ALS Association Tries To Trademark Ice Bucket Challenge, Despite Having Nothing To Do With It Originally
from the trademark-shame dept
The whole Ice Bucket Challenge thing has become quite the story of the month of August, and it's certainly been fascinating to watch how this viral promotion has turned into a massive money raiser for research into ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis -- sometimes called Lou Gehrig's Disease). If you somehow haven't yet heard of this (and I find it nearly impossible to believe you haven't yet), it's when people get challenged to dump a bucket of ice over their heads or give money to charity (though, mostly people do both things). While there's been some ice bucket challenge backlash (often for silly reasons), just from the standpoint of watching something go viral, it's been fascinating. Of course, whenever things get big, sooner or later lawyers are going to step in and things are going to get messy. It appears that the ALS Association -- by far the largest beneficiary of the Ice Bucket Challenge -- is now trying to trademark the term.That seems problematic for a number of reasons. First off, the ALS Association had nothing to do with the Ice Bucket Challenge originally. It only later became popular in association with ALS. I first heard of the Ice Bucket Challenge back in early July when a friend of the blog, law professor Eric Goldman, did an ice bucket challenge as part of a lung cancer fundraiser. And research into the history of the challenge found that it was used widely for other charities for months before that (often cancer). And other, similar, challenges go back over a century.
The ice bucket challenge really only became associated with ALS much later. The first known connection of the challenge to ALS came on July 14th when a golfer did it for ALS (a bunch of other golfers had been doing ice bucket challenges for other charities for a couple of months before that). Pete Frates, the guy that many have credited as starting the whole "ALS Ice Bucket Challenge" thing didn't actually get involved until the end of July.
While the ALS Association has certainly been a massive beneficiary, it had little to nothing to do with anything related to the challenge, other than getting a bunch of checks in the month of August. To now claim a trademark over it seems... kind of disgusting. It's also legally dubious. In the link above, by Erik Pelton, he highlights many of these problems with the trademark claim, but further notes how troubling this is:
If ALS Association successfully registers the phrase, it could seek to restrict use of it for other charitable causes. That would be the biggest shame in all of this.Hopefully ALS Association reconsiders or the trademark attempt is rejected. Not everything needs to be "owned," and it's a real shame that people have been so indoctrinated into myths related to "IP" that they immediately rush to lock up everything.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: als, ice bucket challenge, lou gehrig's disease, ownership culture, pete frate, trademark
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And I suspect if given enough money some would actually go for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thou assume too much.. Oil my learned friend. Oil is ALWAYS the answer here ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
also, after that.. we'll have some nice 3D puzzle pieces on the floor.
/:p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FAIL with your PUZZLE PALACE distraction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Et tu, brute?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Et tu, brute?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
What's your source for this? The first website I looked at (charitynavigator.org) said the ALS Association spends 16.5% on fundraising and 11% on administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
Let's say there's a charity that spends 50% directly on its cause, 10% on marketing, and the remaining 40% on its other expenses. If that 10% brings in $100,000, then $50,000 can be used to further its cause.
But what if they spent more money on marketing? Let's pretend the other miscellaneous expenses are more or less fixed, so the extra marketing budget has to come from the cause. So they are now spending 40% cause, 20% marketing, and 40% other.
Now, they have doubled their marketing efforts and are therefore able to raise more money. Maybe they raised $170,000 this time. So now they can spend $68,000 on the cause. That is $18,000 more than the cause got when they only spent 10% on marketing.
Now, obviously, there is a point where the numbers won’t work out so neatly. And that will vary from charity to charity. But obviously, they need to spend some of their income on marketing in order to keep up the revenue. Just saying that they spend a significant amount on that fundraising tells us nothing about how it affects the actual totals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
I mean, you’d rather donate money to someone that can only afford to get $100,000 a year to some cause than you would for someone that can afford to spend $200,000 a year, just because the latter gets the extra due to better marketing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
Yes. I'd much rather have them maximize the effectiveness of the money than the amount of the money.
If charity A raises $120K and spends $100K on their cause, and almost-identical charity B raises $500K and spends $200K on the cause, then charity A is where my money would go. Charity B might have found the "sweet spot" to maximize their spending on the cause, but charity A is doing a better job with the money they DO get. A charity spending $9 to get an additional $10 in donations might SEEM like a good idea, but it's not, even if it does result in more raw dollars being spent by that charity on the cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
Why? Why is it not a good idea?
Outside of making things fit into some idealized budgetary pie where everything can be hyper-efficient, that is.
It’s the dollars that do good. Not the percentage points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
Yes.
"you’d rather donate money to someone that can only afford to get $100,000 a year to some cause than you would for someone that can afford to spend $200,000 a year, just because the latter gets the extra due to better marketing?"
