I beat this drum every six months or so, but particularly with so much action in the stadium district as of late, I'm going to continue to beat it.
As a city, especially a somewhat cash-strapped city, we need to sell naming rights for Veteran's Memorial Arena.
We are leaving hundreds of thousands of dollars on the table every single year that could be used to maintain and improve the sports complex.
It's not an affront to the veterans community to suggest as much, and I respectfully suggest that most reasonable veterans would feel the same way.
For kicks, I grabbed annual arena naming rights revenue for the top 50 U.S. cities by population (minus NYC and two or three cities where either no arena exists, of where the naming rights deals are unknown). See chart below for numbers for each city.
(https://snag.gy/c3tq8w.jpg)
Though values are obviously going to be higher for arenas with an NBA or NHL tenet, median naming rights revenue for non-NBA/NHL Top 50 cities (noted in red) is still $850,000 per year.
Lest we still fall into the, "we're too small, no one would want naming rights," nonsense, let's take a look at some other deals in cities that don't fall in the Top 50:
(https://snag.gy/SIe5u8.jpg)
Median naming rights for these deals is around $430,000.
Purely looking at the data, there's no universe where we shouldn't be able to pull in $600k a year for doing almost nothing.
Why are we letting over sensitivity stand in the way of an incredibly easy, exceedingly common revenue stream for our sports complex???
I completely agree. Same goes for the Baseball Grounds.
People will freak out about disrespecting our veterans. Like they always do.
QuoteWhy are we letting over sensitivity stand in the way
I'm not sentimental at all about the issue, but I don't think that's an accurate description. It would be more fair to characterize it as the City keeping a promise made when taxpayers voted to tax themselves in order to construct the Arena. Keeping one's word is still valued in today's world. The Arena/SMG has certainly been able to creatively sell exterior advertisement opportunities to local companies like Tom Bush, while still staying true to the City's commitment to honor veterans.
Quote from: fieldafm on December 15, 2016, 08:42:56 AM
QuoteWhy are we letting over sensitivity stand in the way
I'm not sentimental at all about the issue, but I don't think that's an accurate description. It would be more fair to characterize it as the City keeping a promise made when taxpayers voted to tax themselves in order to construct the Arena. Keeping one's word is still valued in today's world. The Arena/SMG has certainly been able to creatively sell exterior advertisement opportunities to local companies like Tom Bush, while still staying true to the City's commitment to honor veterans.
Mike, I didn't move here until 2006, so I defer to your knowledge on the above, but are you sure it was a campaign promise, not a promise made after-the-fact?
In February 2002, the city sounded like they were aggressively searching for a corporate naming sponsor for the arena:
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=862
And, several months later, it sounds like two city council members made it their cause to pass an ordinance preventing the arena from selling naming rights:
http://jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=1717
Again, wasn't here at the time, didn't hear what promises were and were not made, but based on these articles, it sounds like naming rights were originally on the table, but were derailed by a half political power play, half face-saving measure when a corporate sponsor wasn't immediately found.
Either way, surely there's a better way to honor veterans - such as our war memorial and veteran's day parade - than to simply plaster the word "Veterans" on a sports and concert venue at the expense of $600k a year.
why can't you have the best of both worlds and incorporate the sponsor with the existing name. The [insert company Name here] Veterans Memorial Arena?
The Department of Military Affairs and Veterans has a budget for FY17 of $1,177,519.
We could increase that by almost 1/3 by signing a sponsorship deal for the Arena...
The Arena is the most successful of all the City's event facilities in terms of attendance, revenue, and covering its operating costs.
Quote from: lowlyplanner on December 15, 2016, 02:26:27 PM
The Department of Military Affairs and Veterans has a budget for FY17 of $1,177,519.
We could increase that by almost 1/3 by signing a sponsorship deal for the Arena...
The Arena is the most successful of all the City's event facilities in terms of attendance, revenue, and covering its operating costs.
Why does Jacksonville have a Department of Military Affairs and Veterans?
Here's what their website says:
QuoteThe MAV team functions within the following three priorities:
First, we are an advocate for the expansion of military infrastructure, personnel, and jobs within the City of Jacksonville and throughout Northeast Florida. The department team works closely with military, business, community, and elected leaders at the local, state, and national levels to deliver a compelling message that Jacksonville is the most "Military and Veteran Friendly City in the United States" and that Jacksonville is strategically important to the security posture of the nation.
