.

 

Your own article also states "Now AIP [American Institute of Philanthropy] gives Livestrong an A-minus, while Charity Navigator rates it three stars out of four."

 

Are you saying Livestrong is not a worthwhile endeavor?  I would find that hard to believe.  Nice work at misdirecting though.

Of course you're missing the fact that Lance is a jerk and therefore LiveStrong sucks (and Sheryl Crow was a member of MilliVanilli).

 

I must be missing something.  Using the article you linked to it states "a surprising $4.2 million of that went straight to advertising, including large expenditures for banner ads and optimal search-engine placement" which represents 5% of total revenue.  That seems reasonable to me and I don't know how you could conclude it represents a bulk of the money.

 

Your own article also states "Now AIP [American Institute of Philanthropy] gives Livestrong an A-minus, while Charity Navigator rates it three stars out of four."

 

Are you saying Livestrong is not a worthwhile endeavor?  I would find that hard to believe.  Nice work at misdirecting though.

You're right, you did miss something.  Several of them.  But given the attitude, you can figure it out on your own.  

Lance Armstrong Admits To Using Performance-Enhancing Drugs To Show Remorse