Yes, because the the one that spends more on marketing is the one that is getting less bang for the buck. If I donate to a smaller charity, a greater percentage of the money I give actually goes to the activities I'm wanting to support.
In fact, this is a major factor in deciding who I donate to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
And in any case, if the folks with the bigger marketing department are actually getting more money to the cause, I don’t see how on earth that is less “bang”. The whole point of the marketing expenditure is to create positive feedback. It’s a multiplier.
Sure, maybe not as great a percentage of your individual donation goes to the direct cause. But in the long run, it helps to bring in more actual money. How is that not good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
That's right. I'm not arguing otherwise. All I'm saying is that if I perceive a charity as overspending on these things, I'll avoid giving to that charity.
"Sure, maybe not as great a percentage of your individual donation goes to the direct cause."
Well, that's certainly one problem -- and it does put me off pretty majorly. I want the smallest amount of money possible going to marketing companies. If I wanted to donate to them, I would. It's not the major problem in my book, though. The major problem is the larger impact.
"But in the long run, it helps to bring in more actual money. How is that not good?"
As I explained, it's not good because -- big picture -- it reduces the amount of money going to charities overall. It may increase the amount going to that specific charity, but at the cost of the amount going to other charities.
When the marketing budget is taking a large cut of donations, that reduces the overall amount of money that is being put into charitable actions -- the marketing is getting a bigger slice of the overall pie.
I've been giving a fixed percentage of my gross income to charitable organizations for decades now, and over that time I've developed a list of rules to help me determine who to cut checks to. Among the things that disqualifies organizations from getting money from me is if they engage in media buys, have slick mailers, etc. I started doing that because most organizations that engage in heavy marketing give a paltry percentage of the donations to the actual cause. Not all of them, of course, but it's a decent rule of thumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
You would probably need a fairly complex calculation to take that into account. That is, of my $100, let's say $30 goes to marketing and $50 to whatever the cause is and $20 to other stuff. So if that $30 for marketing brings in an additional $50 of revenue, $25 of which goes to the cause, should I add $25 for a total of $125? Or should it be discounted somewhat? But then of that additional $50 revenue the marketing brought in, $15 goes to marketing, which brings in additional $25...
There's some sort of formula to describe this but it's certainly not something your average donor is going to figure out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
If, by raising an additional $70,000, you only spend an additional $18,000 on your cause, then something has gone horribly wrong and you should refrain from doing that.
You might think to yourself, "But the numbers work! We're spending more money on a cure!" But it's likely that a significant portion of your donations are from people who are only going to give so much to charity in a given year - if your additional spending is only giving 26% of the added revenue to your cause, you're likely *decreasing* the overall amount spent on causes across all charities, because those charities are now getting less. To get their revenue back those other charities could try to increase their own marketing, but you see where this is heading.
That's not to say that an increase in marketing is never warranted. I'm just saying that nonprofits should exercise caution when doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
Well, yeah. Mostly my math, which assumed all the overhead would be a fixed percentage of their revenue rather than simply being fixed cost. I admit I over-simplified.
But the point is that it is actual dollars that are spent, not abstract percentage points. And if shifting some percentage points around results in more real money being spent, no matter what percentage of the revenue it is, then it is a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
Not necessarily. This might be a good argument if the charity is the only one out there. But the AC's (very good) point is that if a donor has a fixed budget for how much he's going to give in a world where there are several charities the donor wants to support, then the more money being soaked up by marketing, the less money is going to the charities overall.
That a single specific charity might come out ahead in the game doesn't mean anything at all -- the overall amount has been reduced because the overhead is eating more of it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
If your marketing is spending more money than it is bringing in, then you are indeed spending too much on marketing. You are in fact doing marketing very wrong.
But if the marketing is actually bringing in more money than is being spent, then every dollar spent on marketing is actually being multiplied. It is not being lost. It is, in fact, creating more money, some of which goes to the cause, and some of which goes back into the marketing feedback loop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
No. It may SEEM like this from the perspective of that particular charity. But money is not, in fact, being created. Again, if you're spending $9 to get another $10 in donations, that's probably mostly coming out of the donations of other charities.
The choice is not simply "spend $9 and get a $10 donation for a net $1 that goes to our cause." The choice is sometimes more like "let someone donate $10 to some other charity that will spend $5 of it on their cause, or spend $9 to convince them to give their $10 to us instead so we can then spend $1 of it on our cause." In the for-profit world, it would make sense for McDonald's to spend money to get customers that might otherwise go to Burger King. In the nonprofit world, it makes less sense for the ALS Association to spend money to get donations that might otherwise go to the American Cancer Society, for example.