Second, the MAV department is committed to delivering timely and competent services to our large and growing Veteran community. MAV staff is ready to assist Veterans, their survivors and their caregivers who seek access to pensions, healthcare, disability ratings, GI Bill, and other earned benefits.
Third, the MAV department sponsors and promotes city-wide events to publically recognize the service and sacrifice of the military men and women serving at area installations, and the large and growing Veterans population in Jacksonville and across Northeast Florida.
It's partly economic development and partly constituent service. Jacksonville does have a large veteran population, and they bring their skills (and often their pensions) with them. At the same time, the City can help veterans deal with issues related to their service. For example, the City has made a big commitment to ending homelessness among veterans (and there are resources available from the federal government to help with that).
Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 15, 2016, 01:56:38 PM
why can't you have the best of both worlds and incorporate the sponsor with the existing name. The [insert company Name here] Veterans Memorial Arena?
Nassau tried this, and it limited both the number of applicants and the amount that said applicants were willing to pay. If Coca-Cola, or Winn Dixie, or CSX, is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for naming rights, they want to have sole billing. If you call it the CSX Center, that's how people will refer to it. If you call it the CSX Veterans Memorial Arena, people are going to just continue to refer to it as Veterans Memorial Arena.
If Nassau's case, they ended up with an arena with a ridiculous ten-word name, "Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Presented By New York Community Bank."
Here's a little more background on the 2002 battle, from the Times-Union.
QuoteIn 2002 a significant battle broke out over attempts to sell naming rights to the still-unfinished arena.
"When we found out the new arena was being named in honor of veterans, we were very happy," said Pete Dowling, a former Marine and member of the Jacksonville Semper Fidelis Society. "Then we found out certain people inside the Delaney administration wanted to sell the name and were courting some big people. Coca-Cola was one of them."
Dowling, Lt. Col. Bob Adelhelm and other veterans, including two now-deceased World War II veterans, fought against selling the naming rights and won a major victory when the City Council passed ordinance 2002-428-E.
"The Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Arena shall not bear the name of any individual or company or any other thing as any part of the title, but shall be designated only as 'Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Arena,' " the ordinance states.
This means that, in order to change the name, at least 10 council members would have to vote for it. The mayor could then sign the legislation; allow it to become law without his signature; or veto it.
It appears at least some City Council members are amenable to a name change — at least for now.
"If Bank of America wanted to pay the city a couple of million dollars a year to have the naming rights to the arena, I would not necessarily be opposed to the name Bank of America Veterans Memorial Arena," Councilman John Crescimbeni said in an email to a constituent.
But even the hint of a name change has evoked anger but little surprise from those who fought the battle over a decade ago.
"We're one of the few cities who still have 'Veterans' on a facility of this type and that always made me proud to be part of the Jacksonville community," Adelhelm said. "Now if they're going to sell that sacred honor for a few bucks, what does that tell me about the people running this city?
I'm not a Bank of America veteran, I'm a Jacksonville veteran."
Former Councilwoman Alberta Hipps sponsored the 2002 ordinance and said her view remains unchanged.
"It's no different than when I sponsored the bill, I'd welcome the fight," she said. "Some things are too precious to sell."
It's hard to criticize a veteran's opinion without appearing to be unappreciative of their service. That said, Dowling's personal opinion of what's proper and improper should not supercede what's clearly best for the city and its taxpayers. I'd argue that it borders on entitlement.
We owe our veterans gratitude, remembrance, respect, care, opportunity, shelter and proper memorials.
We don't owe any group naming rights to our sports and concert arena to the detriment of the city's financial health.
The two things are apples and bananas (respect for our veterans vs. the name of the concrete box that Justin Bieber "performs" at), and it does not make one anti-veteran to suggest otherwise.
Maybe they could sell the rights to Wounded Warrior Project? Best of both worlds, right?
Quote from: jlmann on December 15, 2016, 05:11:17 PM
Quote"Some things are too precious to sell."
yeah, things like a monet, an original of the declaration of independence or the rosetta stone. gtfo. sell the rights.
Apples and Oranges. The person that buys a copy of the Declaration of Independence doesn't get to change the name of the document.
