True... However, the question should be how much additional funds it will generate for Nike... Because if the example of the wristband is used as a criterion Nike just hit the jackpot... A dollar a pair will be just a fraction of their additional earnings.Still though what annoys me most is the ad... I could swallow the profits thing. But the ad should be banned. Honestly...cleff said:
DV1976 said:True... However, the question should be how much additional funds it will generate for Nike... Because if the example of the wristband is used as a criterion Nike just hit the jackpot... A dollar a pair will be just a fraction of their additional earnings.Still though what annoys me most is the ad... I could swallow the profits thing. But the ad should be banned. Honestly...
Scotty_Dog said:I wasn't at all involved with cycling in 1996, but I distinctly remember the announcements that Lance Armstrong had been diagnosed with cancer.
I'd like you to prove your guarantee that 99/100 Americans did not know who he was.
As stated above, he was the #1 ranked US cyclist at the time and therefore was well known in the cycling world.
) that before the press conference 99.5% of Americans didn't know who he was!
whiteboytrash said:
If this is true, I'll pay very good money to get a glimpse of Nike's business model. Because any company that profits 99% of the final sales price has really mastered how to cut down on production costs, marketing, shipping, and distributor mark-up. I sense a major revolution in the sales world.whiteboytrash said:
DV1976 said:
DV1976 said:
I confess I'm not particularly impressed with the news that only $1 is going to cancer research from the sale of those shoes, and I'm sure Nike is raking it in . . . although I've yet to see any report confirming your supposition that Armstrong is pocketing profits as well.whiteboytrash said:
Excellent points. Celebrities the world over use their images to sell products without donating a dime to charity and no one bats an eye. But Nike sets up a relationship with Armstrong which raises awareness, offers some money to charity, yet still allows for corporate profit, and they are somehow to be vilified for "profiting from Armstrong's status as a cancer victim."kennf said:
Ah emmm..... The Microsoft chairman recently donated 5 billion US dollars ! to Heath causes (including cancer & HIV) which is the worlds largest single donation ! Also note that he did not include the word Microsoft in the donation as it all came from the William H Gates Foundation....... now tell me what your argument is ? See where the cynicism comes from….. it for the cause not the company..... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/your_money/360770.stm)kennf said:
See details here under 10/2 icon.... http://www.nike.com/wearyellow/main.html - in small print mentions the $1 donation !rejobako said:
Oh and while I'm at it...... you can see here how much GM donate to chairty causes..... http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/community/global_aid/index.htmlkennf said:
Steve,steve26 said:
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...kennf said:
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)?
I'm pretty sure winning 7 TDF's is the main reason he's made more money.DV1976 said:
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?DV1976 said:
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.DV1976 said:
Forgotten about the yellow Livestrong bracelets? All the proceeds went to the LAF. Short memory?whiteboytrash said:
Colorado Ryder said:
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.whiteboytrash said:
