What do you think of that idea? These names like PSINET Stadium grate on my nerves. I want to propose that somebody buy the name and donate it to a charity. I would personally be much happier going to Salvation Army Park than General Motors Stadium. Maybe someone could come up with something particularly enticing as a name so that we could promote the idea to the big execs. This idea was prompted by the Orioles considering selling their portion of the naming rights to Oriole Park at Camden Yards.
The best thing I can come up with is the Special Olympics Park, which is athletics oriented but could be misleading. We should probably avoid the more controversial charities like Planned Parenthood, though I think Bmore could benefit from a name like Planned Parent Park (if they didn’t choke on the laughter at the silly name first).
I’m usually more creative at this sort of thing but I’m not getting any ideas today. Is my original idea bad? Anybody else out there got an idea to help me? Anybody got any good contacts with the sort of exec who might listen to this proposal. Or maybe a charity publicity person who might appreciate the suggestion and be in a position to act on it?
I think it would be a great thing for a good company. They would get a lot of good press if they worked it right, instead of the neutral to negative press that the current naming rights owners are getting. They might get a little less press but they would be getting a tax break and doing a service to humanity. Charities need advertising too and I think that this could be very valuable to some charities. Even some kind of long cooperative name like, “IBM helping the United Way Stadium” would be less offensive to me than IBM Field.
Maybe something could be done with naming parts of a stadium too. Like the United Way wall in left field where every home run earns $1000 for the charity. Or the Muscular Dystrophy Foundation Section where tickets cost an extra buck but $5 goes to charity. Just trying to divert some of the energy in this annoying issue toward a positive end. Thank you for any ideas you have.
The reason naming rights are sold are, of course, because of money. Airlines and banks buy these naming rights to increase their visibility, and the costs are usually placed in yearly marketing budgets. Now, what benefit can a charity get from naming rights? Other than the mentions on Sportscenter, there is not much else. If someone were going to donate naming rights to charity, I would see that meaning that the Salvation Army or whoever, could sell the name to a big company and keep the income for themselves. But I doubt that you will ever see Salvation Army Arena.
I don’t think the economics make sense. Companies purchase the naming right because of the advertising value in the name. 3Com could give the naming right to what was once Candlestick park to say, The United Way, but it might be a white elephant as it has less value to the charitable organization.
Why is advertising less valuable to a charity than a company? I think it may even be MORE valuable because I think that the Media would be more willing to comment on it. I think that broadcasters would voluntarily make comments on the charity. We hear the Timberwolves in the Target center but how often does Bob Costas mention that by the way he got a great deal on a blender at target last week. I think he would be much more likely to comment on his support for a charity like the United Way and maybe even give additional info. In addition, I think that the company who did the donating would get almost as much press as the charity they donated it to. Doubling the value of the thing. There’s nothing to lose.
Survey-style questions such as this are better served by In My Humble Opinion. I’ll move the thread there.
To avoid having to post twice, I’ll also say that I would boycott forever any charity that squandered resources by suffering its name on a stadium. I’d rather they take the $20 MM or so over ten years and do, well, charity.
I can’t believe people bother to be “offended” by the corporate sponsorship of a ballpark for cryin out loud. (Oooh! That no good Wrigley tryin to sell his gum!) If it weren’t for the corporate sponsorship a lot of those stadiums would never have been built. Granted, someplace was actually named for somebody, and then the name was sold out from under him. (TACKY!!!) But is Network Associates Coliseum any worse than Oakland County Coliseum? No, because everyone just calls it the Coliseum anyway. How many of your clothes have a big Tommy or Nike or Coke logo on them, and how much MORE did you pay for it? Please. I’d change my name to “Pepsi” for a million bucks, wouldn’t you?
It’s not just the company that benefits from the naming rights; they have to pay millions to get their name on there in the first place. Charities probably wouldn’t have enough expendable cash to do that - the money’d be better used to directly support the work of the charity, not giving the charity publicity.
If Camden Yards ever, ever sells the naming rights, I’ll hang myself from the tree in my front yard. To rename the Yard is pure sacrilege.
I am not asking the charity to buy the naming rights. I’m asking a big company to do it as a donation. A compnay that might not want to give the $100 million directly to the charity might donate the naming rights because of how much press it might create and thus benefit both the company and the charity.
Yes, names like PSINET offend me more than names like Memorial Stadium. If the stadium is built with a majority of private funds then, of course I appreciate that and would feel that the corporations involved deserve the publicity. I am not even too offended by the thought of a corporation which I already associate with Baseball to put their name on a park. Esskay franks have been served at Baltimore baseball games for decades and I would not be to upset by an Esskay Park at Camden Yards. I’d be OK with a sporting equipment name like Rawlings too. But telecommunications? I hate it.
I think I haven’t explained my idea very well. No one seems to even understand my thoughts here. Let me try for a little more clarification.
It wouldn’t cost the charity a penny.
The only cost to the public would be a possibly ugly name and a tax break for the corporation.
The money the corporation spends on this will probably include largely money already earmarked for charity so the tax break won’t really be that big of a deal.
I don’t propose this as a better idea than sticking to the traditional pre-existing names.
I do suggest this as an idea to create positive new traditions in expansion areas.
Mostly, I suggest this as an idea that will be slightly less offensive to me than Microsoft Park at Camden Yards. And, as a way to make something which I don’t like, result in something positive. I’m not going for an ideal solution here I’m just trying to avoid a disaster. Perhaps Deianira will forgo the the hanging, if Oriole Park is sacrificed in the name of feeding the hungry children.
So far they are not threatening to change the Camden Yards part of it. It’s just the Oriole Park that is in danger. I lesser danger in my mind but still not something I want to happen.