What’s in a name? $ 700 million and some headaches
[ad_1]
Staples Center broke records by announcing a $ 700 million naming rights deal that will be renamed Crypto.com Arena from Christmas Day 2021. That money can buy a lot of prestige, but there’s no guarantee that anyone calls actually the arena by its new name. Naming rights deals aren’t limited to stadiums, skylines are full of buildings named for a price. Some have been nominated more successfully than others. Public perception is hard to buy.
Naming rights in the United States date back to the early days of baseball. Fenway Realty, owned by the family of Red Sox owner John Taylor, saw the promotional opportunity to attach the name of the real estate companies to the Red Sox baseball field. This assertion is disputed. Fenway Realty itself was named after a nearby park and no formal naming rights agreement ever existed. Taylor’s ready-made response for shamelessly plugging his family’s own business was to pretend the land was called the park, not the business. The dispute lasts to this day, with Red Sox purists insisting Fenway is one of the last bastions against the cynical practice of naming rights deals, even though evidence suggests it was the genesis.
At the heart of naming rights issues are arguments about the origin of Fenway’s name. From the very beginning, there has been a public backlash against naming rights deals that has been creating headaches for landowners for decades. Taylor has denied the name’s connection to his family
from the start to fend off criticism. The way a place gets its name and what people call it is usually a tangle of history, culture and language with deep meaning that is hard to unravel. Paying for a name is like paying for the local culture and history. The ubiquity of a name requires a positive public perception, which is hard to buy. The public backlash against rude commercialization using beloved institutions for marketing purposes began over a century ago but continues to this day.
What’s talking about Willis?
The issue is particularly relevant for stadiums and arenas with deep cultural ties to the surrounding region, but backlash regarding naming rights deals involving iconic offices of major importance to their city are also common. There’s no better example of this backlash to office naming rights deals than a certain iconic 110-story skyscraper in Chicago. The tallest building in the world for more than two decades, the office tower was known as the Sears Tower through multiple ownership changes until 2009. London-based insurance broker Willis Group Holdings agreed to rent multiple floors, obtaining the naming rights as part of the deal. On paper, the asset is now called Willis Tower. In Chicago, it will always be the Sears Tower.
“If someone calls it Willis Tower, it’s a sign that it’s a tourist or a transplant,” said Eleana Thornton, from Chicago.
If you ask a Chicagoan how to get to Willis Tower, they’ll pretend to ignore it. I have experienced it firsthand. “Tour Willis? Who is it?’ they ask sadly. Oh, you mean the Sears Tower. They might be right. The refusal to call the building Willis Tower seems to be paying off. Willis Group Holdings was recently renamed under the Aon banner in a $ 30 billion deal, the name Willis is not long in this world. So where does that leave Willis Tower?
Willis’ initial deal calls for the company to pay $ 1 million per year for the naming rights for the nearly 4 million square foot office through 2025. Changing the name to Aon Tower doesn’t have much to do with it. sense, Aon Center in the East Loop of Chicago is already a well- established name and with so little time remaining on the original lease, any name change has the possibility of being only temporary, which further irritates plus the inhabitants. United Airlines, which leased 850,000 in the building until 2033, was offered naming rights but turned them down. The name may change to a name based on the address, 233 South Wacker. Wacker Tower, Two-Three-Three or The Wacker have all been proposed. Locals want the name to return to Sears Tower. The Aon-Sears tower could be a good compromise.
All the money in the world is not enough to convince Chicagoans to call the building Willis Tower. There is no guarantee that the naming rights of the building have a better chance of becoming common language than Willis Tower. Warm Chicago Midwesterners may be stubborn and tradition-focused, but loathing for the practice of selling naming rights is universal. Virtually every city with a skyline has buildings that locals refuse to rename, even if a business pays millions for a name no one uses. Houston has the Transco Tower. San Francisco has the Transbay Tower. The CenTrust tower in Miami has had five different names. Some names stick better than others.
