We all know about municipalities that sell the naming rights to corporations leaving us with such monstrosities as 3com Park and Cinergy Field.
Anybody know of any other large public works (highways, bridges, etc) that have had their naming rights sold? If not, anybody got any idea why not? It seems to me that buying the rights to, say, an interstate, would be much more cost-effective in terms of reaching more potential consumers.
Duh. I just remembered that we’re gonna have the Albert B. Sabin-slash-Delta Airlines Convention Center in a few years in my burg. Any more?
I’m not sure if it was paid for (probably so), but here in Lafayette, LA, we have Pepsi Lane. And unlike every other street sign in the city, this one is framed in wood to attract attention.
Oh, and I should probably mention that it’s nowhere near a Pepsi office or bottling plant. I know that companies who have to build a street to accomodate their business will sometimes name the street after themselves. That’s different.
In Rochester NY we have a large factory that puts urine in cans. It has a large Genny beer sign on it. It might be the factory…but I swear it tastes like piss
Random and off topic (2 points)
Well, I think its safe to say that road ways are:
[ol]
[li]Of less value to potential corporations, especially on the national and global scale compared to the media exposure a ballpark gets.[/li][li]More permanent and hence subject to greater resistance by the public.[/li][li]Subject to the influence of all the residents and businesses who reside on the road (how many companies want to put another company on all their letterhead?).[/li][li]Likely to become associated with much unpleasantness such as gridlock, accidents, and crumbling infrastructure.[/li][/ol]
Items like these are going to make it unlikely that any company is going to pony up serious dough. Also I don’t think that very many municipalities have sold naming rights to anything. Its always (correct me if I’m wrong) a privately owned facility trying to abate some of the obscene costs. While the cities usually chip in for the cost in return for the mutual benefit of the citizens and team, they hold no stake in the venue. So the premise is weak in the first place.
Omniscient, I basically agree with you. Here in Houston the facilities are owned by the “public”, but leased out. The lease holder, not the city/county, then sells off the name [Enron Field, Compaq Center].
For the new basketball arena Houston is trying to build, the city put in the contract that they get 20% from the naming rights, so the “public” will finally get something.
And as you point out, Firestone would not pay to hear “There was a plane crash at the Firestone Airport, 230 people dead.”
Indianapolis renamed its domed stadium for RCA from the “Hoosier Dome”. A big improvement, if you ask me!! They also sold the naming rights to the Coliseum at the State Fair Grounds to Pepsi, which really looks stupid! I moved away before they built that new field house for the Pacers to play in and so don’t know who bought the naming rights for that but I’m sure it’s some corporation or the other. And who gets the money?? Definitely NOT the tax-payers who subsidize the building of these monstrosities.
When they were trying to find the money in the early 80’s to build the Dome, Indy passed a “temporary” 1% tax on all food and drink purchased in restaurants in Marion County. This was supposed to end when the original bond issue was paid off. It’s still in effect and still collecting money to pay for expenses at the dome. At least the Colts can play football this season. Most years they play like a group of grannies just out of their rockers on the front porch!!
The company I formerly worked for (SAIC) recently got the name of the street the main facility was on in McLean, VA renamed ‘SAIC Avenue’. With $5.5B in revenues and a whole lot of clout in the local government, I guess you can do crap like that.
Streets near headquarters are pretty commonly named for the company, like “Oracle Parkway” around Larry Ellison’s fiefdom. I imagine if the developer of an office park put in the street in the first place, or a corporate headquarters dominates a street, nobody objects much.
Apple being at “1 Infinite Loop” is more appealing somehow.
I don’t think anybody pays for street naming rights. Street name changes are generally approved by bodies like city councils in response to petitions. Selling the change would essentially open them to charges of bribery, and would NOT sit well with the voters. Usually, street change flaps have to do with groups wanting to create havoc by changing a street to honor somebody, of course.
In Moline, Illinois, John Deere Road is a major highway. However, I think it was named that because it goes to the company’s headquarters, not because the company paid to have it that way.
But if you want clout, for one of the company’s anniversaries (I think it was 125), the state of Illinois made all its license plates in green and yellow that year.
Many cities let the developers of an area name the streets that are built withing it, subject to the governing body’s permission. That’s been the case in Los Angeles for years, although new streets aren’t being built that frequently now.
If a large corporation has a street that leads right up to its corporate headquarters, I don’t see too much harm in that name.
However, if say, Warner Brothers decided that the Ventura Freeway should be named the Warner Brothers Freeway, there would be some upset people and most of them would be at Warner Brothers because that it is a heavily congested freeway. You don’t want to be associated with being stuck in traffic.
Hmmmm… I know Mike Brown is saying that he won’t sell the name to the new Paul Brawn Stadium in honor of his dad, but I wonder if it’s just cuz no corporation wants to be associated with the Bengirls…
