# Should A Bailed Out Company Be Buying Stadium Naming Rights?



## Pepster (Oct 29, 2008)

Should a company who is struggling to remain financially viable be more concerned with the publicity that comes from their name being on a stadium\arena or should their assets be redirected to protect the best interests of their clientle\employees?


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

my opinion....but a company will probably be more concerned with their name being on a stadium or arena cause it will promote their company and might bring in more clientle.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

No. Absolutely not.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Should a bailed out company be starting such a deal? No, at least in my opinion.

But if a bailed out company is in the middle of a long-term contract, everything depends upon what the early termination fee is. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## jodyguercio (Aug 16, 2007)

Pepster said:


> Should a company who is struggling to remain financially viable be more concerned with the publicity that comes from their name being on a stadium\arena or should their assets be redirected to protect the best interests of their clientle\employees?


Guessing you are talking about the new Mets field right? Like Tom says, since they had already spent the money on the naming rights it depends on what the ETF is.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

Advertizing and promoting your business name is part of the cost of doing business, within reason.


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

But seriously now, how many people have purchased a product because of the name of the company was on a stadium?

I can understand exclusive rights to the ATMS in the stadium, or the official beverage (only one sold), those sorts of things.

But I have never once purchased Tropicana because the name was on the stadium

Anyone purchase Wrigley Gum lately because it is the name of the Cubs Stadium?
(How many people even realize that connection in the first place)

While I understand marketing needs and advertising. 
But taking $300 Million (I think that is what I heard on the radio) of the bailout money to get the naming rights?
No way. I would rather see that $300 Million go to shore up the pension and retirement funds of the workers of those companies, so they don't get doubly hosed when the company is sold, goes under, or is taken over.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

It's 20 mil / year for the next 20 years. Aside from Citi claiming they won't use bailout money to make the payment...who says they'll be around 20 years from now. In the Bay Area we had "Pac Bell Park" in 2000, changed to "SBC Park" in 2003, changed to "AT&T Park" in 2006. Not only does it cost millions to put the name on the stadium, think of how much that signage costs to replace it.

Mod Edit: redacted text


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Let's stay away from the politics, ok?


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Fontano said:


> But seriously now, how many people have purchased a product because of the name of the company was on a stadium?


Despite what you might read on the headlines, deals like this usually come with a whole host of marketing rights beyond just the naming of the stadium itself. Often, that's only a small part of the package that's being sold.

Just associating your name with something positive (a local sports team) can help a company gain prestige. Big companies spend big money so that they look "big" to their customers, and to an extent, it works.

Having said that, IMO the bailout removes responsibility from the money lenders to ensure good loans (which they failed to do), and removing responsibility is NEVER a good thing. It teaches bad habits, which means they'll just do it all again and expect another bailout.


----------



## Pete K. (Apr 23, 2002)

I'm opposed to corporate naming rights, no matter how much cash is exchanged. Certainly, companies in financial trouble shouldn't throwing cash away on naming rights. 
Regarding Wrigley, it was actually named for William Wrigley who purchased the stadium from the defunct Chicago Whales of the Federal League. It had been called "Weeghman Park." As far back as the 1920's Wrigley Chewing Gum was being promoted at the "friendly confines," so this "trend" is nothing new.


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

I guess I just look at it as a total waste of the money for those companies, at least on me. I just don't consider the company being on a building name, as a factor in my decision to purchase something.

I remember a lot of the cases over the years, where more money was even spent on arguments (such as the Bank One Ballpark being called the BOB) that it totally backfired.

A local arena around here, changes their name every couple years. Most people refer to it by it's original non-branded name.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Fontano, that's where you and I are in total agreement. I think it's more of a source of corporate pride than a real marketing tool, and when people ignore the corporate name and just use the original, it's wasted.