Quote from: lowlyplanner on December 15, 2016, 04:06:26 PM
Here's what their website says:
QuoteThe MAV team functions within the following three priorities:
First, we are an advocate for the expansion of military infrastructure, personnel, and jobs within the City of Jacksonville and throughout Northeast Florida. The department team works closely with military, business, community, and elected leaders at the local, state, and national levels to deliver a compelling message that Jacksonville is the most "Military and Veteran Friendly City in the United States" and that Jacksonville is strategically important to the security posture of the nation.
Second, the MAV department is committed to delivering timely and competent services to our large and growing Veteran community. MAV staff is ready to assist Veterans, their survivors and their caregivers who seek access to pensions, healthcare, disability ratings, GI Bill, and other earned benefits.
Third, the MAV department sponsors and promotes city-wide events to publically recognize the service and sacrifice of the military men and women serving at area installations, and the large and growing Veterans population in Jacksonville and across Northeast Florida.
It's partly economic development and partly constituent service. Jacksonville does have a large veteran population, and they bring their skills (and often their pensions) with them. At the same time, the City can help veterans deal with issues related to their service. For example, the City has made a big commitment to ending homelessness among veterans (and there are resources available from the federal government to help with that).
Seems like that should be the responsibility of the Federal Government - or charities. I see this as a massive waste of money, but I'm sure there are many who disagree, of course.
Quote from: vicupstate on December 15, 2016, 05:14:32 PM
Quote from: jlmann on December 15, 2016, 05:11:17 PM
Quote"Some things are too precious to sell."
yeah, things like a monet, an original of the declaration of independence or the rosetta stone. gtfo. sell the rights.
Apples and Oranges. The person that buys a copy of the Declaration of Independence doesn't get to change the name of the document.
They would if they bought the naming rights to it. No one is talking about selling the arena.
Either way, surely there's a better way to honor veterans - such as our war memorial and veteran's day parade - than to simply plaster the word "Veterans" on a sports and concert venue at the expense of $600k a year.
[/quote]
As a veteran, I couldn't agree more. This is simple economics. We are giving away money by not selling the rights. Of course, we also want to be smart about who we partner with. And no, local veterans groups should not have a say in the name. I'm sure that will come at some point.
We have a wonderful veterans memorial a couple hundred yards away from the arena that goes a great job of honoring our local vets. I can't imagine a vet feeling all warm and fuzzy by walking into a concert at the arena because it has "veterans" above the door. There is no connection at all between vets and that building.
Sell the rights and move our city forward a little bit further.
I can see both sides of this. if the Arena had not already been named in honor of Veterans, selling the naming rights would not be as offensive. But to remove the name simply for money, says that the money is more important than honoring their sacrifice. I never liked that Washington National Airport, which was named for George Washington, not the city itself, was renamed "Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport'. It was disrespectful of George and I tend to think Ronald wouldn't have approved.
Swisher Sweets Arena
Maxwell House Arena
Daily's Dash Arena
Ameris Bank Arena
CSX Arena
Amazon Arena
Farah & Farah Arena
Jaxnap Arena
First Baptist Arena
Sleiman Arena
Fanatics Arena
Winn Dixie Arena
Publix Arena
Bono's Pit Master Arena
Intuition Arena
Bold Bean Arena
Ring Power Arena
BCBS Arena
Black Knight Financial Arena
FIS Arena
Florida East Coast Arena
(If they ever reach us) Brightline Arena
Florida Rock Arena
Wawa Arena
RaceTrac Arena
^For whatever reason, "Center" has become the preferred term to "Arena" (Staples Center, United Center, Barclays Center, Golden 1 Center, T-mobile Center, AT&T Center, etc.)
Gate Center
Firehouse Center
Fidelity Center
CSX Center
Exnewsman, thank you so much for your service. We all owe you a large debt of gratitude.
'Honoring' people by naming existing stuff after them is about the lamest, bordering on insulting, way to show respect. I cringe every time I see things like "Person X Memorial Overpass" and "Person Y Memorial Park". If a person or collection of people are worth honoring then build a real memorial.
Let's say as an example Maxwell House would pay $2 million per year for naming rights. They might consider calling it the "Maxwell House Veterans' Memorial Arena" or the "The Veterans' Memorial Arena Sponsored by Maxwell House?"
There are ways to honor our veteran's and also name the facility and it produces good will toward the naming organization to honor our veterans.
