Brand News: Saturday, March 05, 2008
AbsoluteBrand Quoted in Chicago Tribune, for Naming Rights Story
by Mary Ellen Podmolik
Paying for the right to change Wrigley Field's name would provide a big company with national exposure and the ego boost of connecting itself to a baseball shrine.
But don't forget the boos.
Since Sam Zell, Tribune Co.'s chairman and chief executive, reiterated last week that he wouldn't hesitate to sell naming rights to the ballpark as part of a deal to sell the team and stadium, marketing experts have debated the idea, while many die-hard Chicago Cubs fans have acted offended.
The upshot: Doing anything more than getting the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. to pay for what it's gotten for free for 80 years represents an extraordinary marketing opportunity that also risks alienating the public.
The very qualities that make Wrigley unique -- the historic, landmarked ballpark, a national fan base and even a surrounding neighborhood named for the stadium -- may thwart suitors.
"Wrigley Field will be a very tricky deal," said Alan Ferber, the chief marketing officer of U.S. Cellular Corp. who helped negotiate the deal to rename Comiskey Park six years ago. "I think there's a really big question about whether it'll get done. I think they'll have a really big public relations risk. I think it's a minefield for anyone to step in it."
Companies clamor to be associated with professional sports stadiums and the opportunity to link their businesses to passionate fans. Experts say Wrigley naming rights could be worth a whopping $10 million or more a year.
"There will be plenty of companies that would like to align with the Cubs, but it boils down to is there a way to do it so they don't suffer an enormous community relations and PR backlash?" said David Carter, executive director of the University of Southern California Sports Business Institute. "You're not going to find any greater venue with greater sensitivity than the naming of Wrigley Field."
Different decisions
Two different decisions made in New York reflect the issues facing Tribune Co., which also owns the Chicago Tribune.
In November 2006, Citigroup Inc. agreed to pay $20 million a year for 20 years to call the New York Mets' new stadium Citi Field when it opens next year.
But when the New York Yankees move into their new home next year, it will continue to be called Yankee Stadium, though the team is selling key sponsorship opportunities in the park for as much as $20 million a year.
"Yankee Stadium is the cathedral of baseball and would be unseemly for a naming rights deal," Randy Levine, the Yankees' president, said recently.
Cubs Chairman Crane Kenney, calling the Yankees' plan a creative solution, said naming rights for Wrigley could take several forms and are just one of several ideas to generate cash and aid in the restoration and renovation of the 94-year-old ballpark. Regardless of whether naming rights or the stadium's sale would come first, Kenney said he understands the tempest that's been brewing.
"We're concerned about preserving the unique culture of our ballpark," Kenney said. "Fan backlash is certainly something we're thinking about."
The modern business of stadium naming rights is traced to 1972, when Rich Products Corp. agreed to pay $1.5 million, or about $60,000 annually over 25 years, to put its name on the home of the Buffalo Bills. Stadium sponsorship has gained momentum, particularly over the past decade, as team owners seek new sources of revenue and look to build new ballparks.
The new era of sponsorship agreements entitles companies to special areas within parks for marketing activities and lucrative contracts such as pouring rights for a beverage company. But leveraging Wrigley will be more difficult because in 2004 the city granted landmark status to Wrigley's four exterior walls and roof, the marquee sign at Clark and Addison, the center field scoreboard and the brick and ivy walls surrounding the field, limiting a sponsor's ability to use them.
Fans argue the Wrigley gum company could solve the problem and generate goodwill by ponying up to preserve tradition. The company -- which has had its name on the stadium since 1927 when it was named for team owner and gummaker William Wrigley Jr. -- has no comment, a spokesman said.
Brad Sarna, a sports valuation analyst at Absolute Brand LLC in Milwaukee, thinks the Wrigley company wouldn't get enough out of a deal.
"I don't even think of Wrigley gum when I think of Wrigley Field," he said. And calling it Orbit Stadium, after a Wrigley brand, would defeat the purpose.
Marketers say putting a corporate name on a new facility is easier than changing the name of a beloved stadium. San Francisco's Candlestick Park has gone through three different name changes but is still called Candlestick. When the rights for the current name, Monster Park, expire in June, the home of the San Francisco 49ers will revert to its original name.
In Cleveland earlier this year, insurance company Progressive Inc. bought naming rights to the home of the Cleveland Indians. Though just 14 years old, Jacobs Field has an affectionate nickname that could be tough to eradicate -- the Jake.
Both the insurance company and the Indians acknowledged it will take time for fans to accept the new Progressive Field.
Fans called adaptable
But Mark Ganis, president of SportsCorp Ltd., a Chicago-based sports marketing and advisory firm, thinks fans can adapt.
"Is the sunshine any less warm when a fan goes to the game?" he asked. "Is the beer any less cold because they changed the name of the stadium?" He added: "The name of the building is a hot story for a while and then it goes away because what's important is the experience in the building."
U.S. Cellular faced those concerns, albeit on a lesser scale than at Wrigley Field, when in 2002 it began negotiations with the Chicago White Sox. The company was new to the Chicago market and putting its name on the ballpark was a marquee branding opportunity the wireless carrier couldn't pass up.
Fully aware of the backlash that would occur in taking the historic name "Comiskey" off the 12-year-old park, U.S. Cellular made sure that the money generated from the naming rights would be used to improve the facility. Otherwise, the company feared its name not only would be associated with a fan backlash but also a ballpark widely criticized for its design flaws.
"It was the only way we would have done the deal," Ferber said. "We were committed to improving the experience."
Five years later, U.S. Cellular said its decision has generated far greater financial returns than first anticipated. In addition to the name change, the company operates a store inside the park and does marketing programs with players.
The only downside is U.S. Cellular Field is now more popularly called "The Cell" when it isn't still being referred to as Comiskey.
"I'd rather it be called The Cell than Comiskey Park," Ferber said.