Evil world
The World Trade Center is a building name few will ever forget, but even this historic name has its own drama around naming rights. The World Trade Centers Association charges its more than 300 members an initiation fee of $ 250,000 and an annual membership fee of $ 12,500 for the right to call their building a World Trade Center. The New York and New Jersey Port Authority has claimed that the WTCA has been misusing the World Trade Center brand for decades. The Port Authority built the first World Trade Centers, occupied the buildings for decades, and rebuilt One World Trade Center after 9/11, but does not hold the naming rights for the building. In 1986, the New York and New Jersey Port Authority sold the naming rights to incumbent Guy Tozzoli for just $ 10. Tozzoli kept the prize a secret until his death. Documents revealed after his death show Tozzoli supplementing his Port Authrpoity pension with a salary of $ 626,000 for one hour of WTCA work per week. The revelation has rekindled the naming rights controversy, angering state officials and an investigation by the New York attorney general.
âThe World Trade Center has become a public symbol of our city, our state and our nation,â said then Governor Andrew Cuomo. “It is troubling that an organization has made millions of dollars selling what is primarily public property.”
A deal is a deal and it looks like Tozzoli has made a great one. In 2018, a New York judge ruled that while the WTCA did not own any trademark rights, the original agreement reached gave the WTCA ownership of the trademark for services and licenses. The WTCA has licensed the name to 323 properties in 90 different countries, making it by far the most popular and profitable naming rights association in the world.
The name of the game
Entities paying millions of lawyers to discuss who owns a name is part of the absurdity surrounding naming rights. The public perception of the World Trade Center has nothing to do with obscure legal documents that only a handful of people have actually seen. Paying for a name that no one uses sounds absurd, but naming rights agreements work. Changing the name seems to be the problem. A business deal is fine, but subsequent deals to change a name are met with hostility. Sometimes it is necessary to change the name, like when Enron Field in Houston became Minute Maid Park. Some names themselves are absurd like the guaranteed rate field, KFC Yum! Center and Stadium of the University of Phoenix, where the University does not play because it’s an online school. A good naming rights deal is about being connected to the local people. Ford Field in Detroit operates because of the automaker’s close ties and investment in Motor City.
See also
The office world is unlikely to reach the heights of stadium naming rights. The stadiums host major events and are featured regularly on national sports broadcasts. In the office sector, naming rights agreements are part of larger lease negotiations. Naming rights are often added to sweeten a deal, paid for in a complicated mix of concessions. You won’t find any $ 700 million naming contracts in office buildings. Given the drama surrounding the name changes, this may be for the best.
It all comes down to nostalgia and change. People know it in a way, practicing calling a place something else is something that many just don’t want to do. When people associate this place with good memories, it is even more difficult. Staples Center is the “House Kobe Built” where the late star played his 20 NBA seasons. The arena was a gathering place for grieving fans after Bryant’s fatal accident, hosting a memorial service for him, his 13-year-old daughter Gianna and eight other victims in the crash less than a month after the incident.
In a different world, renaming Staples Center to something that honors Kobe’s legendary career might make sense. At the very least, the locals don’t want the name to change. But that’s not the world we live in and it never has been. From Fenway Park to the very first formal naming rights agreement between Anheuser-Busch and the St. Louis Cardinals at Crypto.com Arena, the naming rights have been fully commercialized. Stadiums and offices without naming rights are the exceptions to the rule. The history, culture and language that create place names are also entangled in business.
âI understand the disappointment of the fans. But that’s just the way of the world. This is the company we are in. Almost everywhere in the country there is a commercial element in the naming rights of arenas. It’s really out of our control, âsaid Lakers coach Frank Vogel.
Some naming rights deals may be more effective than others, but that won’t stop companies from trying. The right to name does not make it compulsory, there is no law on a book obliging anyone to use the name. Fans and locals don’t get paid to call it that, it’s the owner. Popular sports site Defector has taken a stand by creating an official policy not to identify stadiums by their sponsored name. It may still be the Sears Tower. It could still be Staples Center. For owners, it’s fine as long as the checks are clear. Don’t expect anyone to like or use the name.
[ad_2]