^This option also leaves significant money on the table and just kicks the can down the road again. It's a perception thing. If you name it the Firehouse Center, that's what people come to know and refer to it as. If you name it Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Arena Sponsored by Firehouse, Firehouse becomes an afterthought, and for all intents and purposes, it's still the Veterans Memorial Arena. Full naming rights get much higher bids, from a much broader pool of bidders than partial. They also tend to be longer-term, even permanent arrangements, versus more fleeting sponsorships.
Case in point, Taxslayer's naming rights deal with the city was extended for double the term at double the price when the city agreed to drop the old name and officially change from the "Taxslayer Gator Bowl" to simply the "The Taxslayer Bowl."
It ain't worth doing halfway.
Those are all good, fact backed arguments.
However, we are no in a post fact and logic electoral world. There are a lot of veterans and military families in Jacksonville. I suspect they vote at higher rates than average. Thus, Council members will listen to them. What Council member wants to be labeled anti veteran at their next election?
^Look at how quickly Alvin Brown backtracked:
http://news.wjct.org/post/no-naming-rights-deal-jax-veterans-memorial-arena
Missed Opportunity for Jax...Magic's NBA D-League team to Lakeland:
http://www.nba.com/magic/lakeland/press-release
Quote from: Charles Hunter on December 17, 2016, 02:05:01 PM
Those are all good, fact backed arguments.
However, we are no in a post fact and logic electoral world. There are a lot of veterans and military families in Jacksonville. I suspect they vote at higher rates than average. Thus, Council members will listen to them. What Council member wants to be labeled anti veteran at their next election?
On the national level, we have moved into a post fact electoral world. This is not an example of that. This is a difference of opinion, pure and simple. Neither side is saying things that are not true. Some people believe commercialization of public property is not appropriate. Some are okay with the idea in some instances but not at the expense of honoring Veterans. These people collectively have made their opinions know in a sufficient way to 'rule the day' on the issue. That is how it is suppose to work.
If it is that important to you, organize your side and make your wishes known.
BTW, there are other options for naming rights that are available starting with the Convention Center and the Baseball field.
It most certainly is a memorial. Is the Claude Yates building not a memorial to Claude Yates? Is the Ed Ball building not a memorial to Ed Ball?
Believe it or not, some things actually are more important than money.
Quote from: vicupstate on December 19, 2016, 01:01:01 PM
It most certainly is a memorial. Is the Claude Yates building not a memorial to Claude Yates? Is the Ed Ball building not a memorial to Ed Ball?
Believe it or not, some things actually are more important than money.
As a veteran I couldn't disagree more, it is the name of a building, the actual memorial is a few hundred feet away.
Quote from: jlmann on December 19, 2016, 01:49:28 PM
QuoteIs the Claude Yates building not a memorial to Claude Yates? Is the Ed Ball building not a memorial to Ed Ball?
No.
They are buildings that exist for specific purposes. They were not constructed as a means to honor Ed Ball and Claude Yates. They decided to honor them by putting their name on the building, which is different.
The monument constructed specifically and for no other purpose beyond memorializing veterans on the grounds is a memorial. Memorial park has a memorial.
A stroll around our National Mall in DC would present you with many of our country's greatest memorials. I agree those sorts of things are more important than money.
This aint.
QFT, there is a big difference between a building and a memorial.
The building is called Veterans Memorial arena. It is a Memorial to their service. Regardless of the semantics, the point is the same. This community choose to HONOR, if that word works better for you, Veterans by naming this facility for them. Is it not disrespectful to purposely remove that name, for a buck?
In my view it is.
Quote from: vicupstate on December 19, 2016, 01:01:01 PM
It most certainly is a memorial.
With all due respect Vic, I completely disagree.
QuoteMemorial: noun
something designed to preserve the memory of a person, event, etc., as a monument or a holiday.
something, especially a structure, established to remind people of a person or event.
a structure built to remind people of a famous person or event.
an object which serves as a focus for memory of something, usually a person (who has died) or an event.
The Vietnam Veterans Wall is a Memorial. The September 11th World Trade Center fountains are a memorial. The Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, Liberty Bell, and Oklahoma City remembrance site are memorials. They aren't 16,000 seat arenas that host the Jacksonville Giants, Harlem Globetrotters, Soul Circus, and Pearl Jam concerts, but sacred grounds designed specifically to focus the attention on a historic person, group, or event.
