So, I was watching the Daily Show tonight, and one of Jon Stewart’s bits was about this:
.
Now, I will fully admit to currently possessing a highly cynical view (very possibly to the point of irrationality), of the possible ramifications of our government’s increasing inter-dependence and willing to “do business” as it were, with corporations.
So, from that bit, I imagined where is it going to go from here? We’ve known for years that Big Business has a very powerful voice where’s many of our politicians are concerned. Sometimes to the detriment of what others might consider “America’s best interests”. We’ve all seen beloved stadium names country-wide changed to things like Enron Stadium in Houston, Texas…which I imagine the Houstonians aren’t too particularly pleased with in the aftermath. Now we appear to be offering up America’s parks as Corporate America’s next ad campaign.
…
Does the thought of our government as telemarketers startle anyone else? (On a side note, one wonders how much Bloomberg,named Forbe’s World’s 63rd Most Richest Person 2003 or his company, #57 Largest Private Consumer 2001 has donated to the city’s debt, I looked but haven’t found anything yet…anyone else able to find out?)
So, the conclusion my mind came to, and the questions I’m asking everyone are…
Did anyone else watch or read sci-fi as a kid that had the premise of the world’s governments being all taken over/consumed by corporations (I’m 31 for reference)?
Was I the only incredibly naive kid who giggled a little and said, “haha, cool, but that could NEVER happen”?
(and don’t get me started on having to pay avg. 20 bucks for me and my beloved hubby-to-be to go see a movie only to be subjected to a half hour of flat-out commercials, that’s a separate topic…mostly)
Let’s keep this in perspective. It’s the plan of one mayor of one city, albeit a pretty big city.
On its face, the naming rights plan sounds like a great idea. Although I know very little about NYC’s economy, I’d say having a park renamed is better than raising taxes. The budget ain’t gonna fix itself, you know.
I don’t know all that much about the situation by you, Cerri but I’ve noticed a growing tendency for LOTS of organizations, both public and private, to court corporate sponsorship. Just visit Disneyworld to see this in action, and see how many rides and attractions have been adopted by Big Business.
Locally to me, the Rosemont Horizon music theater is now The Allstate Arena. The New World Music Theatre is now The Tweeter Center. The Blackhawks used to play at …ummm, can’t remember the name just now, but it wasn’t The United Center, which it IS now.
I don’t think it takes anything away from the enjoyment of a P-Bruins game by having to watch it in the Dunkin’ Donuts center. I could get used to this trend, I’m sure.
It reminds me of the book Infinite Jest come to life wherein they use what they call ‘subsidized time’, e.g. the Year of the Depends Adult Undergarment.
Strangely though, I’ll be okay with this new trend if Piggly Wiggly buys Arkansas and renames it after themselves.
I think you are referring to the Astros new stadium which from the time the blueprints were laid down for it was called Enron Field. The Astros used to play in the Houston Astrodome which was NOT a beloved name in the Houston area.
After the whole Enron fiasco, the name of the Astros new ballpark was changed to Astros Field and is now known as Minute Maid Park.
LifeOnWry, the Blackhawks used to play at the old Chicago Stadium, until the new and much improved United Center was built next door and Chicago Stadium was turned into a parking lot.
I grew up with Wrigley Field (imo, doesn’t count in this argument, since I’m pretty sure that was always it’s name), Comiskey Park, Chicago Stadium, Soldier Field, Rosemont Theatre, etc.
Now, Rosemont Theatre conjures up memories of countless concerts as a teen, and I saw many a Disney On Ice at Chicago Stadium. Those names are sentimental to me. Those names have history to me and many others, in a way that the Allstate Arena and United Center don’t, and likely never will.
Enron Field, born the Houston Astrodome (which I daresay, was a much beloved name to the fans), now Minute Maid Park. In a world where a team’s stadium, or a park, or anything else we decide to subsidize…, all the history when that entity’s name can change on the whims of the stock market, doesn’t it change something? It just…feels different. Cheaper, somehow, imho. Even if you do become attached to a stadium’s name, it can be changed at anytime, depending on economics (or corporate scandal).
Maybe it’s just the cynicism talking, but it just feels…like we lose something in the change.
When the Houston Astro’s were first formed, back in 1962, they were called the Colt .45’s and they played their games at Colt Stadium. The problem was that the summers in Houston suck ass, as far as nice weather goes.
So eventually, the Houston Astrodome, which was the world’s first domed stadium, was built and the Colt .45’s moved, along the way changing their name to the Houston Astros. The astros played their games there until 1999 at which time they moved to Enron Field, which was a brand new stadium.
As you can see, I don’t follow baseball, but it’s STILL not the real point I was trying to make. Chicago Stadium and United Center aren’t the same building either, IIRC, but where Chicago Stadium is a name that conjures up history and nostalgia to me, United Center sounds…as commercial as most people have forced sports into being. It loses something in the translation, imho. Can Chicago fans really imagine Soldier Field, home of the Bears, being re-named Coca-Cola Field? Somehow, I can’t imagine you’d find many Bears fans happy about that scenario.
The point I was trying to make is, if we turn everything into an ad, doesn’t it make it feel cheaper? And don’t stadiums that ARE the same but have a nice shiny new corporate name, lose something?
