So first it was private jets.

Then it was executives who make a lot of money.

Now it's naming rights for stadiums.

Unless the government is going to create a specific list titled "THINGS BANKS WHO RECEIVED BAILOUT MONEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEND ANY MONEY ON", then this is just a ridiculous witch hunt brought to you by class warfare oriented socialists.

Gotta point out that Wells/Wachovia didn't ask for bailout money...it was forced on them (just like it was forced on may other financial institutions who didn't ask for it {which is totally available via many reputable sources, i.e. CNN Money, etc})in the first "lets-throw-money-around-to-try-to-avert-the-financial-apocalypse" attempt. So, that being the case, what they do about naming rights and how much they pay their execs is really not relevant. It would be a totally different story if these banks had asked for the money, but since they didn't, and didn't have a choice about taking the money, why are they being held to the same standard as the banks obviously looking for taxpayer handouts by the media? Pure and utter sensationalism in some cases.

When was the last time you saw a name on a stadium of which you were not already aware?

That represents only .55% of their bailout out package. So if there is any appreciable return on this investment it's probably not a bad thing for the banks.

Additionally as several people have pointed out a lot of these companies had standing contracts with the stadiums in question for the naming rights. Given that at this time those are sunk costs it doesn't make sense for a company like Wachovia to cede their naming rights since they've already ponied up for the naming rights and have nothing to gain from not using them.

Much more alarming is the fact that our government "overpaid" on the bailout package to the tune of $78 billion.

Times Online Article on US Bailout

Why would they get money for someone else giving them what they want?

I live in Dallas, for example, and at American Airlines center they give away trips at every game (or at least they used to) and for a while/possibly still now, if you were an AA Rewards member, or whatever they're calling it now, you had a special entrance and could get some nice discounts.

At the Dr. Pepper Stars Center, they give away Dr. Peppers, and they serve Dr. Pepper.

What is the bank going to do? Give away money? I wish. Set up some atms or something? Maybe a branch? Flyers for free overdraft protection?

But the massive amount of money we (any of us) spend on advertising still disgusts me, for the record.

"The one in Dallas"
"Which one?"
"Maybe the big giant "Dallas Stadium". Or the "Victory Park Stadium"...*rattles off addresses*. Seriously. Stop with the dope."

Crisis averted!

@ohenry: Most of baseball has this. Usually it's in conjunction with some kinda charity. When a player steals a base, Company X give 100 dollars to Children's Hospitals.

@torgonius: Actually, in baseball radio they have something similiar. I'm in Wisconsin, so I listen to the Brewers broadcasts often (since we have the legendary Bob Uecker doing the broadcasts) and, I don't remember the specific companies, but they have the Radio Shack double play (when the defense turns a double play), the company X home run when a home run is hit, the company Y 7th inning stretch, etc.

Your idea is really only a matter of time.

Hell, after awhile, you usually don't even associate the stadium with the product anymore. The Tigers have been in Comerica Park for about 7 or 8 years or so, and I couldn't tell you where a Comerica bank is if my life depended on it (Without then looking it up on the internet to keep from dying). Wrigley Field? It never even occurred to me that it could possibly have anything to do with the makers of Juicyfruit and Doublemint until those comments up above (although partly because Wrigley is the company, not the product itself, so there's not nearly the recognition as if it were Juicyfruit Field). Ford Field? I don't even have a clue if it's supposed to be named for the car company or the man / family, and it certainly doesn't make me want to go out and get a Taurus or Focus.

Simply put, I've never heard a stadium name and thought, "Man, I gotta get me some of that," and never will, unless a stadium ends up becoming Hot Naked Woman Park.

I'm done and will spend the rest of my days living on the street as long as I never hear those two words combined again.

Without reading ALL the comments, there is a lot of misinformation here. M&T Bank, for example, were esentially forced to take bail-out money. They did not need it, or want it. The money they are spending are their own, not the taxpayers. Essenitally they had to take the money so that (at the time) they did not look bad compared to the other big banks who were taking the cash.

What a lot of people don't realize is a lot of companies had to take money from the government that they did not want or need. But a lot of the funds had to be 'cloaked' (not so much the banks, but investment firms and such) so that they would not lose all their business when people found out they needed/got funds. So they spread the funds around to avoid sinking a company they were trying to help.

I'd actually say you are the one that needs to relax.

@Davan: Wow, no one is saying that you have to itemize it. And I'm far from "bent out of shape about it." I'm just pointing out that it's NOT $1.33 per American. If you don't want to break it down to cite it factually, then don't cite it incorrectly either. Just don't make the claim if you're going to be an asshole about it. I never said anything to you in a disrespectful manner, yet you throw that "no need to get bent out of shape" and "I'll get right on that to make you happy" crap.

Relax brother.

