Stadia are missing out on additional revenue streams.

Tyson Foul poles,
Sara Lee home plate,
Victoria's Secret 2nd base,

etc...

@torgonius: I think that all the bases need to be named after Victoria's Secret, har har.

Basically every man, woman and child in the U.S. is contributing $1.33 to Citibank to allow them to put their name on that stadium.

Jeez, they are doing us a service. Just imagine if those stadiums didn't have names. "Going to the game today?" "Maybe..where is it?" "The stadium" "Which one?" "Ummm...the one with no name, that is over on the east side" Just imagine....baseball wouldn't be able to gouge people in ticket prices...hundreds of players wouldn't be able to pull down multimillion dollar contracts...our unemployment would skyrocket by .0000000000000001%...it would be total chaos if we didn't allow them to name these stadiums with taxpayer dollars.

@Davan: And every man, woman, and child will get more than $1.33 back when the loans are repaid. Many banks are getting ready to repay the money, no one wants the feds in their hair.

@torgonius: You clearly haven't seen the Chic-Fil-A "Fowl Poles" at Minute Maid in Houston.

I hate the trend of naming stadiums for companies anyway.. but now I hate it even more now that we're all paying for it.

I grew up with the Astrodome..

Now we have "Minutemaid park" which I think is really stupid..

'Course it used to be Enron Stadium.

Heh.

This is out of control. Naming a damn stadium after a bank isnt going to make me think:

"Oh well golly gee, maybe I should be bank with the kind people why they have a wholllllllllllle stadium named after them! They must be doing something right!"

This is disgusting. Why has our government not stepped in?

@bball123h: People go to Astro's games.
/can't talk, Royals fan

So is the conclusion here that these banks shouldn't be allowed to advertise, that they shouldn't be allowed to advertise in this way, or something else?

I don't especially have a problem with the naming of stadiums, as such, though I wonder how effective it really is. "Hey, I went to see a Mets game at Citibank Park and now I'm really curious about who this 'Citibank' might be."

Where I would have a problem is paying more than the advertising itself is worth for the perqs -- stadium boxes, tickets, etc. -- at taxpayers' expense.

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: How did the banks make the money back?

Playing the ponies or selling pills to kids?

Is the name simply advertising, or do the companies get some kind of kickback from the games and stadium revenue?

@Fresh-Fest-1986: Usury!

@Stephen W. Daries: Because they are in bed with these extortionist sports teams.

Sorry, but it's a little misleading when you put the entire sum of the entire contract, and say that they have "spent" this much, when in fact it's that amount over a period of many years.

The Citibank/Mets deal is for $20 million a year...for 20 years. They haven't spent $400 million. You have to spend money to make money. It's the reality of business.

Get over it.

If you are a non-bailed-out bank, buy whatever the fuck you want to buy.

But if you ARE a bailed-out bank and also are using taxpayer dollars to make your purchase, then I completely disagree with the practice.

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: We will get the money back faster if the banks don't spend money on frivolous items like naming stadiums or giving the CEO a new office with antiques in it right before they fire him.

@Saboth: Yes. Could you imagine the horrible time Pirate fans would have at Clemente Park, or Mets fans at Stengel Stadium?

@Davan: Basically every man, woman and child in the U.S. is contributing $1.33 to Citibank to allow them to put their name on that stadium.

Kind of but not really. Those who actually pay taxes are paying the share of those who don't (including 99.99% of children).

@Stephen W. Daries: The banks would get a lot more business by paying money, but not to name the stadium - to have kiosks where fools fans can get free t-shirts for applying for their credit cards, and putting surcharge-full ATMs in the stadium.

@axiomatic: Do you completely disagree with all advertising by bailed-out banks or just stadium naming?

@Kimaroo:
Yea we had the Thunderdome down here, and then they turned it into Tropicana Field, orange paint and all until they realized how stupid the stadium looked with orange paint on it. Now I just have to look at a giant light orange/cream stadium with little oranges around the top of it like a crown when ever Im in St. Pete.

This seems a bit misleading... I do not know the details behind all of them, but living in Pittsburgh, I feel I can speak to the PNC Park naming deal, at least a little. I have no connection to it other than being a resident of the metro area.

The deal was signed before the Park even opened in 2001... Things were obviously different then. At the time, it was determined that the marketing impressions delivered by $2 million a year for 20 years were worth the money, and that may or may not be true. Thing is, the deal is already 8 years old, and runs until 2020, so characterizing it as being somehow disingenuous in light of the current financial situation seems somewhat unfair, a sin of omission.

