Do you think naming of a sports stadium REALLY benefits it corporate sponsor financially?
Citibank, with bailout money, is going forward with its plan to spend $400 million to name the new Mets stadium, Citified.
I happen to attend Mariners' games on a regular basis at Safeco Field, and have done so for years. That doesn't make me one iota more inclined to buy Safeco Insurance. In fact, I've never given it a thought. Same goes if I go to games in Tropicana Field, Coors Stadium, or any other corporate named stadium. I would still get my insurance through the Hartford, buy Minute Maid orange juice, and drink Budweiser.
It's my feeling that naming a stadium after a corporate sponsor provides absolutely NO beneficial impact beyond image--so why should we put up with Citibank using so much of the money we have loaned it in such a wasteful manner?
- eskie loverLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
I totally agree. In fact, I just completed a survey in which I was asked to name corporate sponsors for everything from the Olympics, to golf, to NASCAR, to museums and exhibitions, and found I could not name even one. I believe they should have saved the money for those naming rights in this economy with taxpayer money. It is just wrong on principal.