Ironically enough the stadium used to be named PSINet stadium...until that company went bankrupt. Nextel was also competing with M&T Bank for the naming rights.

Time: "Although Wells Fargo chairman Richard Kovacevich resisted, Paulson gave the bankers no choice."

Newsweek: "Richard Kovacevich had a point. Why should his company, Wells Fargo, sign its freedom (and his compensation) away to the U.S. Treasury when, unlike many other banks, it hadn't overloaded itself with risky mortgage-backed securities? The Wells Fargo chairman eventually agreed Monday to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's capital injection plan--it was, frankly, an offer he couldn't refuse--but Kovacevich's objections still resonate."

When I heard about the Wells Fargo/Las Vegas stuff earlier this week I was amazed they would be that stupid, but after the facts (cough, cough) were pointed out to me by colleagues I felt a little different.

@sublicon: Another "reality" is if you don't make that car, house, credit card, etc. payment then you lose it and your credit rating goes to shit. If you are in a bad financial position, you budget or maybe even choose one bill over the other.

This is a great example of how this "business" works, fire x number of employees but gee golly gosh don't forget that 20 million dollar payment we owe to the Mets to keep our naming rights!
Tax dollars are wasted by the government enough, now we have bank execs to continue the trend...gotta love it.

B) If the deals are canceled, the stadiums will lose out on the money.

C) The banks spent 0.845/153 = 0.56% of the bail-out money on advertising. Advertising is an established practice of running a business. (Granted, the efficacy of stadium branding is debatable.)

If we're gonna squabble over all the little things like this - which are standard business practices - let's just nationalize the banks and be done with it.

@richcreamerybutter: I agree. I am more likely to look into moving my business to a bank if one of my utility bills stated "January balance paid in full by Wells Fargo" than if they bought naming rights to a stadium.

By the way, I closed my Citi bank account and moved everything to a local credit union in town just the other day.

@That Guy:
Are the bailout banks not supposed to advertise anymore?
When they are on the brink of bankruptcy, probably not in that way. The attention they are getting in the news from the way they ran their companies in the ground while collecting huge bonuses doing it is advertisement enough.

Usually, in a naming deal, LOTS of supporting promotions/advertising (like these things) is included... ergo, it's not "just a name".

Are we going to start counting the pens and paperclips that bailed out companies buy? This amount of money is so insignificant compared to the total bailout package, it's hardly worth talking about.

Hell, the St. Louis Blues (hockey) have been playing at the Savvis Center (was named that in, what, 1990-something and I think re-named since) but I still call it The Kiel Center.

Doesn't matter what it's called (because clearly I'm gonna call it what I want). Can I get there and not pay $20 for parking? I'm in!

@ludwigk: No source, based on mine and other qualified indivduals assesments of FDIC and FFIEC data. I think we'll start to see banks repay loans in the next 90 days.

@Kimaroo: Imagine those of us in Boston...the frigging replacement for the old Boston Garden has had naming rights owned by Shawmut, Fleet and TD Banknorth (and BoA paid to get out of the arrangement when they bought Fleet). Looks like there's a lot of money to be made is selling naming rights to banks.

Aaronson, Aaron - Paid $4.32!
Aaronson, Aaron, jr. - Paid $0.00 (cause hes a baby!)
Aaronson, Aeron - Paid $1.20
Aaronson, Al - Paid $0.25 (hes a bum!!)
etc etc 299, 999,996 times

Yeah Ill get right on that to make you happy.

Now that sounds classy!

We were talking about this in class last night. My professor stated that when the banks received the money from TARP, there weren't any actually rules stating that the HAD to do with the money, only guidelines. So, the banks aren't using it to free up credit, but pay back their investors and such.

Was she right?

Wells Fargo bailed out Wachovia and Wells Fargo had very little choice in taking the TARP fund.

I would imagine that this is pretty good advertising for any company and a small part of their overall marketing budgets. A lot of these companies also have NASCAR sponsorships. Perhaps we should start yelling at the banks for airing TV commericials or sending out credit card solicitations. I saw a Bank of America billboard this morning, where do they get off. And how dare they give money for scholarships or charities. What good are any government funds going to do if they can't get people to purchase their products.

The public doesn't know how to run these companies, the government sure doesn't know how to run these companies; perhaps we should let the people currently running their companies run their companies.

@Canino: Even with that in mind, that's still somewhat untrue. I'm sure I pay more in taxes than someone who lives in the boondocks of Mississippi (not bragging, but because I live in an area with a higher cost of living and hence, higher wages and more taxes).

My wife and I paid over $30,000 in taxes in 2008. I know couples from my hometown in PA who don't make $30k combined and may pay $4,000/year in taxes.

I'm actually happy to pay taxes but I hate when people say that we all contributed $1.33 when in reality, I likely contributed the $1.00 to their $0.33.