Some commenters above have stated this - are the bailout banks not supposed to advertise anymore? I thought the last recession taught companies that cutting marketing as a first line of defense isn't always the best line of defense. Hiding what light you may still have under a bushel basket isn't going to get you out of any mess, regardless of whether you were complicit in the making of said mess in the first place.

I've never been swayed to use a particular brand or service because of stadium naming rights. I understand the "branding" philosophy, but seeing a Cubs game in Wrigley Field does not make me more or less apt to chew Wrigley gum. Why would I want to bank with a company that that thinks it's a good idea to drop tens of millions of dollars to name a stadium?

@Stephen W. Daries:
Actually, most businesses need to advertise and get their name or brand recognition if they are going to survive. There is a famous anonymous quote that sums it up nicely: "A business that finds itself immune to advertising soon finds itself immune to business."

I'm not saying they should pay $400M to get their name on a stadium, but putting their name out in the public and gaining recognition is one of the best ways to increase business / revenue.

Think of how well a business would do if you didn't know who they were. They'd probably never get your business. However, if they get their name on your favorite team's stadium, their name is always in the front of your brain and makes it more likely for you to use them. It's all in familiarity and human psychology. We tend to do business with those who make us feel comfortable and hearing a name over and over in your living room makes you feel comfortable about that business.

@sublicon: Especially when these deals were made WELL BEFORE the bailouts. They are NOT using taxpayer money to pay for these...yet.

It's much like that Chrysler - Terminator deal...it was made long ago!

@That Guy: Agreed. Most (all?) of those deals were signed far enough in advance that money has been paid and invested. Depending on how things are set up, the ETF may not be worth it.

Additionally, the advertising isn't designed to make you think "I want to go to CitiBank." It's designed to make you think "I need to go to the bank - hey, there's a CitiBank around the corner." It's all about mindshare...

@Gene Gemperline: You picked a bad park for comparison. Wrigley is not a naming rights field, it's one that just happened to owned by Bill Wrigley who owned the Cubs, the park, as well as the gum company. The Tribune Company owns the park now and just let the famous name stay. But that's just and FYI.

The real point is that naming rights are a legit form of advertising. I personally cannot stand it, but I respect the fact that it happens. Though you may not feel the urge to buy wrigley gum or open an BoA account, many people do so it is legit and effective advertising. Removing a means of advertising hurts a company and thus may prevent or delay them from repaying the loans.

Think of the brand recognition one of these banks would receive if they donated $100 million to needy people's heating bills (like Chavez!), or a food pantry. This would surely set one apart from the pack...I know I'd switch to that bank in a heartbeat.

Some of these banks took the bailout money simply because other banks did and they did not want to be at a competitive disadvantage. I have a feeling that one or two (not Citi) have the bailout money sitting untouched and earning interest. With the executive salary stuff, etc., they might try to give it back.

Also, many of these deals were inked well before the financial meltdown.

From SatireWire in 2001!
[www.satirewire.com]

@jag164: Good point. Forgot about that for a moment. The name "Wrigley Field" goes back a loooong time.

I just remember a awhile back when there was talk about renaming Soldier Field, which would've been terrible seeing as how it was dedicated to soldiers who lost their lives in battle. Needless to say that didn't fly with Chicago.

Wrigley Field is another matter. There's alot of talk now about whether or not it'll stay "Wrigley Field." We'll see.

And I realize it's a legit form of advertising. I "understand" corporate sponsorship. What I fail to understand is how spending so much money on naming rights makes fiscal sense. Of course I don't have figures or evidence to back up my gut feelings, but... you know.

I guess you force so many people to say your name that's good enough.

@Yossarian: I think the conclusion is don't be making lavish gestures of wealth and leisure with one hand, while begging for money with the other.

@sublicon: Yesbut ... all of those banks except Citi, and maybe BankAtlantic, had those deals in place years ago and still needed bailout money. Naming rights may lead to making money, it's certainly not a given.

I'd rather see Citi spending our money on something that is more likely to be profitable.

@failurate: Is advertising inherently a lavish gesture?

Let's say, just for the sake of argument that it could be shown that Citibank's profits increased due to this advertising by more than the cost of this advertising. I'm not saying that is the case but, if it is, wouldn't this a smart move by Citibank (or at least not such a bad one)?

