Yes, I concur. Thank you.
Phrases like: “Nextel® call to the bullpen” and the “John Hancock® In Game Box Score” are nothing new to baseball. cite
My imagined play-by-play scenerio would be a step further…er…step backward.
I guess I am in the minority with Treis on this. I see this as a great way to fund big sporting events.
A few years ago Louisville realized they needed new stadium. Tax-payers didn’t want to fund it, the school didn’t want to take money from something else to fund it. So up pops Papa John. He says he will fund it. So now we have a nice new Papa John’s Stadium. It is a win-win for everyone as I see it. And because we would like other corporate sponsors to do the same here in town, we always refer to it as Papa John Stadium. We want others to get the idea if they put the huge amount of money out, it will be worth it to them.
Horse racing is struggling with this now. Traditionalists want to keep the advertising out. Visa stepped up to offer a 5 million dollar bonus for any horse that wins the triple crown. But unfortunately, race fans were reluctant to call it the Visa Triple Crown, and when the contract expired, they didn’t renew. Now we can’t find another company to sponsor the bonus, and may have to do without. I would rather have the bonus in place and use a sponsor’s name, then to see no bonus.
My preference is that sponsors actually have something to do with what they are sponsoring. Money is needed to fund and promote the Breeder’s Cup races. John Deere has been the official sponsor for the Turf race, and I think that is a good fit. TVG sponsored the sprint, another good fit.
I have read that one of the reasons Nascar has gained so much in popularity is that sponsors have found they really benefit from being a sponsor. The Nascar fans appreciate the money that pours in, and go out of their way to purchase products that support the sport they love. I would love to see an increase in horse-racing sponsors, so purses could increase, better benefits for jockeys available, money to bring new people into the sport etc. And if that can be accomplished by bringing in a few new sponsors, and naming races after them, hanging banner’s around the track, etc, I am all for it!
Actually, your argument is very different to treis’s. He accepts sponsorship as a way to fund education in an era of declining state support; you are simply interested in sponsorship as a way of keeping the sports events themselves going.
Two rather different priorities.
Trust me, I can PROMISE what is to come. The city name for pro teams will be obsolete. We will have corporations naming pro teams. You won’t be watching the Chicago Bears, they’ll be the Sprint/Nextel Bears of Chicago. The SBC Spurs of San Antonio.
I didn’t state my case very well. Let me try again. My actual position is more in line with treis’s. Like Papa John’s building U of L’s stadium. If Papa john’s didn’t fund it, then the school might have had to use donations for it. I would rather see the school’s donations go for things directly related to the students, like scholarships, needed additional programs, keeping tuition low, etc. I don’t have actual numbers like treis, but I am supporting Papa John’s building the stadium for the same reasons.
And in mentioning horse racing, I don’t see the sponsor dollars as just a way to have more races. The state of Kentucky relies on horses, both breeding and racing. Horses are Kentucky’s largest economic industry. Right now there are some areas that really need some cash. Currently a big debate is going on about who should pay for the jockey’s insurance, it is very expensive. I would love to see an insurance company in return for being a sponsor, and hanging banners, or naming races, or whatever, pay for the jock’s insurance. There are many backstretch worker programs that need more funding. I spend time raising money for retired racehorses to be retrained in other careers. I would love a big company to sponsor some of those programs. And an increase of purse money would mean more small owners, trainers, jockeys, could stay in the game. The more horses in the game, the more jobs for those who deliver feed, veterinarian services, transportation, jobs at tracks, etc. It could really help Kentucky’s economic outlook, which is needed with declining tobacco sales and coal mining.
So the reason I don’t mind the renaming of games or stadiums, or seeing banners and logos, etc, is because I think those sponsorship dollars can be used for good causes. I would like to see the trend continue, but with some of that money going to help the surrounding community. I see that happening now in a small way, I would like to see in grow and happen in a big way.
I’m always amused when I hear things like “This kickoff is brought to you by McDonald’s!” It brings to mind images of everyone showing up to a game, but having to just stand around awkwardly, doing nothing, because nobody ponied up the cash to pay for a kickoff.
O thank ye, Wise Seer of Sports, He Who Knoweth What Is to Come, He Who PROMISES Sponsor Saturation!
I think you just came up with a great idea for McDonald’s marketing. “Buy a Big Mac today, or tomorrow’s football game isn’t gonna be kicked off!” I’m lovin’ that idea.
Am I the only one who thinks the answer is to restore the state funding?
