Team Canada (Women) to wear Nike / Livestrong jerseys?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Really?

ha i was just gonna comment, but thought it was a waste of time.

[Magnum PEI]

Judging by the date and the shoppyness of the image I'm gonna assume this is an April fools joke. At least I hope so because those are terrible.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

Judging by the date and the shoppyness of the image I'm gonna assume this is an April fools joke. At least I hope so because those are terrible.

Release is Feb 27, 2013

http://www.hockeycanada.ca/en-ca/new...d-championship

[Magnum PEI]

Crazy. I thought for sure that was an April fool's joke. Those are hideous.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

Crazy. I thought for sure that was an April fool's joke. Those are hideous.

No worse than the World Junior "Pride of Saskatchewan" green jerseys.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You do realize that the American Breast Cancer Foundation is literally one of the worst run charities in the world?

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ary&orgid=8004

The ABCF gave only 2% of it's 2011 takings to cancer research.

2%

I never attempted to compare the two organizations, merely how their awareness campaigns functioned. The wear pink campaign is about supporting a cause, rather than supporting a particular organization or charity (and there are dozens of charities involved in the pink ribbon initiative). It works as an awareness campaign, because it actually serves to raise awareness about the cause, rather than about the organization. LiveStrong's awareness campaigns are all about the organization. If research is the end goal, then organizations like the National Cancer Institute blow most others out of the water in terms of total money directed to research. However, if you believe that awareness is a viable goal for a charity (and that's entirely open to debate), I don't see how anyone could argue that the Canadian and American Breast Cancer Foundations don't achieve their goal far more successfully than LiveStrong does at the moment. An organization that is poorly-run at the top end but has a very effective awareness message is superior, is at least equal to one that is well-run, but has an extremely muddled awareness message.

Yes, you're totally right that both the Canadian and American Breast Cancer Foundations have serious organizational issues, and I shouldn't have singled them out, as the pink ribbon campaigns actually aren't linked strictly to them or any single breast cancer organization. I'd point out the Susan G Komen foundation as one that is extremely well-review organizationally, and balances their awareness campaign, which is actually about cancer awareness as part of the pink ribbon campaign (rather than about the organizational identity), with a tremendous amount of breast cancer research funding.

[Northendzone]

am i the only one that wants to see what is under that uniform.....these jersey's have been for sale in sportchek for a while now - i kind of like them, but wish they were red. I wonder if Nike is doing anything special for Team USA.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I never attempted to compare the two organizations, merely how their awareness campaigns functioned. The wear pink campaign is about supporting a cause, rather than supporting a particular organization or charity (and there are dozens of charities involved in the pink ribbon initiative). It works as an awareness campaign, because it actually serves to raise awareness about the cause, rather than about the organization. LiveStrong's awareness campaigns are all about the organization. If research is the end goal, then organizations like the National Cancer Institute blow most others out of the water in terms of total money directed to research. However, if you believe that awareness is a viable goal for a charity (and that's entirely open to debate), I don't see how anyone could argue that the Canadian and American Breast Cancer Foundations don't achieve their goal far more successfully than LiveStrong does at the moment. An organization that is poorly-run at the top end but has a very effective awareness message is superior, is at least equal to one that is well-run, but has an extremely muddled awareness message.

Yes, you're totally right that both the Canadian and American Breast Cancer Foundations have serious organizational issues, and I shouldn't have singled them out, as the pink ribbon campaigns actually aren't linked strictly to them or any single breast cancer organization. I'd point out the Susan G Komen foundation as one that is extremely well-review organizationally, and balances their awareness campaign, which is actually about cancer awareness as part of the pink ribbon campaign (rather than about the organizational identity), with a tremendous amount of breast cancer research funding.

The biggest problem with awareness campaigns is diminishing returns. You would figure there would be a progressive reduction in funds used for awareness as time goes on.

Funny you mention the Susan G Komen foundation though. They raise a gigantic amount for cancer research, but are known for their founder's (Susan's sister Nancy) gross overpay, taking in almost $700,000 annually from the charity group.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You do realize that the American Breast Cancer Foundation is literally one of the worst run charities in the world?

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ary&orgid=8004

The ABCF gave only 2% of it's 2011 takings to cancer research.

