A few weeks ago, Citigroup got a $25 Billion bailout from the Federal Government to avoid bankruptcy and save the company and with it a big piece of both the U.S and Global financial system. As much as these bailouts are a cause for concern and argument, they got one. Since they have gotten one, a major piece of Citigroup’s marketing budget has become a lightning rod for the media and fan base of the New York Mets. Citigroup had agreed, a few years ago, to become the naming sponsor of the Mets new ballpark, now called Citi Field. Now, for the most part, these articles have taken the everyman approach of, “how could they possibly spend this money if they had gotten the bailout” pointing to Buick and Tiger Woods parting ways as the example of why the Mets should part ways with Citigroup. They go on to say we now own a piece of the field and as taxpayers we own the company and blah blah blah. It is a bunch of crap.
To me the false indignation of those against Citigroup keeping the naming rights is short sighted. If we (the taxpayers) put $25 billion in to the company do we want them to continue and grow or still fail? A company this big spends millions and millions on advertising a year. $20 million a year of their budget will go to the naming rights of Citi Field. Why? Well 81 (or hopefully more) times a year this stadium will be on TV for 3 hours a night in the biggest city in the country plus at least one other city in America. Their name will be on the scoreboard and outfield walls. In the stadium, it will be on every ATM machine. Every car that passes by Citi Field coming from LaGuardia going to the LIE to the Midtown Tunnel will see it. Every newspaper and online paper will say Citi Field. If they decided to take the name off the field, would Citi still advertise? Of course they would. They would have print and TV ads that would cost as much or more to promote their banks and other interests. So why is spending $20 million a year in advertising ($400 million is the 20 year deal) a lot to keep a company growing. AIG did not give up it’s Man U sponsorship. Why? Because they are the biggest sports team in the entire world and more people globally watch their games than any other team. That’s why. It is simple business. Any Met fan that has ever wondered what an AZEK trimboard is and had to look it up will tell you the power of stadium advertising.
The Tiger Woods/Buick argument is not necessarily apples to apples either. Unlike Citigroup, GM did not get a bailout. So they had to look at different ways to cut budget. I am also of the belief that Tiger Woods losing Buick is good for Tiger Woods. That partnership never really fit. The bailout given to Citigroup has kept the company going and in turn the US Government (and us the taxpayer) need the company to grow and stay solvent. Should the management group of Citigroup be held accountable? Absolutely. Should they not get raises for putting a company in fiscal peril? Of course. But now it is their job to keep Citigroup going forward. Marketing is a huge part of that. They are going to have to go out and wipe the “stain” off their name. By folding up the tent, they are not necessarily showing investors that the bailout helped. The naming rights of stadiums are proving to work and be an important part of a company’s marketing. If they were not, would all these companies still be buying those rights?
Maybe some of that marketing money could’ve gone to those 50,000 jobs that were shed, according to the possibly related post.
+1, clown
Maybe some of that marketing money could’ve gone to
those 50,000 jobs that were shedTony Clark’s difference making, according to the possibly related post.clown…ok…so you save the jobs?..then how do you promote the company? The Marketing people then would lose their jobs too if you want to go there…a big company is spending on advertising…don’t act like it wouldn’t on the stadium or through other venues
it was a mutual parting of ways, despite what ESPN said. and he was sponsored by GM, not buick, and they got pissy when he showed up at the tourney in dubai in a porsche.
rwh-do we have any studies that show the magnitude that naming rights has in marketing a company?
is that a redundancy or a reference to something Tampa Bo likes to do?
and, yes, it’s fucking fantastic for tiger…that sponsorship was always the black sheep of his endorsement family.
+1 miz
50,000 people saying “Yay, I didn’t lose my job!” > extra Citi ATMs so that Roman can get some scratch to buy a Mets foam finger #1 and one of those helmets with two wine glasses on the sides
/promotional vehicles
Here you go Sparty.
http://www.performanceresearch.com/naming-rights.htm
clown…the 20 million would not go towards saving the jobs…it is a narrow minded view of the whole thing…if this was happing in ugh..Dallas…I would feel the same way as I do here
What is this economics 101? Government 400? Fuck this shit roman, get back to your hate-mongering. I like you better that way. Although, I’ll always like this above even your delightful New Yorker hate.
interesting numbers. however, it fails to mention how US residents responded to: Has, or would increase purchase consideration’ of that brand or product.
I’m with you, Roman. I just like the thought of you drinking zinfandel out of one of these while holding one of these.
red zinfandel or white zinfandel?
I drink Cabernet…not Zin…please get my foo foo drinking straight
While wearing jorts.
red zin is perfectly acceptable, rwh. stop being a snob.
pass me the prune juice.
/sportsgal
pass me the apple juice.
/fetch
Pass me a beer
/me