You go to our Veterans Wall, and to a person, every single visitor stops in their tracks and thinks about the sacrifice that our veterans make.
I would bet anything that less than 1 in 10,000 people who visit our arena give a second thought to our veterans community. Not out of disrespect, but because there is simply
zero connection between their heroic service and a multi-use sports & entertainment venue. I could name my breakfast Veterans Memorial Pancakes, and even if the name sticks for 20 years, that doesn't make the pancakes a memorial.
Quote from: vicupstate on December 19, 2016, 03:11:45 PM
The building is called Veterans Memorial arena. It is a Memorial to their service. Regardless of the semantics, the point is the same. This community choose to HONOR, if that word works better for you, Veterans by naming this facility for them. Is it not disrespectful to purposely remove that name, for a buck?
In my view it is.
Absolutely not. I think of is this way, Memorial Park's namesake is a memorial, Winged Victory. Winged Victory is the actual memorial to the WW1 soldiers, not the park. If they renamed the park to XYZ Park, the memorial would still exist. Same goes for the arena/coliseum.
Quote from: camarocane on December 20, 2016, 08:05:14 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on December 19, 2016, 03:11:45 PM
The building is called Veterans Memorial arena. It is a Memorial to their service. Regardless of the semantics, the point is the same. This community choose to HONOR, if that word works better for you, Veterans by naming this facility for them. Is it not disrespectful to purposely remove that name, for a buck?
In my view it is.
Absolutely not. I think of is this way, Memorial Park's namesake is a memorial, Winged Victory. Winged Victory is the actual memorial to the WW1 soldiers, not the park. If they renamed the park to XYZ Park, the memorial would still exist. Same goes for the arena/coliseum.
I think the statue's name is "Life". But that's a great point.
QuoteBut I don't think the community did choose to honor veterans with the arena. It just happened by default as a corporate sponsor did not surface back in 2001-03 and we stuck with the old name of the coliseum.
There WAS discussion and support in some circles to sell the naming rights to the new arena at that time. It was shot down by the significant opposition expressed at the time. Obviously if the veterans of the area didn't care and don't see the name as a tribute/honor/memorial to them, they would not have pressed the issue. Their reasons then are not any different now. Obviously the community did purposely give the Old arena that name.
It never got to the point of seeing what interest there would be and the revenue that could be realized. It is not reasonable to ASSUME no one would have bought the rights if the Veterans issue was not involved, given the experience in similar cities during that period.
"Some" doesn't equal "all," though. And "veterans" aren't the only ones whose opinions matter on this subject.
Here's a novel idea... take the proceeds from one-year of naming rights and invest in an actual monument. I'm not a veteran, but it seems practical that a veteran would prefer a monument as opposed to a building.
I'm a veteran and I'd have no issue at all with selling the naming rights. I doubt if most veterans would.
If I may use Gainesville as an example, however, the University just modified the name of the O'Dome to: Exactech Arena at the Stephen C. O'Connell Center. This appears to illustrate our "out" so-to-speak, although we would name-focus in the reverse. At UF, the primary signage now becomes Exactech Arena. With Jacksonville, it would be whatever the new "Center" namesake becomes.
Veterans Memorial Arena at CSX Center, for instance. Signage everywhere posted as CSX Center.
If the purchasing party objects, just make it -- for instance -- TIAA Center.
Quote from: camarocane on December 20, 2016, 02:27:01 PM
Here's a novel idea... take the proceeds from one-year of naming rights and invest in an actual monument. I'm not a veteran, but it seems practical that a veteran would prefer a monument as opposed to a building.
Great idea.
Particularly if the riverfront redevelopment proposed for the stadium district includes greenspace to replace Metro Park.
Our veterans get a true memorial worthy of the sacrifices they have made for our country.
The arena gets an important long-term source of revenue for upkeep and improvement.
Who says no?
Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Arena moved into the top 100 arenas in the world in terms of ticket sales last year.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2017/01/25/jacksonville-veterans-memorial-arena-ranks-in-the.html
Over a half million people through the gates.
SELL THE DAMN NAMING RIGHTS.
We have an appropriate memorial to our veterans just a couple hundred yards or so from the arena. There's nothing "memorial-like" about a Justin Bieber concert because it takes place in a building with "memorial" on the side. Sell the naming rights.