Even worse is when people don't even realize there's a corporate tie in. Of course the classic example already mentioned is Wrigley Field, but what about the Staples Center? Do people really think of the office supply chain? Even more so, where the Ducks (hockey) used to play was called the Arrowhead Pond. Arrowhead is a brand of drinking water around here but even I didn't realize it was corporate sponsorship for a lot of years.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

As with all forms of marketing, some forms work for some people yet completely fail for other people.

Fontano points out that changing a landmark's name too often can ruin the value of the naming rights. And holding a name too long can confuse the reason for the naming.

So basically all the marketing efforts need to be coordinated and build the brand, positioning the product or services effectively. Otherwise, they might be wasted dollars.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Jimmy 440 (Nov 17, 2007)

Citi does not need to have it's name on a stadium.How can anybody not know who they are.I think & I could be wrong,that's just as bad as the corperations buying new jets for their executives and allowing former execs use it.The're just throwing money down the well.The only thing these guys know how to do is waste money.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

Jimmy 440 said:


> The only thing these guys know how to do is waste money.


It's not theirs


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

Candlestick/3Com/Monster Park is another example of how poorly the naming rights can work. When 3Com bought the naming rights, the concept was very new. Candlestick had been around since the late 50's. 3Com did not realize the benefits they were expecting and did not renew the contract. Monster bought the rights through 2008. Of course, if/when the name was used, nobody knew if they were referring to Monster the cable, Monster the drink, Monster.com the website, or just a scary movie because of how poorly the team played. The City voted to rename the stadium "Candlestick Park" after the Monster contract ended and is prohibited from selling the rights again.


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

Pete K. said:


> I'm opposed to corporate naming rights, no matter how much cash is exchanged. Certainly, companies in financial trouble shouldn't throwing cash away on naming rights.
> Regarding Wrigley, it was actually named for William Wrigley who purchased the stadium from the defunct Chicago Whales of the Federal League. It had been called "Weeghman Park." As far back as the 1920's Wrigley Chewing Gum was being promoted at the "friendly confines," so this "trend" is nothing new.


Wrigley Field has little to do with corporate naming rights as it was named after the owner who just happened to also own a gum company. Long after the Wrigley family ceased to own the field the name has remained, although there is no fee paid by the Wrigley corporation to keep the name there. With the sale of the stadium this year there has been some debate over selling naming rights or retaining the historical name. Even if it were to be renamed, fans will always refer to it as Wrigley.


----------



## Vinny (Sep 2, 2006)

The real issue here is how deep do you want the government to go. Is it the government's responsibility to tell banks or any other business how to spend their advertising budget? Afterall...it was the government that was pushing banks to lend money to very risky borrowers.  What's next...should the government regulate how much a bank should spend on a 30 second commercial during the Super Bowl.

I get that the greed of banks was part of the problem...but so is a lot of the government regulations (or lack of) that allowed this problem to explode.


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

If Citi can reasonably claim that spending $400 million to place their name on a stadium will bring in over $400 million in business they would not otherwise have, then it is just good business. Otherwise, it is a frivolous waste of money.

What about expensive retreats to Las Vegas:



> Wells Fargo & Co., which received $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money, is planning a series of corporate junkets to Las Vegas casinos this month.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090203/ap_on_bi_ge/wells_fargo_vegas_4

I wonder if the Enron Field naming rights ever paid off for them. I hope Minute Maid does better.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

Pepster said:


> Should a company who is struggling to remain financially viable be more concerned with the publicity that comes from their name being on a stadium\arena or should their assets be redirected to protect the best interests of their clientle\employees?


Simple answer - No.


----------



## WERA689 (Oct 15, 2006)

I am the last guy to EVER suggest more government regulation of ANYTHING...BUT...
someone or something has to put an absolute stop to the abuses, indulgences, excesses and extremity of corporate America. THIS MUST HAPPEN IF WE ARE TO HAVE ANY CHANCE TO SURVIVE THIS MESS. If these entities cannot control themselves effectively, who else can step in to stop them? 
It is clear, to me anyway, that the previous regime's preference for deregulation created an environment which allowed these excesses to flourish, and has clearly not benefited the people of this country. In fact, it has only increased the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. Indeed, it has created a larger class of the latter than I have seen in my lifetime. Enough already.