Were they bad investments? Is anyone here in a position to make that call? Evidence? Show your work.

Oh, and "Well they need bailout money now so they were obviously bad investments" doesn't get you full credit.

The problem is our Representatives! The SHOULD NEVER HAVE authorized SPENDING what they plan to TAKE FROM TAXPAYERS.

I'm not upset that the banks are spending that money as they please. I FURIOUS that our Representatives gave it to them in the first place!

I think the real question isn't whether the naming of the stadium is an ad -- I think someone would be hard pressed to argue convincingly that it isn't -- but whether the ad is effective, given its price.

@zlionsfan: PNC(prior to National city purchase), M&T, Wells (prior to the wachovia purchase) did not need bail out funds, rather the fed helped them close the deal with cheap funds and put a lot of pressure on banks to take the funds to help start lending regardless if they needed it or not.

Citi is different as the contract has not started yet, but most of these other deals have been in place for a long time.

some of those banks / firms (of which I work for one) have applied, but haven't received any money. In addition, they're contracts that were signed years ago, and depending on where they are located, they've already made money. Raymond James Stadium has hosted 2 Super Bowls since they opened in 1997 (12 years ago). how many times did they say the name? at 3 million for a 30 second spot, I'd say they got a deal.

[/burn]

@chuckv: Good point, plus every time there is a game, "live from Citibank stadium...." it is a great way to get your name mentioned countless times on air.

Most of these contracts are old, some going back at least 5 years..... Who cares if 5 years ago they paid for the naming rights, some cases here the banks bought another bank that had already paid for the rights. M&T Bank bought Allfirst who had already paid for the naming rights back in 2002. M&T had nothing to do with it, I am sick of this witch hunt.

When someone gives a hundred dollars to a drug addict in desparate need of a fix, one shouldn't expect that person to go buy vegetables and rice with it.

Banks are going to do bank-y things unless (a) the law requires otherwise and (b) the government has enough balls to enforce that law.

Not enough to give your team a stadium but they each gotta be the state-of-the-art to one-up your rivals. You can swindle local government for tax money too, just promise jobs (all of them part time minimum wage jobs, but don't actually TELL anyone that part) and threaten to take your team elsewhere.

They build the stadiums and give no thought to the infrastructure around them like roads and the such. It's good to know you can pick up the sports page and predict the upcoming traffic jams. For the stadium itself the trend is more and more "premium" seats like club and box because those tickets have higher profit margins. With that the affordable cattle seats are fewer in number and that itself justifies a higher price at the box and at the scalper.

So after they get all this money and sell the naming rights and sell pretty much all they can (I'm surprised each blade of grass doesn't have a small Nike swoosh laser etched into it), they STILL charge $6 for a hot dog, $9 for a beer, $15 for basic parking where you walk three football fields to get to the stadium containing one.

Burn.

@Brendon Rapp: Most teams not only have tax payers pay to build the stadium but the team owner also harvests the naming rights profits...

Someone also mentioned it above, but the PNC deal was done long before bailouts became the defacto way of doing business.

I'm glad that the banks don't want the TARPs, and I know they want the Feds out of their hair. That's the way it's supposed to be. But is that enough to actually motivate them to pay back the loans quickly? I won't believe it until their checks clear.

@failurate: Or borrowing $10,000 from your inlaws because you are about to lose your house, but then showing up at the next family get together in a hot red convertable.

@Wit: Somewhat true... a handful of banks who did not feel they needed bailout money did not want to take it- but were forced to by the government. Gov't didn't want customers making a run on just a few banks getting bailout money over the perception that they were so vulnerable they needed the bailout money.

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected:

They Are??? and where did you get this fact from? Last I read none of these banks are in a position to be "getting ready to pay it back".... Please enlighten with facts.....

For, you see, many of these arenas and stadiums are owned by the cities or counties which they call home. So few sports teams actually pony up to build stadiums/arenas these days, they make the taxpayers do it instead.

On the one hand, stadium sponsorships are a great way to increase product exposure. Even though companies may be failing, they still need some way to actually sell their product and recover.

On the other hand, 99% of customers currently look at big purchases like private jets, stadium naming rights, or retarded full page ads in US Today [jalopnik.com] as foolhardy, irresponsible, and wasteful. Funny how attitudes change when it's OUR money being used for the purchases, eh?

@Yossarian: There's a difference in an ad campaign and naming a stadium. It can be argued that naming a stadium is advertising, but it's just a name. The Wachovia Spectrum Center doesn't tell you about savings accounts, interests, loans, mortgages, bill pay or anything else. Now, if Wachovia wanted to hand out flyers to everybody who attended the games, put ads in game flyers/books, posters, etc. that's different. Naming a stadium is just a name. Not an add.