2%

Livestrong gives 0% to cancer research.

0%

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Livestrong gives 0% to cancer research.

0%

Wrongo. LiveStrong gave 28.5% of it's 2011 earnings to cancer research (grants).

http://www.livestrong.org/What-We-Do...the-Money-Goes

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Livestrong gives 0% to cancer research.

0%

All their money goes to cancer awareness.

Are you aware of cancer? Then they have done their job.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I never attempted to compare the two organizations, merely how their awareness campaigns functioned. The wear pink campaign is about supporting a cause, rather than supporting a particular organization or charity (and there are dozens of charities involved in the pink ribbon initiative). It works as an awareness campaign, because it actually serves to raise awareness about the cause, rather than about the organization. LiveStrong's awareness campaigns are all about the organization. If research is the end goal, then organizations like the National Cancer Institute blow most others out of the water in terms of total money directed to research. However, if you believe that awareness is a viable goal for a charity (and that's entirely open to debate), I don't see how anyone could argue that the Canadian and American Breast Cancer Foundations don't achieve their goal far more successfully than LiveStrong does at the moment. An organization that is poorly-run at the top end but has a very effective awareness message is superior, is at least equal to one that is well-run, but has an extremely muddled awareness message.

Yes, you're totally right that both the Canadian and American Breast Cancer Foundations have serious organizational issues, and I shouldn't have singled them out, as the pink ribbon campaigns actually aren't linked strictly to them or any single breast cancer organization. I'd point out the Susan G Komen foundation as one that is extremely well-review organizationally, and balances their awareness campaign, which is actually about cancer awareness as part of the pink ribbon campaign (rather than about the organizational identity), with a tremendous amount of breast cancer research funding.

The same group who's "awareness campaign" includes suing anyone who dares to use "for the cure"? Also the same group that yanked funding for women's health initiatives through planned parenthood? Yeah, real stand up group there.

[octothorp]

Okay, so somebody find a cancer charity that they feel is above reproach.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Okay, so somebody find a cancer charity that they feel is above reproach.

I don't know if there's one above reproach, but Komen is about as bad as it gets. Litigious and political above all else.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Wrongo. LiveStrong gave 28.5% of it's 2011 earnings to cancer research (grants).

http://www.livestrong.org/What-We-Do...the-Money-Goes

Only if the "Grants" all goes to research. They don't.

http://www.livestrong.org/What-We-Do...ity-Engagement

[octothorp]

Fair enough. I'm going to withdraw from this argument with my tail between my legs because I'm just sidetracking this thread and getting away from my original point, which was that breast cancer awareness functions as awareness of the disease, while livestrong's awareness campaigns still function as awareness of their organization and of armstrong's legacy, and it will be difficult for them to ever escape that, despite their best intentions.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Support for the charity itself aside, I don't like it just for the simple fact that we're changing the color scheme. Why would we agree to this? If Nike wants to promote a charity, they do what is normally done and stick a patch on the jersey. We shouldn't sell out our country's colors just to appease a corporate sponsor.

It's a one game deal. Politics aside, it's not much different than the Jrs wearing those hideous green jerseys when the World Jrs were held in Saskatoon.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Fair enough. I'm going to withdraw from this argument with my tail between my legs because I'm just sidetracking this thread and getting away from my original point, which was that breast cancer awareness functions as awareness of the disease, while livestrong's awareness campaigns still function as awareness of their organization and of armstrong's legacy, and it will be difficult for them to ever escape that, despite their best intentions.

Completely agree, they've become so tied to his image that they really need a total rebranding effort. You can't say Livestrong without having this conversation come up, which obviously defeats the intended purpose of the organization.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I totally would.

She kinda looks like Julie Bowen.

[Daradon]

I could care less about Armstrong either way, I found the whole thing kind of silly. It's competitive cycling, who isn't doping? Maybe the only sport dirtier than the Olympics. But I digress...

What I don't get is how there can't be any red on the jersey. How can you have a Team Canada Jersey with no red? (Yeah, I know there have been a few in the past, but they were just as horrible if not worse, I thought we were past it)

Whether or not they HAD to go with Nike and Livestrong, I find it idiotic all the red is yellow. How is the charity or the sponsor MORE important than the actual country one is playing for?