Of course, some of those dollars are dollars that would have been spent on something besides charity. But either way, it's not "creating more money". Whether or not they would have given it to another charity, the donator is sacrificing their own money to try to make the world a better place, and as a charity you have a responsibility to use that money effectively and efficiently. Charities need to fundraise, but charities also need to realize that they aren't for-profit corporations with the profits simply going to research instead of stockholders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Et tu, brute?
I think the error the other Anon is making is the fallacy of the quantitative trumping the qualitative as if throwing more money at the problem will equal greater success. When in fact being strategic and pragmatic in the way these organizations target their money, in whatever amount they can, is much more important than the total amount given. Especially in research for breakthroughs are not linearly connected to funding amounts, but more nebulous depending on other conditions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm going to call it the "Save the 'Ice Bucket Challenge' Ice Bucket Challenge".
I'm going to dump a bucket of ice over my head - and then I'll challenge the Techdirt writing staff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gettin squirly - so fuck it kill me you FASCIST FUCKERS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: gettin squirly - so fuck it kill me you FASCIST FUCKERS
http://www.systemcomic.com/comics/2011-08-03-madaboutsomething.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: gettin squirly - so fuck it kill me you FASCIST FUCKERS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: gettin squirly - so fuck it kill me you FASCIST FUCKERS
Also, you should define your pronouns a little better.
plus, try to avoid jargon. your message will reach more people with less jargon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no good deed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gettin squirly
THEY LIE ALMOST ALWAYS NOW. IT'S PLAIN TO SEE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gettin squirly
RESTORE THE US CONSTITUTION BEFORE HELL ON EARTH IS REALIZED!!
all caps has not shit to do with Soverign Corporate whatever the fuck, I AM SCREAMING AT YOU THAT'S WHY THE CAPS!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: gettin squirly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gettin squirly
GO WITH THE 20 YARD RUBBLE BUCKETS!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gettin squirly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
27% for research
http://www.infowars.com/ice-bucket-challenge-als-foundation-admits-less-than-27-of-donation s-fund-research-cures/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 27% for research
The biggest slice of that pie chart is "Professional and public education" at 32%. That does seem excessive. More for education than for research?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 27% for research
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 27% for research
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 27% for research
Secondly, the education can motivate people to donate. So there is a clear overlap with marketing efforts.
And, of course, education can also help those who have the disease or care for someone with it. So that’s another piece of overlap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could've spent the money fighting the disease.
Hired attack lawyers instead.
*facepalm*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slavery
At what point do the most common words who once enjoyed roaming the English language throw off the shackles and restrictions of those who seek to oppress them and oppress those who seek to allow them to be free?
Where is our Abraham Lincoln of Vocabulary? Where is our Emancipation Proclamation for Letters in all combinations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is another, slightly related question
From the reaction of the ALS Association here, I can about bet what they would do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here is another, slightly related question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boiling Water Challenge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trademarking Webster
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watch the USPTO Gazette
That's how you stop it, or at least make it much more expensive for them to trademark it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or How About...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes go ahead, shoot yourselves, and people with ALS, in the foot.
My knee-jerk reaction was "okay I am not going to support these guys anymore", but this would also hit the people with ALS.
My conclusion was that this was an extremely shitty move. I think it will give them a loss, but if they gain anything by this, it will only be because they hide behind sick people instead of representing them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I posted this link on their FB page
No one addressed the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal Presedence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal Presedence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal Presedence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"ALS Association Tries To Trademark Ice Bucket Challenge...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"ALS Association Tries To Trademark Ice Bucket Challenge..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, I kept seeing stupid videos appear on twitter with the tag #ALSIceBucketChallenge. I usually avoid such videos because I find them tiresome. After a while, I got tired of seeing them and decided to work out who the hell this Al character was and why people were so interested in his challenge. You see, I'd assumed the tag means "Al's Ice Bucket Challenge". One of the problems with things like this is that "viral" means *global*, and regional differences can make a big difference in impact.
I'm not taking part, but I'll probably donate to charity in support - though it will be British, not American charities. I'll probably donate to other charities for afflictions of the central nervous system as well, such as Alzheimers, so that other people benefit from this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Update: ALS Association announces they are withdrawing the trademark applications
http://www.alsa.org/about-us/ice-bucket-challenge-faq.html
"Did The ALS Association take steps to trademark Ice Bucket Challenge? The ALS Association filed for these trademarks in good faith as a measure to protect the Ice Bucket Challenge from misuse after consulting with the families who initiated the challenge this summer. However, we understand the public’s concern and are withdrawing the trademark applications. We appreciate the generosity and enthusiasm of everyone who has taken the challenge and donated to ALS charities."
THANK YOU to everyone who helped spread the word on this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's not complicate a blessing !!
Come on people, STOP and let's move on with your mission!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]