When I'm in Philly, I don't think of the Linc (Lincoln Financial Field) as a bank, I think of it as where the Eagles play. It's not effective advertising because it's not selling a product.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument that it could be shown that Citibank's profits increased due to this advertising by more than the cost of this advertising. I'm not saying that is the case but, if it is, wouldn't this a smart move by Citibank (or at least not such a bad one)?

I'd rather see Citi spending our money on something that is more likely to be profitable.

@Yossarian: I think the conclusion is don't be making lavish gestures of wealth and leisure with one hand, while begging for money with the other.

I just remember a awhile back when there was talk about renaming Soldier Field, which would've been terrible seeing as how it was dedicated to soldiers who lost their lives in battle. Needless to say that didn't fly with Chicago.

Wrigley Field is another matter. There's alot of talk now about whether or not it'll stay "Wrigley Field." We'll see.

And I realize it's a legit form of advertising. I "understand" corporate sponsorship. What I fail to understand is how spending so much money on naming rights makes fiscal sense. Of course I don't have figures or evidence to back up my gut feelings, but... you know.

I guess you force so many people to say your name that's good enough.

From SatireWire in 2001!
[www.satirewire.com]

Also, many of these deals were inked well before the financial meltdown.

The real point is that naming rights are a legit form of advertising. I personally cannot stand it, but I respect the fact that it happens. Though you may not feel the urge to buy wrigley gum or open an BoA account, many people do so it is legit and effective advertising. Removing a means of advertising hurts a company and thus may prevent or delay them from repaying the loans.

@That Guy: Agreed. Most (all?) of those deals were signed far enough in advance that money has been paid and invested. Depending on how things are set up, the ETF may not be worth it.

Additionally, the advertising isn't designed to make you think "I want to go to CitiBank." It's designed to make you think "I need to go to the bank - hey, there's a CitiBank around the corner." It's all about mindshare...

It's much like that Chrysler - Terminator deal...it was made long ago!

I'm not saying they should pay $400M to get their name on a stadium, but putting their name out in the public and gaining recognition is one of the best ways to increase business / revenue.

Think of how well a business would do if you didn't know who they were. They'd probably never get your business. However, if they get their name on your favorite team's stadium, their name is always in the front of your brain and makes it more likely for you to use them. It's all in familiarity and human psychology. We tend to do business with those who make us feel comfortable and hearing a name over and over in your living room makes you feel comfortable about that business.

The deal was signed before the Park even opened in 2001... Things were obviously different then. At the time, it was determined that the marketing impressions delivered by $2 million a year for 20 years were worth the money, and that may or may not be true. Thing is, the deal is already 8 years old, and runs until 2020, so characterizing it as being somehow disingenuous in light of the current financial situation seems somewhat unfair, a sin of omission.

Some commenters above have stated this - are the bailout banks not supposed to advertise anymore? I thought the last recession taught companies that cutting marketing as a first line of defense isn't always the best line of defense. Hiding what light you may still have under a bushel basket isn't going to get you out of any mess, regardless of whether you were complicit in the making of said mess in the first place.

@Davan: Basically every man, woman and child in the U.S. is contributing $1.33 to Citibank to allow them to put their name on that stadium.

Kind of but not really. Those who actually pay taxes are paying the share of those who don't (including 99.99% of children).

But if you ARE a bailed-out bank and also are using taxpayer dollars to make your purchase, then I completely disagree with the practice.

The Citibank/Mets deal is for $20 million a year...for 20 years. They haven't spent $400 million. You have to spend money to make money. It's the reality of business.

Get over it.

Is the name simply advertising, or do the companies get some kind of kickback from the games and stadium revenue?

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: How did the banks make the money back?

Playing the ponies or selling pills to kids?

I don't especially have a problem with the naming of stadiums, as such, though I wonder how effective it really is. "Hey, I went to see a Mets game at Citibank Park and now I'm really curious about who this 'Citibank' might be."

Where I would have a problem is paying more than the advertising itself is worth for the perqs -- stadium boxes, tickets, etc. -- at taxpayers' expense.

@bball123h: People go to Astro's games.
/can't talk, Royals fan

"Oh well golly gee, maybe I should be bank with the kind people why they have a wholllllllllllle stadium named after them! They must be doing something right!"

This is disgusting. Why has our government not stepped in?

I hate the trend of naming stadiums for companies anyway.. but now I hate it even more now that we're all paying for it.

I grew up with the Astrodome..

Now we have "Minutemaid park" which I think is really stupid..

'Course it used to be Enron Stadium.

Heh.

@Davan: And every man, woman, and child will get more than $1.33 back when the loans are repaid. Many banks are getting ready to repay the money, no one wants the feds in their hair.

Stadia are missing out on additional revenue streams.

Tyson Foul poles,
Sara Lee home plate,
Victoria's Secret 2nd base,

etc...