Quote from: jlmann on January 25, 2017, 02:27:06 PM
oh how DARE you ken. you know darn well that's 500k coming to the arena primarily to thoughtfully reflect on veterans and their service. why do you want to get in the way of that? if you hate America just say so
Personally, I don't even like the words "Jacksonville" or "Arena" being in the title.
If you ask me, it should be the Veterans Memorial Memorial Memorial.
x3 Memorials? that seems a bit much
Here's another compromise to the name-selling conundrum...GET MORE ARENA ACTS BOOKED! True they get their share of acts but there's nothing more frustrating than when an act comes to Florida, play a date or two in South Florida, and instead of coming to our fair city play in Tampa and Orlando. I am amazed at the number of performers that have never set foot in NE Fla. Jacksonville is no longer this podunk, late-ticket-buying town worth bypassing. Yeah the amphitheater in St. Augustine is great and the new one Shad is building has promise but the arena has just as much potential for even more success.
Then you can call the arena what you will.
Well to be fair, the Bay Area and Orlando are twice the size with a hell of a lot more people living nearby in places like Lakeland, Sarasota and Daytona. No matter what we build, it should not be a surprise if a few big acts still target much larger markets.
I think the addition of the amphitheater, by providing a better venue for medium sized acts in Jacksonville, will get people into going to concerts that previously hadn't been because of the lack of variety of acts. This might, in turn, provide more of a concert-going demographic to be considered by the big acts when lining up their tours and considering the arena.
Hey Metro Jax, Ive frequented this site over the years and just now registered so I can join in some of these threads.
In regards to the JVMA naming rights I am all for getting a corporate sponsor. It will not only in turn bring in potential bigger acts and sporting events but it can help the cost of the upkeep in the arena. We have three fortune 500 companies here and several other fortune 1000 as well as large corporations with a big footprint in N Fl. If you want to stay local you can go with JEA Arena, CSX Center, or go the sports route with Fanatics Center since they are the official retailer for MLB, NHL, Nascar, NFL, and NBA. We have many more companies and banks that could fit the title as well but Fanatics could be a win win, they are locally based, internationally known, and recognized in all major sports markets.
A big name sponsor could in return bring another major sport to Jacksonville, its no longer a laughing stock city and its time the rest of the country realizes it has some serious things going on.
No disrespect to our Veterans, We need to honor them! But we can do that and still have a corporate sponsor.
QuoteIt will not only in turn bring in potential bigger acts and sporting events
I don't see how the NAME of the venue would have any impact at all on where a concert tour, etc. decides to stop.
Quote from: JaxVision on January 26, 2017, 12:05:35 AM
Hey Metro Jax, Ive frequented this site over the years and just now registered so I can join in some of these threads.
In regards to the JVMA naming rights I am all for getting a corporate sponsor. It will not only in turn bring in potential bigger acts and sporting events but it can help the cost of the upkeep in the arena. We have three fortune 500 companies here and several other fortune 1000 as well as large corporations with a big footprint in N Fl. If you want to stay local you can go with JEA Arena, CSX Center, or go the sports route with Fanatics Center since they are the official retailer for MLB, NHL, Nascar, NFL, and NBA. We have many more companies and banks that could fit the title as well but Fanatics could be a win win, they are locally based, internationally known, and recognized in all major sports markets.
A big name sponsor could in return bring another major sport to Jacksonville, its no longer a laughing stock city and its time the rest of the country realizes it has some serious things going on.
No disrespect to our Veterans, We need to honor them! But we can do that and still have a corporate sponsor.
Welcome friend!
I like the Fanatics idea.
CSX and JEA get mentioned a lot, but I'm not sure if it necessarily makes a lot of sense for either. Typically naming rights are purchased to build brand awareness, visibility and loyalty. Fanatics would be a great fit for this purpose. Like Daily's or Everbank. Likewise, the purchasing of naming rights by a passenger rail service would make sense, but I don't see what the more industrial CSX would really get out of the deal. Same with JEA, which already has a monopoly on the market and gains nothing from any national exposure that would come from purchasing naming rights.
Not sure they could afford it, but to me, Winn Dixie and Maxwell House make the most sense. Depending on the asking price, both would have a
lot to gain in terms of building genuine civic loyalty toward two companies that have never really been able to gain traction here in their home market.