500,000 dollars per year would provide enough money for approximately 30-35 full ride scholarships. If they gave that money out as partial scholarships it might mean the difference for 100 people between going to OSU or going to a local community college. Yet the idea was shot down because of a name that no one would care about and no one would refer to outside of perhaps sportscasters. If you ask me 100 people getting a great education is worth a lot more than the trouble it takes to ignore some stupid name.
[/QUOTE]
But you’re assuming that the money will leave the Athletic Department. There’s no reason to think that. Why would they give up money they can use for new facitlities, equipment, travel expenses and recruiting? Let the chem lab get their own sponsors. Pfizer’s always looking for a partner.
Well, if you guys would sit and watch the commercials instead of getting up and going to the bathroom or refilling the chip plate, sponsors wouldn’t have to come up with new and creative ways to get their name in front of you. 
Probably not. But State government doesn’t have unlimited funds.
I’ve always felt sponsorship and commercials in general are the biggest waste of money ever. I’ve probably seen more commercials than I could realistically hope to number, but the actual number of times a commercial I’ve seen on television has direclty influenced a purchasing decision of mine can be counted without using up all my digits.
Sure, a company that advertises like Sony establishes itself as a brand name. If I go to buy a TV I’ll recognize Sony over a company like Admiral or Emerson. However, I’ll also notice that Admiral/Emerson are $50 cheaper, so I’d be more inclined to think Sony was offering a higher quality product simply because I usually tend to think if you want quality you’ll pay a premium. And of course if I’m not sure about the products involved I’ll consult consumer reports or some such.
I actually boycott products and services associated with annoying commercialization.
One example:
Other examples:
I will never use a Capital One® credit card (annoying TV ads)
Several local car dealerships will NEVER earn my business (ditto)
I refuse to purchase most well-known American beers (ditto again).
I just do not like to make purchases that fund annoying commercials, and it is possible to advertise to me without annoying me. Corona® is the best example to me of a company striving to make pleasant commercials.
Sure but why turn down a multimillion dollar revenue source? Unless we fully subsidize college there will always be a need for scholarships? Have you seen tuition rates? Its freaking nuts how much school costs now. College costs are much higher now than they were 30, 15, 5 or heck even two years ago when I started. My state school has increased tuition 15-20% since I got here and I am in my 3rd year. I could have bought myself a nice little house and a decent car for the money I am spending at school.
Currently athletics are seen as being in the scope of a university’s mission. Right, wrong or indifferent that is the fact of the matter today. The money for those athletics comes out of the same pot as microscopes for the chem lab and money from advertising goes into that pot.
With what money? Do you think tuition’s only on the rise everywhere because the money tree is having a down production year?
Why on Earth would you want to purchase any of them anyway?
- Sponsor money builds new weight room for football team.
- Football team gets stronger, wins a bunch of games, gets invited to a big-purse bowl game.
- Football team wins big-purse bowl game (more income).
- Alumni give more, presumably in part to the school’s general fund. School can charge more for tickets because the team is more effective (more income).
This is already the case in Japanese pro baseball. Many teams are known by their corporate owners more than their locations. For example:
Yomiuri Giants (Tokyo) – Yomiuri Newspapers
Hanshin Tigers (Osaka & Kobe) – Hanshin Electric Railways
Nippon Ham Fighters (Sapporo & Tokyo) – Nippon Ham
I always read that last as Nippon “Ham Fighters,” rather than Nippon Ham “Fighters.”
I’d bet that if Nintendo of America had their way, you’d be seeing the “Nintendo Mariners.”
Which would you prefer, more commercials or more product placement/program integration? Many cable and network outlets are already approaching the max when it comes to commercial time. I don’t know about you, but I prefer to watch 24 season premier, with limited interruptions, brought to you by Ford than watching some chopped up movie with a commercial break every five minutes.
In fact, the San Diego Chargers (originally the Los Angeles Chargers) got their name in the early 60’s because the owner also owned a credit card company.
Yeah, but that wasn’t sponsorship. That was the result of a fan contest. A fan submitted the suggestion of Chargers because the guy owned the credit card company and he thought it would be amusing.
Heck, when you think about it, the Nintendo Mariners complies a whole lot more with truth in advertising laws then “Seattle Mariners” does. We should start calling them Steinbrenner’s Yankees, Angelos’ Orioles, Dolan’s Indians, etc.
Although sponsorship is beyond the silly stage, I’d rather have that than the constant commercials of CBS. It was great to have some sense of game continuity while I watched the Rose Bowl.
The plugs for some ballroom dancing program with a couple waltzing back and forth across the screen was a little surreal when juxtaposed over a football field, however.