In addition, there are risks that the university faces when signing naming rights contracts.
The Sports Marketing Association stated that, “pride and team identification are considered the primary benefits of having a team, so it has been deemed critical the team’s playing space bear a name that commemorates the relationship among team, city, and fans....Therefore, it seems reasonable to suggest that by altering the name and tradition associated with an athletic facility, there could be a trickle-down effect that might adversely affect psychological attachment and attitudes toward commercialism.”
This has proven to be true, as several CU Buff fans have spoken out in opposition to the naming rights.
“I don’t think this move is necessary at all,” said Isaac Droke, junior news broadcast major. “Folsom Field has been Folsom Field for as long as I can remember and I think it should stay that way.”
Lichtenstein further explained that this is a form of co-branding in which both entities are at risk in what each other do in terms of tarnishing equity of their brand name. There is a danger when co-branding anything. Take for example Enron Stadium, former name of the Houston Astros’ playing space. When the Enron Corp. scandal broke, causing the corporation to file for bankruptcy, the Astros decided to remove its name from the stadium.
Critical in a successful marketing strategy of naming rights would therefore include choosing a company that resonated well with the community and one in which the risks are low. Local sentiment should figure into the equation. A Wall Street Corporation would likely not resonate well with a liberal community such as Boulder.
The good news, then, is Frontier Airlines is a Denver based company. So far to date, the corporation has had nothing offensive or outrageous reported in their name.
“We will get this right,” said Bohn. “We won’t make that mistake.”
No comments:
Post a Comment