If I'm the city, I'd give either one of those companies a good deal on the naming rights too, as the positive externalities associated with propping up a local Fortune 500 or Fortune 1000 and strengthening their ties to the local community will more than make up for it on the back end.
Quote from: vicupstate on January 26, 2017, 08:08:32 AM
QuoteIt will not only in turn bring in potential bigger acts and sporting events
I don't see how the NAME of the venue would have any impact at all on where a concert tour, etc. decides to stop.
I know it sounds crazy, but I'd bet that it would, at least marginally.
There is something intensely forgettable about "Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Arena." I don't know anybody that calls it anything other than "the arena." "Fanatics Center" or "CSX Arena" might actually be referred to by name. Similarly, Everbank Field is a whole lot more recognizable than Jacksonville Municipal Stadium. Name recognition can have strong effects on people.
Quote from: vicupstate on January 26, 2017, 08:08:32 AM
QuoteIt will not only in turn bring in potential bigger acts and sporting events
I don't see how the NAME of the venue would have any impact at all on where a concert tour, etc. decides to stop.
[/quote
Im not saying a city should be overlooked because it doesn't have a corporate name but booking managers of artists and sporting event hosts/ owners of teams would be more likely to look at a city with a recognizable name than a city with its own name on it.
When you go with a corporate sponsor it makes the appeal for the arena seem more professional and "big time" especially if that name is something people recognize, like Fanatics Center. Also the corporation would be responsible for certain upkeep and more money would be available for upgrades like new longer ribbon boards, newer concessions, social media sections inside etc. All of this brings attention to Jax and in return that attention opens up the door for bigger events.
The last thing I would add to this is that one of the many speed bumps in a corporation signing their name to the arena is that it really only houses concerts and minor league sports teams. Would a business want to pay for rights to something that isn't on national TV or for major sport/event.
Jax is constantly growing and more business is coming in each day, we see the trends and notice that the arena is now top 100 in ticket sales. The city is projected to be in the top 40 in size by 2020, a top 12 city for growth and DTJax is on the verge of being great. People will laugh at this but Jax is ready to support a second major sport, the NBA is in mind with the expansion of two teams coming in near future. We have so many minor league teams and the only one not on the verge of collapse ever is the Jumbo Shrimp.
Get rid of the minor league teams that every year are on the verge of collapse and money gets thrown away with them or the leagues get dissolved and put focus on the major sports that bring in money and tourism.
We as a city are bigger than ever and growing, all you need is a 17,000+ arena (JVMA was built for expansion) for the NBA to look at you, get a corporate sponsor to puts its name on the JVMA and you may be able to lure the NBA. That is a pipe dream I know, but the point is a corporate name on the building brings attention, which brings events, which brings money and tourism. It also helps with cost to the arena and that helps the city. (this probably could've gone in another thread, just wasn't sure which one) Thank you.
Quote from: JaxVision on January 26, 2017, 03:05:43 PM
The last thing I would add to this is that one of the many speed bumps in a corporation signing their name to the arena is that it really only houses concerts and minor league sports teams. Would a business want to pay for rights to something that isn't on national TV or for major sport/event.
Jax is constantly growing and more business is coming in each day, we see the trends and notice that the arena is now top 100 in ticket sales. The city is projected to be in the top 40 in size by 2020, a top 12 city for growth and DTJax is on the verge of being great. People will laugh at this but Jax is ready to support a second major sport, the NBA is in mind with the expansion of two teams coming in near future. We have so many minor league teams and the only one not on the verge of collapse ever is the Jumbo Shrimp.
Get rid of the minor league teams that every year are on the verge of collapse and money gets thrown away with them or the leagues get dissolved and put focus on the major sports that bring in money and tourism.
We as a city are bigger than ever and growing, all you need is a 17,000+ arena (JVMA was built for expansion) for the NBA to look at you, get a corporate sponsor to puts its name on the JVMA and you may be able to lure the NBA. That is a pipe dream I know, but the point is a corporate name on the building brings attention, which brings events, which brings money and tourism. It also helps with cost to the arena and that helps the city. (this probably could've gone in another thread, just wasn't sure which one) Thank you.
I think you have it reversed. If arena is successful in growing market, then sponsors will be interested. Concert/event promoters could care less on who sponsors an arena if it will sell out. EverBank (now owned by TIAA) and Taxslayer have very little recognition outside of Jacksonville for their actual product offerings.