Talk:Naming rights
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Actually, the Cubs and their stadium and the chewing gum company, as well as others, were all owned by the Wrigley family, so it is reasonable to say that they named the ballpark (and another one in Los Angeles that was used by minor league teams) for themselves, but of course the name recognition certainly furthered their interests. It was not like naming rights in the modern sense, where someone with no real connection to the venue or event signs a contract with those who control it to promote their name.
Interested to read about Candlestick Park, here in Australia we pretty much swallow it without any qualms. Princes Park, in Melbourne, in use for over a century, was quickly supplanted by Optus Oval. -- Paul 08:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I haven't heard of any naming rights being sold for anything in any of the following categories. It would be good to give at least one example for each.
- School
- Library
- Hospital
- Shopping center
- Synagogues
External link
[edit] Tackiness
"The public reaction to this practice is mixed. Naming rights sold to new venues have largely been accepted, especially if the buyer has strong local connections to the area, such as the case of Rich Stadium in the Buffalo suburb of Orchard Park, Coors Field in Denver or Turner Field in Atlanta. "
While I can't directly state this in the article (as it would be original research), pretty much everybody I know who cares is less concerned if the name used is associated with someone local and more whether the result actually sounds like an example of tacky commercialism.
I.e., names such as 'Wrigley Field' and 'Turner Stadium' seem less tacky because they have a real name. 'Edison Park' is even okay because Edison is the name of a famous person in history, even if the stadium were named after, e.g. Commonwealth Edison rather than Thomas Edison himself.
On the other hand, named such as 'PGE Park' and 'AT&T Park' and 'McDonald's Arena' and 'Monster Park' and such are just plain annoyingly kitsch.
Of course, a lot of people just don't care, granted. Many people also think it's somehow sensible to pay an extra $30 USD for a $12.00 t-shirt that advertises the store they bought it at (personally, I think that if Abercombie & Fitch wants me to wear an Abercombie & Fitch t-shirt, they should be sending me a cheque for at least $10/day that I wear it and providing the shirt for free. Billboard owners don't pay advertisers, after all). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.20.98 (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I think that this paragraph is misleading
"Early examples include Herald Square and Times Square in New York, named for city newspapers, and Wrigley Field in Chicago, named for the family that owned the Wrigley Company. There was also a Wrigley Field in Los Angeles, where the Chicago Cubs' top minor-league affiliate once played."
These are all examples of locations being named, yes, but none of them were the result of "naming rights" deals where the ownership of the name was transferred between parties. Wrigley Field was so-named because that's what its owners called it, and it's a tradition that subsequent Cubs owners have thus far declined to change. Times Square and Herald Square, unless I missed something, are also named AFTER something, but the rights to the name have yet to be regarded as transferable property, e.g. Times Square is so named because that's what the city named it, not because the New York Times owns the rights to the name.
I propose deleting the entire paragraph, but I'm going to give it a couple days for discussion.
--gavindow (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Similarly, Turner Field is an example of a stadium whose naming rights were not bought or sold. The ballpark is named after Ted Turner, a former owner of the team. --gavindow (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