BTW, I have never considered buying Ted Turner or Georgia based upon the names of Atlanta's stadia. This is a GOOD thing, as far as I'm concerned. As to Philips Arena, I challenge any consumer to find *any* Philips product, other than light bulbs, for sale in the Atlanta market.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

There is such a thing as government regulation... and there is such a thing as requiring responsibility for a loan.

Consider... would a bank loan you or I money to put our face on a roadside billboard? Would they do this if we were behind in paying our bills and ostensibly we needed the money to make our payroll and keep from going out of business?

Seems perfectly reasonable to me to require anyone accepting bailout money to use that money more responsibly than they did their money in the past.

That said... buying rights to name a pro sport stadium doesn't seem a prudent use of money at this time.


----------



## WERA689 (Oct 15, 2006)

You speak directly to what I refer to. How can these people/corporations take billions of dollars in OUR bailout money, and toss it away on retreats, junkets, or office redecoration? Particularly while laying off thousands of people to "save money"? Quite obviously they do not hold themselves to the same level of accountability that they hold us to...and that is the behavior that MUST be stopped, by whatever means!


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

WERA689 said:


> I am the last guy to EVER suggest more government regulation of ANYTHING...BUT...
> someone or something has to put an absolute stop to the abuses, indulgences, excesses and extremity of corporate America. THIS MUST HAPPEN IF WE ARE TO HAVE ANY CHANCE TO SURVIVE THIS MESS. If these entities cannot control themselves effectively, who else can step in to stop them?
> It is clear, to me anyway, that the previous regime's preference for deregulation created an environment which allowed these excesses to flourish, and has clearly not benefited the people of this country. In fact, it has only increased the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. Indeed, it has created a larger class of the latter than I have seen in my lifetime. Enough already.


This is not your normal case of going down to the local Bank and getting a loan and not having to explain what you are going to do with the money.

This money is the TAXPAYER's money we gave (I use that reluctantly) to our goverment to pay for govermental costs and projects. I completely support the notion of rules and regulations on how the goverment supply funds are used.

Take a look at grant money, there are typically VERY specific rules on how it can be used, on what, and what kind of book keeping needs to be done. 
Same for Medicare and Medicaid and many other funding programs.

Why should the bailouts be different to the degree that they have no regulation, in fact with the dollar amounts and reasoning involved there would even be MORE regulation.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

It would appear that this is a simple matter of accountability for any bailout money, or lack thereof.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

jodyguercio said:


> Guessing you are talking about the new Mets field right? Like Tom says, since they had already spent the money on the naming rights it depends on what the ETF is.


Exactly! This contract was signed before Citi ever took a time from US Taxpayers. Citi is obligated to pay $20 million a year for the next 20 years and unless there is a clause which allows them to terminate the contract, Citi may be stuck! 
Maybe Citi should think about trying to find someone and take over those naming rights. Even if Citi were to have to sell them at a discount, they might be better off in the long run!


----------



## DtvSlave (Nov 14, 2007)

What is worse than them using our tax money to do these things is the fact that they are spending money that does not exist! We are a broke country, so far in debt that we can't see straight, now the government gives away money that hasn't even been created, to put us in even further debt, so someone/company can continue to waste it in the same manner that helped put them in the situation they are currently in?

The goventment says they give this money to "jump start the economy"? How does it jump start our economy? It probably took 5 people to make the sign another 5 people to hang the sign, for what? $400 million? Where is the job creation?


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

While I don't favor owners selling naming rights (whoever pays for it should be able decide), I just find it ironic that the ones who hand out the money are livid about how our bailout money is spent when they refuse to acknowledge how much money they waste on perks for themselves.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

This thread seems to be straying and never was very DBS related, so I've decided to close it.

Cheers,
Tom


----------

