Jun
Sports team branding: Bullish or bull-sh . . .?
Andrew Berthoff
As a fan of most sports, I’ve noticed evolving trends in sponsorships, naming and branding over the last 20 years. I grew up in St. Louis and am an avid fan of the Cardinals, the greatest franchise in Major League Baseball.
Since the 1950s, the Redbirds have played at three different ballparks called “Busch Memorial Stadium.” St. Louis is as synonymous with the Cardinals as it is with the big beer brewer there, and, until the late 1990s the team was owned by the Busch family, of Anheuser Busch renown. But I always associated “Busch Memorial Stadium” not with the brand of beer, but with the name of the owner. It was a tribute to the patriarchal brewer, not a marketing ploy.
When the team opened its new ballpark in 2006, the “Memorial” part was dropped. It’s now just “Busch Stadium,” since the team had changed ownership, but sold naming rights to Anheuser Busch. In addition to continuing tradition, it’s now mainly a marketing tactic for the beer maker.
With only a few exceptions (e.g., Yankee Stadium, Fenway . . .), selling naming rights to sports stadiums and arenas in North America is now commonplace, and an important revenue source. The notion of a new ballpark developing a brand name unto itself appears to be dying, even if it means occasionally having to scramble to find a new sponsor of places like “Enron Field.”
But now I’m noticing a completely different trend: naming the sports team itself after the sponsor. The relatively new Major League Soccer sports “Red Bull New York” as a franchise. The 13-year-old team, previously called the MetroStars, was purchased by the Austria-based energy drink people in 2006. Not only did they purchase the franchise, Red Bull obviously obtained permission to rename the team.
So, rather than continuing the tradition of the MetroStars and the process of building it as a distinct sports-team brand, the company did more than just integrate it with the name of the energy drink. The soccer team is the brand.
It’s an interesting concept. As a sports fan, I don’t like it. It’s akin to renaming the Yankees the New York Steinbrenners. [Shudder.]
But as a marketing professional, I’m fascinated by the, um, Bullish, strategy.
“selling naming rights to sports stadiums and arenas in North America is now commonplace”
That doesn’t mean it’s right. I’m not actually equating the two but slavery was once commonplace… that didn’t mean it was right.
Stadiums and arenas (and outdoor amphitheaters for concerts) are not just given a corporate name, sometimes they’re given a new corporate name… and then another new corporate name. Some venues are now even on their 4th name in only a dozen years or so. I don’t think it can be denied that that is tremendously asinine. When somewhere new opens, my first thought is often, “Oh, I wonder how long that name will stick around before it’s changed.” It’s just not right. And now in America there are even multiple venues with the SAME name (or at least the same sponsor in the name.)
Extending this branding might be inevitable… but for football and baseball and basketball, that’ll take time. First things first — sponsor logos on uniform jerseys. It’s sad that America is rapidly becoming a nation where something is advertised everywhere you turn. Who the heck wants to go to Quicken Loans Arena?!?!
I have to agree with you on the naming rights of a team. I heard the WNBA might be going European in the near future with ads on there jerseys. Which I think is a bit too far even for the WNBA.
I know the Detroit Red Wings will eventually get a new arena and I hope it is named Olympia or something of the kind. The Entertainment company was named after the old arena. So it would be fitting and still seal the deal on rights.
Where does the dollar go too far? You can either have the arena named after an organization or you can have ads on there sweaters.