Armstrong press conference cancer announcement

whiteboytrash

Oh and while I'm at it...... you can see here how much GM donate to chairty causes..... http://www.gm.com/company/gmability..._aid/index.html

....now show me the same link on the Nike page ?

Spare me !

kennf

I'm not sure Bill could ever get street cred.

kennf

Okay, I retract my statement about Microsoft. Damnit. I should point out, though, that if Microsoft donated the $5billion, the shareholders would probably sue the board (and Bill).

homeycheese

Steve,

Let me take a whack at answering your original question.

The "reason" for the original press conference (forget the use of it commercially now) was all about business and protecting the business interests of LA at the time. He was a hot marketable commodity who was being "dumped" (my words) by his team and many of his sponsors and being "black-balled" by many of the other teams he approached. The conference (which "followed" the 96 Olympics here in ATL) was a shrewd and bold marketing strategy meant to "shore up" what was seen by many as "damaged" goods. It's no different than Tony Blair going on TV following the horrific events of 7/7 to reassure the people that everything will be ok.

It was not widely covered here in the US at the time, but was picked up by the world press and those (like Oakley) interested in sticking by his side through the ordeal to follow.

I find its use now (to promote the 10/2 line) to be a little "over the top."

DV1976

It is cynical. If you can't see it it's not my problem. He's been making money for the last 8 years playing the "cancer survivor wins the TDF" card over and over and over again. He's made way more money than any other rider in history and the reason is because he survived cancer. Kudos to the man for what he did. He commands respect and he has mine but he's milked the cow to death. This add would be great after his first win, probably after his second, possibly after his third. Not after his 7th. Everybody knows him, everybody knows what he did, he sold 50,000,000 wristbands why on earth put out a commercial entirely based on the cancer mantra. In the commercial it was assumed that everybody that would watch it they would know that he won 7 TDF. Why not the other way round? Why not emphasize the 7 TDF victories theme and let people remember on their own his cancer recovery? Why? Because IT WILL SELL MORE!!! And if you say more power to Lance for making that money then you are yourself cynical and you just don't know it...

So? Did he deserve to get AIDS? Is that what you are saying? Is the value of his work in promoting AIDS awareness diminished because he had unprotected sex? Wasn't himself a victim of someone else? Or is AIDS a just punishment for those who don't like condoms or want to have sex outside marriage? Is that what you are saying? Is Lance supposed to get rich because he survived cancer whatever means he uses in the process? Do you know what the word ethical means or you just don't get along with words that end in "-al" (cynical, ethical, e.t.c)?

kennf

My god, you need therapy. Your post is somewhat ... maniac-al. And as for your reading comprehension, I'm somewhat skeptic-al.

Do you think the phrase "Just Do It" would send the wrong message if used by Magic Johnson?

Scotty_Dog

I'm pretty sure winning 7 TDF's is the main reason he's made more money.

And by selling more, who exactly is the loser? Consumers get to buy something they want, Nike and Lance make money, and money goes to cancer research. Again, who doesn't benefit from this?

Again, he has made his money because of his 7 TDF's. Surviving terminally ill cancer certainly does not hurt his "story" as a whole, but surviving cancer is by far not the main cause of his fame. Non-famous people survive cancer too, but they don't have the power of celebrity to help benefit the cause.

Colorado Ryder

Forgotten about the yellow Livestrong bracelets? All the proceeds went to the LAF. Short memory?

whiteboytrash

You dick ! Read my earlier posts and I commend the yellow wristbands, my argument that the 10/2 range is cynical compared to this........ so you guys just read the last posts on this forum ! Stop being so lazy would ya ! Got something to say... gather your facts first then shoot... ok ?

Go on, I dare you start at the first post and go through them all..... spare me !


‘Cos you such an idiot I’ll cut and paste my former post for your review….



“I see the wristbands as fine... Nike paid for the production and advertising of them and ALL money was donated to LAF... it was a win win.... people came into Nike stores to purchase the wristband and their logo appeared on the band.... but to sell cycling jersey's and Nike Shoes in the 10/2 range and make the statement that $1 from every sale goes to LAF is a little condescending considering they cost $100 a piece in addition to Nike’s policy of making its goods in countries where labour is very very very very very cheap ! But like you say what price can you put on awareness ?”

Scotty_Dog

Actually, this is your original argument:
To me, this reads as though you believe Nike profits $99 for every pair of $100 trainers, yet they only donate $1. You then actually mention Nike making a 99% profit. If your nitwitted little brain actually believes that Nike makes a profit of $99 for every $100 in sales, you have completely lost your mind. Using this logic, I guess you believe production costs, advertising and marketing, shipping, and distributor mark-up amount to $00, while Lance and a Nike executive run home and cash their $49.50 paychecks.

You really should think before you post.

rejobako

Respectfully, I'm not sure you understand what cynical is. To be "cynical" means to be contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives. I think that describes your post quite accurately. Those opposing you on this issue may be less distrustful than you would prefer, but they are not cynics.

whiteboytrash

Do you know what ‘profit’ is ? Check your accountancy terminologies before you shoot your overacting mouth off.... but I guess one of those un-educated rednecks who didn’t learn this stuff... you fool look it up ! (http://money.profigroup.com/terms/profit.html) So they still make 99% profit after the $1 is taken out for the LAF ! (note I didn't state they make $99 from every pair of trainers but 99% profit - of which expenses will be deducted)

The defence counsel rests its case. No need for the jury to consider the verdict as the judge has thrown SD's claims out with a lack of a convincing argument. Spare me !

Scotty_Dog

Thanks for proving my argument! Your original post referenced the sale of a $100 pair of trainers, with $1 going to LAF. You then went on to say that was a 99% profit. Where exactly did you subtract the expenses, or do the expenses add up to be $00?

Using the profit equation and your original numbers:
$99 Income(less $1 to LAF) - Expenses = $99 Profit (99% of the $100 sales price)
So in your fantasy world,
Expenses = $00

You blatantly disregarded any expenses to make your argument of 99% profit seem valid.

Case closed.

Scotty_Dog

I see you edited your post quite a bit before I finished my last reply. Backtracking are we?