@Yossarian: There's a difference in an ad campaign and naming a stadium. It can be argued that naming a stadium is advertising, but it's just a name. The Wachovia Spectrum Center doesn't tell you about savings accounts, interests, loans, mortgages, bill pay or anything else. Now, if Wachovia wanted to hand out flyers to everybody who attended the games, put ads in game flyers/books, posters, etc. that's different. Naming a stadium is just a name. Not an add.

When I'm in Philly, I don't think of the Linc (Lincoln Financial Field) as a bank, I think of it as where the Eagles play. It's not effective advertising because it's not selling a product.

This is a very gray area right now.

On the one hand, stadium sponsorships are a great way to increase product exposure. Even though companies may be failing, they still need some way to actually sell their product and recover.

On the other hand, 99% of customers currently look at big purchases like private jets, stadium naming rights, or retarded full page ads in US Today [jalopnik.com] as foolhardy, irresponsible, and wasteful. Funny how attitudes change when it's OUR money being used for the purchases, eh?

I wonder if people would react the same if the story title was "8 Banks responsible for $845 million of additional revenue to cities/counties".

For, you see, many of these arenas and stadiums are owned by the cities or counties which they call home. So few sports teams actually pony up to build stadiums/arenas these days, they make the taxpayers do it instead.

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected:

They Are??? and where did you get this fact from? Last I read none of these banks are in a position to be "getting ready to pay it back".... Please enlighten with facts.....

@Wit: Somewhat true... a handful of banks who did not feel they needed bailout money did not want to take it- but were forced to by the government. Gov't didn't want customers making a run on just a few banks getting bailout money over the perception that they were so vulnerable they needed the bailout money.

@failurate: Or borrowing $10,000 from your inlaws because you are about to lose your house, but then showing up at the next family get together in a hot red convertable.

@Nogard13: All this thinking done subconsciously. Nobody says "I'm a Mets fan, so I'm gonna use citibank," they instead naturally think of citibank when considering where to bank.

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: Source? Goldman has said that they would "like to" repay those TARP funds they received, that they're planning on it, and that they "hope" to repay them this year. That is a $10 billion drop in the bucket of the $.8 TRILLION of outstanding TARPs.

I'm glad that the banks don't want the TARPs, and I know they want the Feds out of their hair. That's the way it's supposed to be. But is that enough to actually motivate them to pay back the loans quickly? I won't believe it until their checks clear.

I thought PNC was a bank that did not need a bailout? Well thats at least what they keep telling me whenever I use online banking.

Someone also mentioned it above, but the PNC deal was done long before bailouts became the defacto way of doing business.

@Brendon Rapp: Most teams not only have tax payers pay to build the stadium but the team owner also harvests the naming rights profits...

On an aside, gotta love sports greed.

Not enough to give your team a stadium but they each gotta be the state-of-the-art to one-up your rivals. You can swindle local government for tax money too, just promise jobs (all of them part time minimum wage jobs, but don't actually TELL anyone that part) and threaten to take your team elsewhere.

They build the stadiums and give no thought to the infrastructure around them like roads and the such. It's good to know you can pick up the sports page and predict the upcoming traffic jams. For the stadium itself the trend is more and more "premium" seats like club and box because those tickets have higher profit margins. With that the affordable cattle seats are fewer in number and that itself justifies a higher price at the box and at the scalper.

So after they get all this money and sell the naming rights and sell pretty much all they can (I'm surprised each blade of grass doesn't have a small Nike swoosh laser etched into it), they STILL charge $6 for a hot dog, $9 for a beer, $15 for basic parking where you walk three football fields to get to the stadium containing one.

Burn.

@Kimaroo: Things like "Tropicana Field" and "Oracle Stadium" sound really tacky now, but Wrigley field is just named after a gum company, and people love it. I think in 80 years or so, if these companies are still around, and aren't a bunch of jerks, some of their brands could become iconically accepted in the same way. "COULD" being the operative word. I totally expect the venues to change hands every 10 years, continue sounding tacky, and for the companies sponsoring the stadiums to act like pricks.

Banks should be able to do whatever the hell they want with bailout money until the government learns how to control what said banks do with that money.

When someone gives a hundred dollars to a drug addict in desparate need of a fix, one shouldn't expect that person to go buy vegetables and rice with it.

Banks are going to do bank-y things unless (a) the law requires otherwise and (b) the government has enough balls to enforce that law.

@Wit: Weren't they actually *required to* take the funding for the plan to pass? The Feds didn't want to inadvertently reveal which banks were in the worst shape, so ALL major banks needed to participate, whether they needed to or not.