Just caught a piece of rage-inducing news: a Washington State House bill proposing
selling naming rights to elements of public transportation to raise money. As he almost always does, I think Goldy
says it best:
Personally, I'm opposed to selling the naming rights on state bridges and highways because I think it cheapens the commons and
(
Read more... )
Comments 58
Reply
Hello Mr Exxon!
G'day Miss L'Oreal!
Reply
Hello Mr. TUM TUM TUM TUM TUMS!
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
It seems to me that if you want your name on something you should build it yourself. So, as long the cost of the naming rights equals the cost of construction or maintenance, I'd be OK with naming a bridge or overpass after a company or individual, but just turning our public buildings into billboards is unseemly. The government shouldn't be in the business of owning stadiums, period.
Reply
Thank you. My point exactly.
My initiative would not require 100% cost coverage, but that's because I was feeling generous last night.
Reply
( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
By contrast, stadium rights pervade outside our area. Every ball game is broadcast with commentators; every commentator is required to proudly name the stadium (without snark). The stadium's name might not be popular to the locals, but increasingly sports broadcast has made even modest local games the subject of regional, national or even international broadcasts.
Even if every branch of a naming company were to close in the area surrounding the stadium, the naming rights would continue to do their work. A vinyl-wrapped train or bus, by contrast, only offends those who can see it, and only for a few weeks.
Reply
Well I use public transport all the time, it's everywhere in the city even when I don't use it, and I see it alot.
But it doesn't bother me either really.
Reply
Leave a comment